Talk:Jack the Ripper/Archive 2

message: Should we put all the murders that the contempory police force listed as 'The Whitechapel Murders' in one list? At the moment they are all mixed up with some very dubious and even imaginary (Fairy Fay) victims. Colin4C 12:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had this discussion before. Your desire to completely rewrite the section to not fous on the canonical five was attempted before and rejected. Please get approval here before doing something you know goes against long-standing consensus. 71.203.223.65 15:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no consensus, just you and Dreamguy blindly reverting valid material. Dreamguy has now been disciplined by the admins for his abusive edits here and elsewhere: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2. What I have written is valid and referenced. Colin4C 16:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was plenty of consensus, and still is. You just ignored it and demanded you have your way, and then ran off when you couldn't get it. 71.203.223.65 21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Whitechapel Murders 

message: I've supplied some references as per wikipedia guidelines. More to come. Colin4C 10:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You actually removed a bunch of citations and tagged them as still needing citations. You also ignored Wikipedia guidelines on how to balance references, and have basically presented the views taken from your main source as if it were the only POV of note as you ignored the opinions of all the other books and authors on the case when it came to these matters. I think you need more breadth of sources here, and that certainly won't happen with you erasing new ones without explanation. DreamGuy 17:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I find it somewhat distressing that the entire article draws its citations from two books and one website reference. It would be more proper to note the original sources of the statements in the article, and then noting the book from which they came. As it is, the article is a bit weak. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the article most certainly does not draw its citations from two books and one websites. There are a ton of books listed as reference, and there were citations that were removed in the blind reverts you and Colin were doing. Please take the time to look at the article before making such claims. 71.203.223.65 21:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed 

message: Frankly, the article is a mess. Many of the points that led it to be delisted as FA haven't been addressed at all. We have two duplicated sections which cry out for merging together, to begin with, we have little in the way of diversity when it comes to citations, there are no pictures, esp the most famous and gruesome one from the last "canonical" (no clear provenance for that term has been provided, btw) of the last killing, and that picture is in practically every single book on the killings. The article needs some definite work - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, if you think no clear provenance for the term has been provided, or all the other citation tags you threw on here, you just haven't been paying attention. 71.203.223.65 21:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frankly 

message: :::*5. I seem to recall that after the investigation, the case files were sealed for 100 years. Was this accurate? If so, when were they unsealed and what did the files reveal?
:The police and Home Office files were opened to researchers in the 1970's and revealed a lot of interesting information, but not, unfortunately, the identity of Jack the Ripper! As you suggest, some material was indeed kept secret in the National Archives until 1992, which was the 100th anniversary of Inspector Abberline retiring from the case, but once again there were no startling revelations. Certain Special Branch files of the time are however still secret for reasons of national security. Colin4C 09:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course there's little reason to believe that any of the Special Branch files have anything to do with the Whitechapel Murders case, as they were not in charge or engaged in that investigation. None of the material was kept secret until 1992, and it was not because of Abberline's retirement, it was of the closing of the Whitechapel murders file in general, of which other police like Donald Swanson made the decision on. DreamGuy 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the case files were not sealed for 100 or so years? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Officially they had been withheld from public viewing, like all police files are in general. They were set to go public 100 years after they were closed. This is different from being sealed in that sealed means actively hidden from view. Many, many people saw them well before the 100 years were up, as authors who were not police could get permission to view them, and some of the more notale authors were policeman and could see them at any time. The claim that they were secret is simply false. DreamGuy 17:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good to know. So, the files were not kept secret or sealed, but rather just closed to the public for 100 years. Is it your assertion that the only way anyone could have seen the withheld files were policemen (or fomer policemen)? As well, why were the records apparently released ahead of the 100 year date? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Closed to the public" makes it sound like they were actively closed. Police files by their nature are closed. I also clearly did not say that only policeman could see them, as I said "authors who were not police could get permission to view them" -- and many did. It's not that the records were released before the 100 years, per se, but more that enough people had viewed them and written about it that it might as well have been. DreamGuy 18:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh, I see the distinction now. I think this might be helpful to add at some point in the article, as I think that its largely misunderstood by the casual reader. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Files sealed?

message: :::*6. What authors added in additional 'likely' victims and suspects?
:Please see the Jack the Ripper suspects article. DreamGuy 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: added suspects by authors

message: :::*6. Are there suspects or victioms who have been utterly discounted? How were they discounted? Again, is there citation for this?
:The most controversial ones were Stephen Knight in Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution (1976) in which he alleged that the heir to the throne (the Duke of Clarence), Queen Victoria's doctor and the Masons were involved! This was followed by the somewhat deluded crime writer Patricia Cornwall claiming in a book that she had solved the case and that it was the famous painter Sickert who did it (even though he seems to have been holidaying in Ostend at the time...). Colin4C 09:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dimly recall these (and it was those books which fairly put me off Ripper conspiracy theories), and Prince Jack was of the same one, pointing out the Prince as the culprit. I imagine these comments are more for that sub-page, I guess. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: discounted suspects and victims

message: :::*7. I remember a rather poorly-written book in the 70's called Prince Jack, purporting Prince Albert Victor as the killer. Should we reference the books on the subject ina sub-page?
:Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories has the info on this and related theories. It is discussed on the suspects page, much like you would expect, and then has a link to an article that goes into more detail. There's no reason to fill up the main article with this sort of side issue. DreamGuy 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link, DG! - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prince Jack

message: I am concerned that not only are solid citations being removed for no encyclopedic reason, but that the other citations being added are less than helpful. Virtually every reference Colin has added has been to the Evans and Rumbelow book (though Colin seems to think Donald's name is David for some reason), which, while one of my favorites, is only one book out of hundreds. I don't think it is balanced to rely so heavily on one source, especially when other sources had been given and removed and when some of the info bein cited is so basic that any book on the topic at all would contain the same info. For some reason the list of ISBNs that I had added were also removed, and a number of alternate, quality sources were allblanked. This seems quite inexplicable. DreamGuy 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made reference to seven books in all so far. The Evans and Rumbelow one does have the advantage of being one of the most up to date books on the subject, having been published just last year (2006). But feel free to add more refs from other authors. As for Rumbelow's real name you are right it is Donald not David. Hmmmmmmm I've even met the guy... Will correct. Colin4C 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is most recent, but it doesn't try to be as comprehensive as other titles, such as The Ultimate Sourcebook. It's still ridiculous to be continuously citing the same book for information that has been in basically every book on the topic as if only this book had it. As far as having met Don, it doesn't add anything to the discussion and, if anything, might suggest a reason why you want to list his book as a reference for nearly every fact in the article and focus on his opinion over that of other authors. DreamGuy 14:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, some of the citations appear to have been removed. Let's move past it. Since we seem to have at least three people who know their way around "Ripperology" and - due to the controversial nature of the article and the past heatedness of the discussion here, that info be brought to Discussion here first. Since some sources are apparently good whilst others aren't worth the paper they are printed on, someone list sources here that should be article, and which ones should not. We can find a fairly quick consensus on that, and can work together to keep the crap sources out. Agreed? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there would be wide agreement here that almost all of the books listed in the 'References' section are worthwhile accounts of the case, the only exception being Cornwall's somewhat mad volume. As for internet sources, I reserve my judgement, except to say that I think the official Met Police website is pretty authoritative. Our differences here, I feel, are more to do with questions of perspective, interpretation and form than disagreements about the facts of the matter. Colin4C 12:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cornwell's book is in no way a reference for this article, and is widely regarded as highly inaccurate on details of the case (though she has apparently hired a Ripper researcher to fix these for her for the next release, so maybe someday). As it was not used as a reference there is no reason for it to be here. It was removed as part of my edit restoring the article to the version that did not have all the references removed for no reason. DreamGuy 14:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So you are evaluating Cornwell's book as non-notable, correct? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need quality citations 

message: This was added to the Suspects section recently:	
:Many theories about the identity of Jack the Ripper have been advanced. None have been entirely persuasive. But a few of these are:
	 	
:Richard Mansfield the actor who was performing in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and visited brothels often.
	  	
:Dr Llewelyn a police docter.
	 	
:Robert Lees a psycic who had visions of the killings
	 	
:Sir William Gull a mind expert who was believed to have been mad
	 	
:Dr. Theo Ackland, Gull's son-in-law
	 	
:Robert Lusk who wanted a revoulution and so could have believed that murders led to revolutions.
	 		 
There was also believed to be two people, one drives a coach and the other does the murders. The coach was believed to have had a fake royal crest on it so that it wouldn't have been stopped and searched by the police.''
I have removed it entirely, as it is perhaps the most inaccurate list of information I have ever seen on any web page discssing Ripper suspects, which is saying a lot. Mansfield was not taken seriously as a suspect (as a later section already mentions) and no cite for him visiting brothels. Llewelyn was not a real suspect (in fact I don;t recall anyone ever naming him). Lees was never a suspect, and the visions claim is more from fiction than fact, Gull was not believed to be mad and is only a modern suspect (not named by any official ever or anyone for that matter until the late 20th century) in books that are not considered reliable in the slightest by the vast majority of expets, Gull's son in law is also not a real suspect, Lusk is not typically named as a suspect and isn't known for wanting revolution. The fake royal crest idea is also complete nonsense. 
The content seemed almost like someone was purposefully trying to come up with content that was as incorrect as possible. If someone was seriously offering that as if it were factual, I suggest that person go read the Jack the Ripper suspects article for more reliable information. DreamGuy 14:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes to the Suspects section 

message: I have restored trashed info on The Whitechapel Murders because they are are a discrete police file of what the police in 1888-91 thought were linked murders. See info on the police file here from the Met Police website: Met Police UK - Ripper, . How many of them were killed by Jack the Ripper is subject to debate then as now. The 'canonical five' first appeared in an unofficial note by a police-officer (McNaughton) who was not the leader of the investigation. Other leading officers such as Frederick Abberline had different ideas about how many were killed by the Ripper. For instance the non-canonicals such as Tabram were thought by many of the police (including Abberline) then and many investigators now as victims of the Ripper. Mixing up Tabram etc with the fictitious Fairy Fay, the American Carrie Shakespeare and others who were never ever suspected as Ripper victims is not helpful. In conformance with the wikipedia guidelines I am going to confine my remarks to matters of substance and not make personal attacks. Colin4C 08:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, per all the discussion above you KNOW you do NOT have consensus to do so, and in doing so you are wiping out a large number of EXTREMELY important edits. You need to stop and get people to agree to your radical new version BEFORE you make the change. In the meantime we are going with the longstanding consensus version, per Wikipedia standards on such disputes. Starting a whole new section to make the exact same disputed claims you made above and ignore all the reasons why you are wrong does not in any way justify your behavior. DreamGuy 16:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the article's fully protected, I stronglhy suggest that the both of you either find a mediator or go off somewhere and duke it out. This behavior of reverting and re-reverting, discounting edits and the general lack of AGF and civility is both boring and tiresome - and it will get one or both of you blocked in short order. So, find a way to deal with your problems constructively, respectfully and professionally or find somewhere else to edit. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, I have assumed good faith until such point as no reasonable person could continue to believe that actions were made in good faith. I have repeatedly over and over acted with professionalism here while you have falsely accused me of name calling, blind reverting and now (below) sockpuppeting and so forth. Please do not try to lecture other people when your own behavior leaves much to be desired. DreamGuy 18:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have not accused you of sockpuppetry, DG - if I thought it, I would simply report it. I was offering you the opportunity to defuse the situation by admitting to editing under the anonymous IP. If you feel that my attempts to assist you in this endeavor were in fact attacks, I must candidly state that that impression was certainly not one which I would wish to convey. I do, however, admit to being stymied over your reticence to step up and avoid problems. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am frustrated by your continuing attempts to invent them up out of thin air. DreamGuy 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, i do not understand what you mean. What am I continuing to attempt inventing out of thin air? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a reference to the last sentence of your previous comment. DreamGuy 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Whitechapel Murders 

message: I'm going to see if I can obtain Begg, Fido and Skinner's Ripper encyclopedia The Jack the Ripper A-Z from the library and see if they have an entry on the notion of the 'canonical five' to check out the history and status of this notion, who believed it and when etc. So far in this article the notion of a 'canonical five' has just been assumed without references. I think a new edition of the book is coming out next year which should be helpful to us here to see the current state of research on this topic Colin4C 17:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last edition of the A-Z came out ages ago and isn't going to give any more information than what other books have to say on the topic. The claim that the canonical fiv has just been assumed without references is just nonsense. There is a whole line of references at the end of the article, and the information can be found in basically any of them. 
Also, the new A-Z is planned for February, but it's not the final word on the topic by any means. The authors have very definite views of their own which often contradict the views of many (if not most) other authors (Begg and Fido, for example, are the two strongest supporters of the Mad Polish Jew theory), and other books by equally respected authors need to also be used as references. There's no need to wait for the new A-Z to come out when we already have a umber of experts weighing on the topic. DreamGuy 20:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Just done a bit of googling. Much of the internet stuff about the 'canonical five' seems to merely refer to our wikipedia entry. There is nothing on who in any authority established the canonicity of the canonical five. The Met police do not have an official view on this.  It just seems to be an undefined assumption or 'factoid'. This is fairly interesting but doesn't answer the question:
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/ripperoo-why.html Colin4C 19:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Googling? I might suggest you read the books in the reference section of this article instead of just hopping around the web. Encyclopedia articles here need to be based upon the full expert wisdom on the topic, not just what somebody can find on the web.  DreamGuy 20:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I prefer getting info from books (especially the ones I have myself written or edited...[don't panic folks - no conflict of interest - none of them was about Jack the Ripper]), but I will give the internet a chance once in a while. Amazing how often it refers you to a dubious wikipedia article though...However, saying that, the wikipedia IS improving. I'm actually starting to believe in the project...Colin4C 21:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack the Ripper A-Z 

message: Colin's edit (I'm not sure if he originally removed it or if his revert just added it back with all sorts of other things) removed the "(or killers)" part of "an unidentified serial killer (or killers)". I think this is a pretty straightforward necessity thing to have, per WP:NPOV rules. We do not know if there was one killer or more than one, and certainly the people who think that the killings known as the "Ripper murders" (as separate from the Whitechapel unsolved murder file) were either not killed all by the same hand or may have possibly had more than one individual involved at the same time think there is more than one killer, so I can't see any rationale at all for having the article remove that phrase so that it tries to outright claim there was only one killer. We do not take sides here, and as nobody can prove there was only one person and many (if not most) think there was more than one person responsible for all those murders, this is very important to keep. That was the clear consensus in the past, and various editors have inserted that phrase back whenever anyone tried to argue there was only one killer. DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ithink the wording is what bugs me about this, there is an implication  - from the wording - that the murders might have been committed by two or more people working on concert to commit them. I think that something first noting that the number of actual murder attributable to Jack is a point of debate before noting that a number of suspects exist. the statement needs improvement. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording might be able to be improved, but "that the murders might have been committed by two or more people working on concert to commit them" is in fact an opinion of a number of writers on the topic. Removing the part that clearly raises this possibility and leaving only the idea that one person was responsible is making the article take a specific POV, which of course not how things are done here. DreamGuy 19:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the information to whichyou alluse is best served addressed on the pages for the List of suspects, and not in this main article. there is nothing in the article currently that addresses these theories. Not in the article = not in the Lead. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being discussed in the article is no excuse for giving a biased view of a topic, especially when you were the one who removed it being discussed in the article in the first place. By WP:NPOV policy we cannot take a side on the topic, so it has to stay. This is also in line with longstanding consensus on the topic, as it has been discussed mltiple times in the past. Without some sort of clear, policy-following reason supported by a consensus of editors here you cannot remove those words. So, despite your disagreement, that's how it stands at this point.  DreamGuy 15:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be exceptionally helpful for you to actually ensure that you make factual statements, DG. I was not the first person to remove the 'or killlers bit'. I think you are misinterpreting NPOV, as well. By not giving undue weight to theories that aren;t even presented outside of the Lead, it isn;t a breach of NOPV; it is simply good writing. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not try to portray accurate statements as if they were inaccurate by putting up a straw man argument. I did not say you were the first one to remove it, and that's not relevant. The point is you are making arbitrary demands that the wording can't be a certain way without other content being present but then demanding that that other content not be there either. And it's certainly not undue weight to not take a side just because all of the sides aren't discussed in the article when none of the sides are covered in the article at all. The Jack the Ripper suspects article is where it is all covered. DreamGuy 21:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: How about we just cite that little bit? Would that be a good compromise? I can completely understand the undue weight concern, but if it is a valid theory that the Ripper might not have been a single person, it should be mentioned in some way. Citing it, if possible, would eliminate the undue weight problem. Then, later in the article, the actual theory can be expanded more. Does that sound fair? --clpo13(talk) 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can certainly cite a source saying there may have been multiple killers as a footnote, as there more than enough sources to choose from that acknowledge that it's a part of a variety of theories. But this article is not the place to expand the actual theory, as that's more suspect territory. DreamGuy 21:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, Lead pretty much tells us that, since the Lead is a summary (or overview) of the article, if the content isn't in the body of the article, then it isn't going to be in the Lead (so, footnoting it doesn't help the situation in this case). If we aren't prepared to discuss the theory of multiple criminals working in concert (which the wording certainly suggests) in the article. I opt that the simplest solution is to remove it, which retains most of the article the way it is without having to bring forth more that we have to about the long list of suspects. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the choice is between citing it in the article and putting biased info there, we clearly have to cite it. There is no excuse for violating WP:NPOV. DreamGuy 23:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: killer (or killers)

message: For some unknown reason Colin kept removing the spelling fix I made to L. Perry Curtis' name in the reference about newspaper growth. His name is L. Perry, not Perry L., and it needs to stay that way. (Also, later on in the article at one point a section about how newspapers were growing had a needs ref tag on it, but as that's what was already mentioned here and already referenced that was unnecessary.) He also removed the ISBN code for some reason. DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that after you pointed that out, he changed it. A non-issue. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, no he didn't. I would hope it's a non issue, but since he insisted upon reverting it over and over so that the page got locked, I am trying to clarify if it is an issue with anyone or if it was just damage he caused while blind reverting. DreamGuy 19:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not keen on spending the time to find the Diff where he corrected himself, so we'll consider it a non-issue and leave it at that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As he never corrected himself, as is clear in his last edit to the page, pretending that you are right and that you just can't be bothered to prove it is an odd choice. I also note that you also had changed the spelling back to the wrong version. I agree that it never should have been an issue in the first place and that the fix was obviously needed, but as you and him both removed it I had to ask if you really intended to do so so we can move forward on the article. As you now admit that it shouldn't be that way, that's at the very least two of us against Colin's vote (should he decide to vote to have it spelled wrong), so it's been decided and no longer an issue. I'll tag this section so we know this one isn;t controversial. DreamGuy 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: L. Perry Curtis

message: Similarly odd was that Colin removed a reference to Evans and Skinner's Ultimate JTR Companion to back up the fact that organ removals, etc., led some people at the time to suspect anatomical or surgical knowledge. The coroner outright made that claim, and the book documents his words and the police's efforts to track down any medical students known to have mad mental problems. I see no justification for removing the reference. DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor do I. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: anatomical knowledge ref

message: There are a number of miscellaneous differences to this section. I'm not sure how many of these are due to Colin's explicit changes or him just reverting to an old version to get his preferred victims section back and losing other edits in the process. Notable differences include that his version adds a section on brief suspect John Pizer (who fits better in a discussion of suspects and is indeed given much space in the Jack the Ripper suspects article and seems out of place here mentioned all by his lonesome when a number of other people had been arrested and provided alibis -- furthermore the sentence was factually incorrect, as Piser was not suspected after the Chapman murder but after the Nichols murder and so forth), moves the paragraph about the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee of 1888 until after the (IMO, unnecessarily long) paagraph about some modern documentary's EFIT image (thus breaking the chronological order of this section quite dramatically), and argues some POV views that the police acted as modern investigators would and explored "every imainable spot" for information (while some authors have this view, many others do not, and I personally think it's better to just describe what they did do instead of trying to argue that it was good or bad). I think these all work better as they currently are instead of how Colin had them, but if someone has an argument on individual points here, pull them out for discussion. DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems okay as of now, although the neutrality tags are correct in pointing out the poor writing of the section. Indeed, this is a problem with much of the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, there is only one neutrality tag, and I added it, and it wasn't for poor writing but for an opinion I did not feel meets WP:NPOV policy. I'm not sure what parts you think have bad writing, there or in the rest of the article, but if you want to discuss specifics later and in a different section, by all means do so. DreamGuy 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Investigation section differences

message: Colin's revert removed a reference for George Bernard Shaw's quote and also changed the spelling of a word in the section so it was different from what Shaw had written. Neither one seems to be at all reasonable.DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could list the diff here for inspection? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at his last revert of the article. Scroll down to the Bernard Shaw quote. There you go. I can't list it individually as he did it as part of an article-wide revert. DreamGuy 19:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. maybe you could assume a good faith edit in that he misspelled a word, and move on. misspellings tend to happen even with the most meticulous of editors. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if he had typed it himself then misspelling it would make sense as a possible explanation. But, considering that in his edits he both ignored the clear note there which read "He spelled it with two Ls, do not try to adjust spelling on historical documents" and removed the book which was the source for the statement, a mere misspelling wouldn't really be a reasonable explanation. For what it's worth, WP:AGF does not mean rationalize away the bad behavior of you and someone you were helping while at the same time lashing out at people who were doing exactly what Wikipedia policies say they should do. DreamGuy 15:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shaw quote

message: For some reason the current version of the popular culture section has a tag that says "for further information" and then a link that doesn't link to the article in question instead of the "main article" with a link that Colin's had had. I think that was someone else's change in the middle. At the very least we need a working link there. I also prefer having the main article link at the top of the section and a line in that first paragraph explicitly telling people that the fiction is covered on Jack the Ripper fiction and not here. This avoids people feeling the need to add nonnotable trivia that's barely even relevant on the other page (see next section). DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the further information tag, but I don't know why it didn't produce a link. I used that instead of a main article tag because the section was about the Ripper in pop culture, but there's no "Jack the Ripper in Popular Culture" article. The "Jack the Ripper fiction" is related, but not the main focus of the section, so I used the further tag. Strange that it's just text and not a link, though. Most template tags just require an article name, but it looks like the double brackets were needed for this one. If an admin could fix it, that would be great. --clpo13(talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is definitely what we used to call in the Marines a clusterfuck. I think that a worthwhile discussion could be formed on what bits could be included in the article without sub-paging it, as a lot of the items in the Jack_the_Ripper_fiction page are entirely crufty, redlinked, non-notelworthy and/or obscure. A full editing of that article could render it to less than a quarter of what it is now. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, go edit that page. I gave up on it a long time ago as a lost cause. DreamGuy 20:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might very well do that. feel free to join in. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: further versus main in popular culture reference

message: Considering how much arguing was going on here, I find it odd that now that I am going point by point over the parts of the article that had been reverted back and forth that all but one of the sections that were getting reverted have not prompted discussion at all so far, and the other one has had very limited discussion. Where is everyone? Should I assume that all of the sections mentioned above that were part of Colin's reverts were mere collateral damage of his blind reverting the article to get the Victims section the way we wanted or does anyone have any comments on those? And what about other people weighing in on the canonical five? Comments, please.  DreamGuy 17:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've stayed out of the content discussion because I know next to nothing about the Ripper and even less about his victims. I did comment on the further information bit, since that was my doing. --clpo13(talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I've been involved with RL issues as well as the other parts of my watchlist. I had decided to sit back and wait for the pissing match to stop before getting involved again. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments please 

message: Could someone add the double brackets inside the "further" tag at the top of the popular culture section? I added the template, but I forgot the brackets so it's not linking properly. So  should become . Thanks. --clpo13(talk) 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And for any admin who comes along, this is an uncontroversial and necessary change.DreamGuy 19:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed - TexasAndroid 21:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --clpo13(talk) 00:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix needed for Jack the Ripper in Popular Culture section 

message: I'm going through and labeling all the areas that were involved in the recent reverting (as listed above) for which it looks like there is no dispute. I am only trying to be clear on what does and does not still need to be discussed, not to prevent anyone from adding any further comments. If someone feels a tag is not accurate at this time and wants to argue for a different end result for that particular subject, feel free to slash out the AGREED tag and continue discussion. DreamGuy 15:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging as AGREED