Talk:Jack the Ripper/Archive 1

message: Dang it, somebody beat me to the Patricia Cornwell blurb!  Anyway, if our edit conflict caused some of your new entry not to get posted, my apologies. -- Storm
I'm really not sure about the Sickert pic being on this page - it does rather give the impression that he was Jack the Ripper, and my understanding is that that's a very long way from certain. 
:The Sickert picture is already in the Sickert article and shouldn't be here for the reasons adduced.  And, no, I don't think there should be a picture of the Duke of Clarence, either, particularly since that theory (as with many, many, others) isn't even mentioned.  Ortolan88
Also:
:Other evidence cites Sickert's artistic genius in crafting the Ripper's letters, in disguised handwriting, and varied sketch styles. The letters often contained specific information related to crimes, and as such are unlikely to be from any other than the Ripper.
IIRC the only letter which any reputable commentator has any degree of certainty came from the Ripper is the so called "Lusk Letter" which contained a bit of a human kidney with Bright's diseas, the same as one of the victims.
What does "crafting the Ripper's letters" mean? --Camembert
----
There have been so many theories about the Ripper that to put only Cornwall's derivative theories (see updated Walter Sickert article) is really poor encyclopediaism.  This article needs a huge amount of beefing up, stuff about how the murderer apparently knew anatomy, thought to be a doctor or med student, the Duke of Clarence connection, etc. Ortolan88
----
Why were the other suspects removed from this article? Mintguy
:I can't find them in the history. Were they ever here? In any case, they belong here. -- Someone else 04:52 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)
::They are in the history, removed by User:Stevertigo. I'll restore them. also Sickert picture should go!
:::Is there a way to convey that some of these are clearly less credible than others? Lewis Carroll, for example? Without getting too POV-ey. -- Someone else 05:04 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)
Someone else, are those entries you just removed at all true, and therefore encyclopedic? perhaps they might fit with a different rank on the page.
 -Sv
:I didn't remove any suspects, just a nickname for some other murderer. -- Someone else 05:19 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)
There seems to be very little on the murders themselves, and much more on the Sickert theory. Questions: 1) Second to last paragraph: Why is genius necessary to "craft the ripper's letters" and 2) Do we need to know in this entry that Sickert's art is 'much admired in the British art world?' Atorpen
:If anywhere, the Sickert stuff should be under Walter Sickert.  He really was a very famous artist, you know, not even counting this pop-novelist theory that so seems to fascinate some people, including the pop novelist herself.Ortolan88
:In answer to 1): it's not even clear which if any letters were from the "Ripper", so it can hardly be clear that genius was needed in crafting them; in answer to 2) it's probably good to know that Cornwell has not chosen a completely obscure painter.  Maybe the "Sickert is Ripper" stuff belongs under Cornwell rather than under Ripper or Sickert? -- Someone else 01:06 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)
We all gather this.... as for his "genius in crafting letters" - this needs explanation- that the "Ripper letters" sent by X to scotland yard - bragging and taunting basically, are completely inconsistent in style, writing and drawing... Scotland Yard had thought some of these were fakes, and some remain in question, while othere are clearly done with knowlege of the crime in question, (such as a drawing of how a body was mutilated and where it was...)  Cornwell claims to have made links to Sickert - firstly, (and recently) the kind of paper- small press, same cutting marks indicating the same batch of 24... second .. some mitochondrial dna evidence (not clear on) and third - what she claims as the skill by which sickert disguised the sickert letters from bearing any traces of his handwriting or drawing.... and they differ from each other... Scotland yards best were led to believe that these were done by different people altogether. So... thats all folks... -Stevert
It's always amazed me how people can come up so many theories that Jack the Ripper must be someone who was a well known personage and not some previously nameless figure within the community, like most serial killers. Mintguy
Also this article needs a hell of a lot of work ..
The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing Anon
I looked at the record, to see if the accusation above , about me removing some relevant material... i looked in there and found this claim false.. thought it very well could have been true.. only its unlike me... i havent been watching this page - so i just became aware of it... Im not going to quote the ten commandments here... but im glad to see the interest in this, and the article reads pretty succinctly. as for the notion that JTR has to be a famous person... I see no reason why it couldnt have been the queen herself...
though, we can deduce it the be unlikely... and the Cornwell evidence , all told is fairly damning... im not doing it justice, by rehashing out what little I caught from booktv,
:Re removing relevant material and "I didn't do it" - what about this (05:11 Jan 2, 2003, marked as a minor edit) --Camembert
Well Sv, if you call PCs evidence damning I hope to not ever find myself in a position where you're on my jury. As for the accusation made against you, the evidence for this IS indeed damning as Camembert has shown. Although I suspect what happened was that you accidentally edited a previous version, thereby restoring the Sickert picture and removing the usual suspects. Mintguy
yeah... well i apologise for that... must have had in in the clipboard for pasting lower... or something like you say Mint .. distracted . As for the nature of the evidence, what I heard and read is, I admit flavored like a crime novel, (which she is) but its also sound. She began her career as a medical examiner, (and by the way I didnt know who she was before her lecture) 
and she connects the dots pretty logically. I'd be deferential to someone whos actually read her whole book. ( and not just scanned the sample pages on amazon, like I did. .) So, the book what I read, like a lot of works, strikes a funy balance between research and historical novel. A lot of speculation fills in the gaps between her evidence. Which is pretty damning, not unlike that link...-Stevert
PCs book is a court with a prosecution but and without a defence. See http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-pamandsickert.html Mintguy
I'd like to go on board with PC's evidence belonging somewhere else (Under her or her book), as it seems less than damning. At least someone with more skill should add that the DNA PC used - as I think one of the links points out - could match with between 1/10 and 1/100th of the world's population.
:Stevert, I agree that the article reads well and succintly, and I congratulate you for your part. However, I am having trouble following your explanation of the genius of Sickert's (the Rippers?) letters, in this talk page.  That the quire is from the same batch is quite possible - but considering S. was in France during at least some of the murders, I think there's more than a reasonable doubt. Why, by the way, isn't more discussion given to more traditional suspects?
:Last - and more personally - I'm troubled by that PC's assertion that she first thought Sickert was JTR after seeing one of his paintings and subsequent horror at the artist's depiction of women, as if he's another male that hates women. His paintings are works of _art_. If this is the starting point for any hypothesis, we could damn just about any artist/author we choose. Atorpen
:One of the links at Walter Sickert makes the argument that Cornwall ignores the fact that Sickert was a protege of Cezanne and Degas  and that manyof their paintings  depicted women in perilous situations.    
::Unnoticed and unmentioned by the eye of Cornwell, these works show the continuing influence of Degas (and of early Cezanne paintings such as The Murder and The Abduction as well). In a painting alternatively called Interior and The Rape, Degas painted a giant menacing man barring the door of a small room while a woman sits cowering on the other side of the room. This is one of Degas' strongest paintings, as anyone who has seen it in Philadelphia or on tour will know. The suitcase in the middle of the picture glooms with an unearthly light.  You wonder why Cornwell doesn't accuse Degas or Cezanne of being the Ripper. The reason is simple. These artists are as invulnerable to Cornwell's investigations as Cornwell is invulnerable to my criticism. Poor Walter Sickert is not.
:I forget which logical fallacy this is, but it must be one of them, confusing the artist with his work.  This Sickert stuff is taking over this article and should be moved out, either into the Sickert article, or my preference, to an article of its own.  Ortolan88
Understood, and agreed: atorpen, and ortolan. Im really not 100 percent clear on her case for associating artistic genius with the ripper letters. And yes, it does seem distressing that someone with a hunch goes and spends several million dollars of her own money, allegedly destroying one or more sickert paintings...  and to somehow, after all this seemingly "unscientific" process, come up vindicated, and with a well-selling book, some notoriety for herself, and the claim to have solved a mystery which has baffled the best for over a century... I agree its all very Texas ( apparently where shes from ) and smells a lot like yesterdays sushi to the habitual skeptic... All this I understand...
as for the similarity of the paintings... she talks about how sickert never painted anything he never saw, and some of the poses appear near identical to murder scences, though this is subjective. I wont estimate the veracity of either of these... And Im not going to run out and buy a copy... though I just may... why not... I dont want to make this just a book report...  
Im not going to repeat my self and my opinion of her credibility, I will say that If she 'turns out' to be correct - meaning, over decades, the naysayers quietly go away and her evidence is scrutinized and accepted; than this might be a clue as to what was missing in the original investigation and those since: The unwillingness to believe in the guilt of X, in itself can incapacitate an investigation...  She did say, on TV, that Scotland Yard was (paraphrasing ) A hundred years away from the technology needed to solve these murders" ...and she added something as to how fortunate she had been in making any headway at all... she was near giving up and cutting her losses more than one point... when some minor success persuaded her to continue... yadda...
A final thought, and then I will abandon this topic altoghether or until I have something new to add... Is that the unwillingness of people to believe in Sickerts guilt, or anyone's for that matter, is the fact that the solving of a mystery (its no longer just a "crime" - nobody cares about pursuing justice ) - the solving of a mystery kills something: something that was, in fact the embodiment of a cultural icon - and an urban myth. The 'mysterious Mr. Hyde -like monster that they say killed some ladies...' etc... JTR was a symbol, with much greater meaning in the whole world than just a serial killer with a name. By tying the Ripper to a name, she commits the unforgivable crime of killing a modern mystery, as well as all the wonderful speculations on said mystery the culture had produced for over a hundred years. - Stevert
:I think the whole thing belongs in the article on Cornwall, not on Sickert or Ripper, which should simply cross-reference Cornwall.  I am delighted at the solution of long-standing historical mysteries myself, but I don't see that Cornwall has solved one.  She's just one more in a long list of writers who have trotted out their theories on Jack the Ripper, a perennial topic for writers like the Loch Ness Monster or Napoleon.  I don't see where she is "vindicated" at all.Ortolan88 PS - As for painting only what he saw (a dubious proposition), I'm pretty sure Sickert saw some naked women lying in bed.  The number of artists, indeed men of all kinds, who are repulsed by their sexual attraction to women is very great indeed.  They can't all be the Ripper, even though the Ripper too was (probably, presumably) repulsed by his attraction to women.
::I've made a home for her theories at Patricia CornwEll  (not Patricia CornwAll). (Do we need a redirect at the bad spelling? Couldn't hurt.)  -- Someone else 02:58 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)
:::Done, Ortolan88
Story on the BBC news website today  suggests that PC's theory is widely dismissed by leading experts. Another reason why we should definatly not bias her ideas! Grunners 15:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cornwell's Sickert theory taking over the article 

message: I suggest all interested parties take a look at the Talk:Patricia Cornwell page. IVoteTurkey 05:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cornwell 

message: About Catharine Eddowes, I'll "argue" about the issue, but I'm not going to "fight" it. There is a distinction (<grin>). Of course I agree that I'd link to Madonna. Madonna Louise Ciccone?—who the heck is she?
There are distinctions there too. Madonna's name is a household word, and what's more, that's the name she's promoted herself. It's the name an overwhelming majority of the population at large knows her by. Most, except for her (very considerable) number of ardent fans, won't know "Ciccone" from "Capone." ("The name's Ca-PONE, not Ca-PONE-ee!") They certainly won't be looking for it.
Catharine Eddowes is known to, or anyway remembered by, a far smaller number of readers who have read about the Ripper and remembered the name. Those who did can probably be divided into two classes. A majority in all likelihood were reading "sensational crime" stories anyway, and probably don't remember (or may not care) how her name was spelled. I think I had eliminated double redirects by changing the original "Catherine" article. The smaller remainder of readers will be more serious students of the case, many or most of whom are familiar with the later research anyway. But for the sake of "peace in our time" (as Neville Chamberlain put it), I've put it back to "Catherine" for the time being.
British spelling too has arguable elements to it, especially since it extends beyond spelling to usage and terminology as well. Granted that people rode hansom cabs in the Ripper's time, when it comes to cars for instance, the problem is—as deplorable as it may be to our British contributors—that American usage is almost universally understood today, while British usage is not. Everyone knows what the "hood" of a car is; but to most, a "bonnet" is only what poor Polly Nichols had on her head when she sadly ventured out for the last time.
The other question is what we do with articles about the Titanic, say—a British ship that sank in the middle of the Atlantic with many of the most distinguished passengers being American.
I guess I'll just have to read the relevant article, along with whatever guidelines Wikipedia has managed to cook up. But to me this is not an issue at all in the present context. I did go back and Anglicize—er, excuse me, that's "Anglicise!"—anything else I happened to spot.
That includes things like changing "autopsy" to "post mortem," a term understood by everyone anyway, and the one used in all contemporary Ripper documents. Then there's the matter of Buck's Row being a few "blocks" from the Royal London Hospital—a term never heard in the UK, any more than anyone talks about "downtown" London! To me, the term "block" is a chuckle anyway, when as a standard unit of distance it's next to useless. In Phoenix where I live, we have the "large block," which is a mile between major planned "streets," and the "small block" as well—however big that might be! To tell anyone a place is "a few blocks away" means nothing in terms of distance. It's like the celebrated "country mile," which may turn out to be three or five. "A few streets away" means just as much, though I inserted the actual distance.
Still harping on the "block" theme, could George Yard Buildings be better described in British terms as "a block of flats"? Today, no doubt; but in Victorian times I think "flats" would be an anachronism. They called them "model dwellings"—which sounds ideal—until the newspapers superciliously added that "the occupants were of the poorest class." "Dwellings" sounds too formal and legal anyway—not to mention reminding me of valve timing and whatnot. I stuck with "apartments," a word well enough known in Victorian England, and defined without comment in Nuttall's 1914 British dictionary.
I do agree about the inadvisability of altering spelling in The Mammoth Book. Compiling an encyclopedia, where writers try to stick to some common standard, is very different from quoting authors who wrote previously, in a compendium of their work. I frankly don't like it when editors hack a previous author's text and spelling for some different audience without having the decency even to say so. In many cases it's a form of "dummying down," as if the new readership were incapable of understanding what the previous author wrote.
I would be interested though to hear who thinks the murder of Catharine Eddowes was "more similar" to Mary Kelly's than it was to Annie Chapman's. That surprises me. I don't see why myself, taking everything into account, and I don't remember hearing anyone express such an opinion.
As for Walter Sickert, I'm staying out of that issue unless I have good reason to get into it! Granted that "logically" the discussion may belong more with Sickert than with Cornwell, I'll only say that while Cornwell's book was an interesting study of Sickert as a possible narcissist, it told me far more about Cornwell herself than it did about Sickert as a likely Ripper!
Best regards,
Gordon L 09:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling and whatnot 

message: I know Wikipedia is not censored for minors but the image of Mary Kelly which is the first on the page is extremely distressing. Should readers not be warned about it before being presented with it? David | Talk 22:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I commented out the suggestion that it'sd a popular metaphor - I don't think it is popular, and even if it were the link to Hitler / Godwin's Law seems unduly tenuous. (unsigned)
:I originally put that there and am only know getting aroudn to responding... I don't care if it stays or not. Calling someone Jack the Ripper as a slur is fairly popular, at least I see it crop up in news reports fairly often for a variety of reasons unrelated to the murder. But then I don't know if it's popular enough to bother mentioning. DreamGuy 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular metaphor 

message: I noticed a recent edit change all instances of graffiti in Goulston Street Graffiti to Graffito, and then that an editor removed it thinking it was "sandboxing"... This actually is a bit more complicated than that.
A number of people who study the case prefer to call the message under discussion "graffito" as it is the singular form of the word, graffiti being plural. They would argue that it was on message, thus one graffito. 
This is another one where I didn't bother to change it back when someone modified it a while ago, but now that someone else tried to fix it, I wonder what other peoplpe think... 
(Also, incidentally, by seeing the comparison between edits, it's clear now that the word is used way too many times in that section, and that the latest version of the section seems to be longer in general than it probably should be.)DreamGuy 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  graffito/graffiti... 

message: Can someone more knowledgable than I change the dates on two victim birthdates?  I've copied from the article:
# Annie Millwood, born ca. 2006 (approximate date), 
# Emma Elizabeth Smith, born ca. 2006 (approximate year).
I don't think these are correct!  :)  Cabiria 00:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, already done... you can go to the history and click through and see changes, that was recent vandalism, I just chose a page before it was changed and reverted back to that, fixed now. Thanks! DreamGuy 00:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Birthdates 

message: Hey didnt sherlock holmes fight the ripper in a book? (unsgnied, but by User:SaintDante)
:Yeah... so what? The Ripper also fought the crewmen of the Starship Enterprise, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and a whole bunch of comic book characters. DreamGuy 03:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sherlock 

message: Someone should add this personality simulator to the links.
http://www.triumphpc.com/saucyjacky/
(unsinged but by USer:68.154.72.115)
:No, no someone shouldn't. It's completely unencyclopedic. The only "simulation" it does it take copyrighted lines from a highly disreputed book and put them on screen as if it were a chat room. there's absolutely no point to having it on an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a mere collection of links. DreamGuy 21:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saucy Jacky 

message: I understand Professor Ian Findlay was reported in the press recently as studying DNA from Jack the Ripper. I've looked but can't seem to find any more information about this apart from his profile at http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/board-profile.cgi?action=view_profile&profile=ifindlay-users
--Darrelljon 21:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, he did some tests on some items related to the case, but not DNA from Jack himself, as none exists. The results were all negative. See: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=267  DreamGuy 03:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA 

message: Does any one else find this statement a little biast?SaintDante 19:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst we Social Democrats were wasting our time on education, agitation and organization, some independent genius has taken the matter in hand, and by simply :murdering and disembowelling four women, converted the proprietary press to an inept sort of communism.
It's a quote, not a statement of the article. That said, I'm interested as to how you think it's biased? WhiteCat 21:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... 

message: There is only one sample article housed on the Ripper Notes site.  Everything else is a link to Casebook.  
That sample article was NOT used as a source for this article.  The inclusion of Ripper Notes website link under 
references is gratuitous and has nothing to do with accuracy, since there are no sample articles actually there.  
It's about keeping Ripper Notes up and excluding Ripperologist which I am sure has actually been used to help compile 
this article as well.  I will leave the Rip Notes link up for 24 hours to allow for the citing of actual original 
material contained on the Ripper Notes website which would justify leaving the citation up. After that, I am taking it down.  And by the way Vic, this isn't *your* site for some upstart, *me* to come along and try to horn in. It's Wikipedia, where 
everyone who has a passing interest in the topic has a right to add, subtract or multiply the information. I am following Wik 
guidelines.This inclusion is gratuitous-- there is no information contained on that webpage that would merit its inclusion
and this started because of bias and personal agenda on the part of you and DreamGuy who is the editor of the Ripper Notes magazine.  Bias is against the Wik rules and so is advertising.  this was unsigned, but it was by User:CrimeBuff
:Wikipedia has policies to follow, and you are not following them. Chris George, the editor of Ripperologist, came here and tried to place a link to his own website. Your account, which has no edits other than on this page, showed up shortly later to do all the same activity. You talk about bias and advertising when what you are trying to do is either add a link to an electronic journal's website, which only exists to try to sell it, and when you do not get your way you try to remove any and all mention of the leading journal in the field, which is in print and whose research was used extensively for much of the information in this article, which would be obvious to anyone who has read this article or that journal. I know of no information in this article that came from Ripperologist, and you have not tried to offer any, just to declare that it must have happened. From what I have seen mentioned elsewhere (i.e. the Casebook content listing of the table of contents of this ejournal), Ripperologist appears to be some sort of fan publication without much real research. 
:As a newbie editor whose only edits have been to spam and make revenge edits to support a Ripperologist editor and make accusations against a competitor, not to mention to distort what other people said to try to get your way, you do not get to say what happens here. Wikipedia follows policies on notability, verifiability, and external links, not to mention neutral point of view. When there is conflict over these things, we first go by what the policies say, and when that is unclear, we go by the consensus of editors here. An admin already came in to undo your edits, I undid your edits, and you came out of nowhere with a clear agenda in mind, so we know what your opinion is worth. Yes, everyone can come here and edit, but when someone makes bad edits they should expect them to be removed, as yours have been. Being editable by everyone means things can be added and removed and you agreed to follow that whenever you make an edit here by a little warning notice. Your insistence that you will have your way shows clear lack of understanding of how this site works.
:Trying to remove mention of a publication because you want the competitor listed instead is bias. Trying to list both publications and slant the sentence so it sounds like Ripperologist is more important (by stating that it is monthly and leaving out that it is only an email, or by listing it first, or by saying it has real research that people in the field admire, etc.) is clear bias. Please before you try to edit here, do so without trying to advance an agenda that is clearly the same as spamming the article.  Victrix 21:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   ==Ripper Notes== 

message: Knock it off, keep it civil, etc. The anons and puppets clearly have an agenda, to advertise Ripperologist or hurt Ripper Notes, and editing with such an agenda is a bad thing. But looking beyond their malice I believe there is still some validity to the point that the link to the Ripper Notes site, as it previously existed, was basically a form of advertising. I've put in a properly-formatted jousnal reference corresponding the one existing inline citation of a Ripper notes article. Additional references backing up inline citations in a similar form are welcome. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool it 

message: Is anyone else bothered by the fact that in Media it says the practice of inventing interesting names for serial killers then became common practice "all over the world" and then lists a group of American serial killers with a couple more British killers tossed in?  That's hardly all over the world; that's America and Britain. CrimeBuff 11:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So come up with other examples... It is, in fact, all over the world, so it should be easy to do so if you think that needs to be improved. The fact the US and British ones are used have more to do with this being an English encyclopedia than the fact that it's not all over the world. Contribute to the article instead of only being here to complain. DreamGuy 00:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did do something. I removed the erroneous phrase.  CrimeBuff 13:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except it was not erroneous. You were simply ignorant of the facts. DreamGuy 13:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'All over the world'? 

message: I guess there are several movies about Jack the Ripper. Usually, articles with many related movies have a movie-section. I think we should add such a section here: it can also help the reader to understand the popularity of Jack the Ripper. gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 01:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Jack the Ripper fiction#Theatre. Most of the long list of Jack the Ripper in fiction has been placed in another article, to give this article more focus. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, thank you. I did not see the link before. Do you reckon we should add the Jack the Ripper fiction#Theatre link to the See also section? gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 13:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph of the Jack the Ripper in popular culture section already says "See Jack the Ripper fiction for details"; seems like enough to me. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. I could never disagree with the owner of two of this things. gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 21:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movies 

message: I don't know if this theory has been established yet, but due to the knowledge of Jack the Ripper, you would think that he was an inside source like apart of the press or a policeman. All of this is based on the letters he sent. The only thing that is weird is that in each letter, he has a different grammar ability. For example; In the "Dear Boss" letter, he writes with almost totally correct grammar, but in the "Letter from Hell" letter, he writes with almost all incorrect grammar. Hmm. Isn't this a great theory? I wonder...
Hi. The letters you quote are not thought to be from the same hand. Alas the world of Jack the Ripper is full of such complexities. Of all the correspondence though, the "letter from hell" is the favourite to be genuine. JSL595 15:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Great Theory 

message: I almost hate to bring this up, but I wonder if any thought could be given to restoring Ripperologist and Ripper Notes to the external links section?
I have no specific interest in JtR myself, but an associate has informed me that both sites are valued tools for researchers, and that a specific link would benefit the article.  Both pages solicit subscriptions, but both also provide free materials and are (apparently) respected within their fields.
Comments?  CJCurrie 04:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check out WP:EL, you may agree with me that neither site is appropriate as an external link here. Wikipedia isn't google; both sites are primarilly advertising vehicles. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could they be linked elsewhere in the article, then?  CJCurrie 05:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Some anon recently added a link to a JTRForums site to External links. External links must meet certain guidelines to be included here. See Wikipedia:External links policy. This particular site fails the criteria quite dramatically, as it has no encyclopedic purpose (being solely a messageboard, just like tons of others out there), was clearly intended for self-promotional purposes, and so forth and so on. Then there's also the problem with two websites proclaiming themselves to be the "original" JTR Forums, on top of the Casebook forums having been around longer than both of them put together and being widely recognized as being the #1 spot for such things.  172.162.254.119 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JTRForums 

message: I wonder why a section claiming that the Ripper may have killed young boys keeps getting added. It has no source listed, is not something in most books on the topic, seems extremely speculative in a Wikipedia:No original research policy-violating way, and doesn't particularly stand out as being at all notable as far as wild speculation about the Ripper goes. If this is to be added back, I would hope that someone could give an actual source for it to show that it comes from someplace real instead of being just someone's pet personal theory. 172.162.254.119 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boys killed 

message: "The man he named was Aaron Kosminski, a Polish-Jewish hairdresser living in Whitechapel, East London, who was eventually committed to a lunatic asylum, where he died."
There's nothing new about the alleged identification of Kosminski, this has been known about for some time.  As I understant it, it is not disputed that a supposed identification of Kosminski in an asylum did take place.  However the issue is whether an identification years after the event, by somebody who may not actually have got a particularly good view of the Ripper, under condititions which fell short of a proper identity parade, should really be given much weight. PatGallacher 00:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another consideration is that the claim of there being an identification at all is only made by two high ranking officials who had no direct involvement in the investigation, while other police, including the officials in the City Police directly in charge of that particular investigation and the investigators working the case not only never mentioned this identification but explicitly state that it never happened. Thus the whole identification thing is thought by many sources to have been made up by a high ranking official in his autobiography to try to claim the crimes were solved when they really weren't. 172.128.235.182 05:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identified? 

message: I don't know too terribly much about the geography of the London area, but the Ripper wasn't active just in Whitechapel. He also committed crimes in Aldgate/City of London (Eddowes), in Spitalfields (Chapman and Kelly), and in St.-Georges-in-the-East (now Stepney from the Wikipedia article on St George in the East (Stride).  In fact only ONE of the five canonical victims was actually killed in Whitechapel (Nichols). I think "East End" would be a more accurate term to use in the opening sentence of the article. 68.13.236.96 05:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I believe an old version had East End listed instead of Whitechapel. The "Whitechapel" designation came from some early non-canonical victims, I believe. 172.128.235.182 06:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of the Murders 

message: I have seen this matter on these TV channels from time to time. One theory going around is that the murderer was a member of the Royal Family and he was terminated to put a end to the murders. Due to certain Wiki-protocol, I can't state that anywhere at all. Martial Law 19:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what determined means... Did you go read the WP:NPOV policy yet? Or any actual books about Jack the Ripper? Or websites? Or even the articles already here on Wikipedia? Apparently not. 172.165.136.245 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary TV Channels 

message: I have made some edits in an attempt to reach a compromise between the edit-warring sides here, both of which I think have some valid points. Note that I made my edits one at a time, a policy I highly encourage all sides to continue to follow. I offer my thoughts on the six areas being changed in that last round of revert warring:
#"Jack the Ripper's identity may never be proven/has never been determined."
#:It is true that it may never be proven but this still strikes me as unneccessary crystal-balling; better to talk about what has taken place so far. Someone might have determined his identity, maybe by a lucky guess, but certainly nobody to this day has proven it. 
#::Which is why we need the word proven there instead of determined.
#The paragraph starting "The legends surrounding the Ripper murders"... 
#:This paragraph should stay. It is a good overview of a very important aspect of the story -- the phenomenon rather than the crimes themselves.
#The Fairy Fay paragraph
#:No opinion.
#Carrie Brown's ovary
#:I thought some of the wording was unclear, particulary what "taken" is taken to mean. I attempted some small modifications to clarify. 
#Refuting Knight's interpretation of Juwes. 
#:Tricky one. Personally I think the fact that there is no evidence of Juwes being used that was before Knight is a strong refutation by itself, and saying "the idea is rejected by most experts" becomes unneccessary. If you disagree, some citations verifying that the idea is rejected by most experts would probably be a good idea.
#"Many theories about the identity of Jack the Ripper have been advanced. None is entirely persuasive, and some can hardly be taken seriously at all."
#:Well, the article should say something there. I've attempted to tone down the POV by deleting the last bit. — Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent work, Bunchofgrapes.... I appreciate your efforts against the POV/OR problems here. I also still have problems with the phrase "a complex muddle of genuine historical research, freewheeling conspiracy theory and dubious folklore." dubious? muddle? freewheeling? Can't we state this a little more impartially?  I also still see a LOT of sentences here that beg for a specific source citation, and I still see a lot of WP:WEASEL language like "Most experts say...", "Many sources believe..." and unsourced "However..." counter-arguments. wikipediatrix 23:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's got a lot of weaseling, I can't deny it. Not enough direct citations, either. Do you think it would be difficult to source some of those statements more concretely? Or provide direct quotes from sources indicating the same thing? Maybe you should try Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy and give it a shot. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly most of the statements CAN be sourced, by digging up appropriate quotes from lots of different books, but when something is the opinion of the vast majority of experts, I don't think it's weasel talk at all to just state that when to source that would require quoting enough different sources to demonstrate that it's the vast majority. It's simply a matter of not having to specify in excrutiating detail what would be obvious to anyone who reads the books cited in the References section. That's what the Reference section is for. 172.163.85.111 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some compromise attempts 

message: I actually don't care, I am perfectly happy with either version -- but you two (you know who you are) seem quite determined to edit war over it until, presumably, one loses in a war of attrition. This is unacceptable. As you know, I've tried a different wording -- one which includes neither the words "determined" or "proved". This was quickly reverted by one side, with no mention of the current wording, just that his preferred wording wasn't wrong. I have a feeling that if the other side had seen it first, he probably would have done the same. Please put aside petty stubbornness, both of you, and try new things until everyone is satisfied. Or until everyone is equally unhappy -- as long as the edit war stops. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The version you had might be acceptable... The "determined" version is absolutely not acceptable, as its highly POV-pushing and against policies here, as mentioned time and time again. It is disturbing that you think someone fixing a blatant POV problem is somehow a BAD thing. So if you went and repeatedly had to undo damage caused by an editor to another article, would you like it if some third person showed up and accused you both of being just as bad as each other? Give me a break. When we have a determined POV-pusher, the only thing to do is to keep correcting it until the POV-pusher goes away or gets a brain or something. I will undo any mention of "determined" until Kingdome Come if necessary, and since the other editor in question is just a flash in the pan clueless newbie who sumbled upon the page I don't he's going to be around very long. He'll go find an article who actually knows something about to edit... assuming he knows enough about any topic to contribute anywhere. 172.165.136.245 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, articles are the result of consensus, it's not all about what you want. You do not WP:OWN this article. Secondly, you are in multiple violation of WP:NPA with your insults. Attacking people who disagree with you - and so far several editors do - is not going to result in making the page permanently say what you want it to say. wikipediatrix 19:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Determined vs. Proved 

message: While going back and and forth with  is just so much fun, I'm afraid I have to ask him to actually provide a source. I understand that there are six items listed in the References section, but the entire article needs to be redone using in-line references. Right now, 172 is referencing all six items for all the claims, without making specific references. Sorry, but that just ain't flying right with me. I can't make claims and then say "oh, it's in one of those six books", and neither can he.
Currently, I've made two reverts, as has he. We're both flirting with WP:3RR. Can someone else weigh in on this, please? EVula 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  172.165.136.245 has, so far, reverted the edits of yourself, myself, Addhoc, Quadzilla99, Bunchofgrapes, and some other IP, each time pushing his own private version as if he WP:OWNs the article and opposing consensus. I have been lurking to see what happens when the dust cloud settles, but support your version over 172's (who is apparently also editing this article under the name of DreamGuy - see his edit summary at 18:55, 13 August 2006). wikipediatrix 19:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Lawyers are concerned with proof, however this is about historical judgement, consequently determined is more appropriate. Addhoc 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lawyers and, oh, detectives trying to solve mysteries are concerned with proof... that's what this topic is about. Historical judgment may have already determined who the Ripper was anyway, it's highly biased to claim it hasn't. 172.149.101.59 07:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proven vs Determined 

message: I have the following concerns relating to this sentence: "The lack of a confirmed identity for the killer has allowed subsequent authors, historians and mostly amateur sleuths—dubbed Ripperologists—to point their fingers at a wide variety of candidates; research into the the events continue to this day."
*"subsequent authors", couldn't we group them as historians?
:*No, a great death of authors on the case are not historians.
*"mostly amateur" is this directly from a reference, because it sounds like editorializing
:*There are next to no professional sleuths involved, which beomes obvioous reading any book about the case.
*"sleuths" is unencyclopedic
:*No it isn't...
*"Ripperologists" again, which source?
:*ALL of them??? Tell you what, why don;t you actially go READ THE REFERENCES and then come and ask questions.
*"point their fingers" is unencyclopedic
:*So you may have one legitimate point out of several completely nonsense ones
*"research into the the events continue" who is currently researching? are they notable?
:*OH MY GOD... There are four active periodicals dedicated to the case publishinig research all the time, several books every year, scientists running tests on the Ripper letters, etc. etc... and if you would have bothered to actually read this article, you would have seen cites for all of this.
Addhoc 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 172.149.101.59 07:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would agree... that was originally put in by the same person trying to put the "has not been determined" POV pushing, by the way."
Here is another in the endless examples of the ad hominem methods of 172 I described below. I was not the one who inserted "to this day" it was Guy Hatton  but even if I had it is irrelevant. Let's assume for a moment I had inserted it. I was most likely trying to improve the article and included an inappropriate phrase in an attempt to do so. Using the fact that an individual made an error on one post and therefore a separate post is incorrect is illogical and a pointless waste of time.Quadzilla99 09:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed sentence 

message: Ok, you have raised a significant number of issues, which are dealt with below:
* In Wikipedia users who are anonymous have less weight than users who create accounts, regardless of how many years you have been editing. You appear to be suggesting the opposite, which is clearly erroneous. Personally, I would be prepared to discuss this article on the basis we are all equals.
* If this was a featured article that would clearly be of relevance. However the age of the article and how long the previous version had lasted are entirely irrelevant.
* Inappropriate accusation of vandalism and highly emotional statements such as "oh my god" or "kingdom come" should be avoided, if possible.
*There is consensus this article requires copy editing to reach the formal tones expected of an encyclopedia article on a historical subject.
* Inline references are not optional, they are expected. Excuses such as many other articles lack citation are not relevant. This article should be cited in accordance with community standards.
* Finally, I would suggest you assume the other other editors working on this article are trying to improve it.
Addhoc 15:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Editor 172 

message: To whom it may concern: obviously - at least I thought it was obvious - this article consists of only four short sentences, and half of it is on the Jack the Ripper article already. I don't think the remaining two sentences justify the article, and I don't think it would be calamitous to move these two sentences back to the Jack the Ripper article. wikipediatrix 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If someone wants to be WP:BOLD and do the merge, go for it. I'd do it myself but I've never done one before and would hate to screw it up. wikipediatrix 06:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure Dream Guy is 172 for what it's worth (this is pointed out above by another user). The same questioning of credentials and lack of understanding of policies. Just say you disagree and state your reasons Dream Guy don't start telling people they don't know what they are doing. It's tiresome and will never get you anywhere.Quadzilla99 14:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of understanding of policies? Uh, no... understanding of policies that you clearly do not what to understand yourself. But, yeah, any website that lets the general public without any qualifications to make any edits they want and band together to do whatever they can get a temporary majority on is always going to be screwed up, especially when they don't read the policies and then lie and cliam the policies back them up. DreamGuy 22:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for merge 

message: The crime is unsolved and the killer is unidentified. This is a basic fact that needs to be bluntly stated in the first paragraph just as it is in Encyclopedia Britannica: "It is one of the most famous unsolved mysteries of English crime." and MSN Encarta: "Jack The Ripper, name for the unidentified serial killer of women who from August to November 1888 brought terror to east London.". So as long it's in that sort of language it will be acceptable.
It's amazing to me that people don't understand that this is the general consensus of the case. It's a plain and simple fact. However, if you want to replace the "has never been determined" statement (which is a proven logically correct statement) make sure you put in a statement that states in plain unequivocal langauge (like the two sources I just quoted did so plainly and matter of factly) that the case has not been solved and the killer has not been identified.
(p.s. Those are the only 2 encyclopedias I looked at but I'll bet every single one in existence says essentially the same thing (probably in a similarly blunt manner also). My point is not to make an argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority argument using "infallible" sources but just to point out that every credible unbiased source states the same thing(I doubt any theories contained about the case  in those publications would cause any significant changes in sales; unlike theories and summaries contained in a "Ripperologist's" book) 
I also have to admit an admiration for the 2 sentences sited above, while we are here struggling back and forth over such a simple issue they just eloquently stated "unsolved" and "unidentified" right at the start and moved on.) Quadzilla99 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the entire sentence perhaps, as these other works have shown, once you state the killer is unidentified or the case is unsolved, that is all that's really needed. People should understand what unidentified or unsolved means and not need further clarification. Quadzilla99 11:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The case is not solved (or some equivalent) is the correct summary 

message: Has someone vandalised the list of victims? Sorry I don't know how to fix this.
intesvensk 22:40, 30 September 2006
Yes, somebody had. I've reverted it. Thanks for the alert! Guy Hatton 21:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism (I think) 

message: The wikilondon project are attempting to get some standardisation - and linking into London history articles, by introducing a common London history template. I think in this article it looks long, and somewhat out of place, in an already crowded page. I added it, but someone might wish to revert my changes as 'corporately inspired vandalism'! For already long, and crowded articles like this, it might need rethinking. I apologise, in advance, if it's considered intrusive. Kbthompson 11:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  London History template 

message: According to new studies, "Jack the Ripper" would have had to be living or been re-located close to the area where the crimes occured. So if you look at an old map of London, You'll see that by where the crimes were commited there was an hospital close by. Also it seem that the crimes took place on the weekend when someone of ok health might have been aloud out of the hospital for a drink. Hopeful this can help The Dwarf_King 14:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Without citing sources for these "new studies", it doesn't. wikipediatrix 14:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Studies 

message: Wouldn't this article make more sense and be more objective if we distinguished between the 'Whitechapel Murders': i.e. those 9 or so murders (starting with Martha Tabram) noted by the contemporary police in their casebook for this area 1888-92 and that variable sub-set (bizarrely named 'canonical' here) ascribed at varying times by varying people to the Ripper. The Whitechapel murders are actual matters of recorded fact, no matter who committed them. The Ripper ascription to a variable sub-set of these murders is more hypothetical and can hardly be called 'canonical' ('canonical' according to whose authority?). Lay out the evidence - then come to the conclusion. Don't do a Patricia Cornwall and prejudge the issue before the start. Colin4C 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the "Whitechapel murders" file started with Emma Elizabeth Smith and not Martha Tabram. I agree that the five victims named by Macnaghten as being the only true victims can in no way be certain, but "the canonical five" is the term used extensively in the field for that grouping. The article is very specific in where this idea came from and that it may not be the actual and total list of victims. Would I prefer a different term for the grouping? Yes. But so far, other than author Robin Odell (who proposed "The Macnaghten Five") and one or two others in the field, the "canonical five" term is preferred, even by those who do not believe in it truly being "canon". DreamGuy 03:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. The trouble is, though, that if you type in Whitechapel murders you are redirected to this article, which nowhere gives a list of said Whitechapel Murders. Instead we have 'the canonical five' and another very extensive list of possible Ripper victims. Nowhere in the article are the 'Whitechapel Murders', as noted in the original police file on the case, listed...Colin4C 11:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add it if you want. I don't think it'd take a drastic change to the article, as you could sum it up in a sentence.DreamGuy 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes...when I've finished reading Begg's latest book on the subject. A related problematic thing about this article IMHO is that it doesn't make much sense of the original police investigation of the case. Although this was fairly fruitless, subsequent Ripperological investigations seem to have brought us no nearer the truth. Everything about this case seems to clouded by the legendary figure of 'Jack': who seems to me to be mostly a product of hoaxers, journalists and fantasists. Colin4C 14:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Whitechapel Murders 

message: Regarding this story currently making the headlines all over the web:
:"Jack the Ripper's face 'revealed'", BBC, 20 November 2006
Not sure where or how to incorporate this into the article. Also the picture would be great to have as fair use, assuming that is allowed. Considering the source for this picture is Scotland Yard it seems credible enough to be included. -- Stbalbach 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the "Investigation" heading. :) Englishrose 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just finished watching this documentary myself. The thing I don't understand is why these modern investigators had no problem with just giving up on the case at the end of the show. It seemed to me that they had a good description of the man, and a strong idea of the area where he lived. Why not investigate to see why Jack's murders stopped. My theory being that he was somehow killed after the November 9th 1888 killing. Could they not have looked for evidence of someone matching this description dying in the months following? --The Lone Bard 01:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This talk page is for discussing the article, not for discussing theories. If you want to discuss theories, I suggest you find another website... and read up on the crimes beforehand so you have some knowledge upon which to base a conclusion so that you don't actually fall for a rather reckless and nonsensical facial composite put together by people who know so little about the case that they think there are multiple, reliable witness statements to work off of. DreamGuy 15:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack the Ripper "face revealed" 

message: *For those interested, a WikiProject regarding crime in Great Britain has been proposed. MadMax 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Lucy-marie/WikiProject British Crime|WikiProject British Crime]] 

message: A paragraph in the media section states "Some believe the killer's nickname was invented by newspapermen to make for a more interesting story that could sell more papers. This became standard media practice with examples such as the Boston Strangler, the Green River Killer, the Axeman of New Orleans, the Beltway Sniper, the Hillside Strangler, and the Zodiac Killer..."
I believe that the Zodiac Killer should be ommitted from this list, as he applied the nickname to himself, and not the media.S davis 20:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objecting to removing that name. DreamGuy 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zodiac Killer 

message: There is no information in this article about where exactly the bodies of the victims were found. Surely such info is relevent to this article? Colin4C 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, this would be a welcome addition; especially to someone who recently wasted a half hour of a holiday photographing the wrong side of Berner Street!  MattHucke(t) 16:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added requisate info. Next nice thing would be for a map of the area, showing the murder sites (or maybe your photos???). Colin4C 11:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do.  I've already posted a few of my photos in the Mitre Square and Mary Jane Kelly articles.  Most of the others aren't as good, because the sites have changed too much - 29 Hanbury is a supermarket or something, Berner Street a schoolyard, and I wasn't sure of the exact spot on Durward Street.  But I'll try to upload more - it would be useful to give other travellers an indication of where to look.  MattHucke(t) 18:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Mission Accomplished - articles now exist for all five canonical murder sites, with photos of each.  Unfortunately, as I had limited time that evening (and a poorly drawn map), I did not get photos of George's Yard or Goulston Street, so if anyone has those, uploads would be appreciated.  MattHucke(t) 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where were the bodies of the victims found? 

message: I just found on a German forum a post which says that 'Krone online' had an article about renewed DNA testing of the letters done by Australian researcher Ian Findlay showing that Jack might very well have been a woman. As a possible suspect the name Mary Pearcey was given, who was in 1890 hanged for the murder of her lover's wife. Would someone like to investigate if more info about this is available? 210.211.245.36 21:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The line at the end of the letters section about tests being inconclusive was what mentioned the DNA test, but the link to the Australian news article explaining it no longer works. Bottom line is that one person who touched one hoax letter pretending to be from Jack but for which the police and modern sources do not believe had anything to do with the case was thought to be female, but we don;t know if that DNA came from 1888 or in the intervening century, when the letter was not kept in a forensically sealed environment. The Pearcey name is not thought by any sources to be a likely JAck the Ripper, and the inconclusive DNA tests in no way support the idea. 216.165.144.240 00:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA tests showed Jack was a Jill? 

message: Colin is now trying to label edits that he doesn't like as "vandalism" to try to justify reverting them. This is nothing but a transparent attempt to get his way through lying when he knows he can't get his way through consensus. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that any editor putting in false edit comments should be banned, as there is no excuse for it. 216.165.147.36 01:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is YOU who should be banned for creating TWO sub-sections soley devoted to bullying another editor. That is not what the wikipedia talk page is for. Such action is totally malicious and reprehensible. Colin4C 09:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatantly deceptive edit comments 

message: Assuming bad faith on the part of other editors and abusing and bullying and conducting vendettas against other editors is against wikipedia policy. Talk about the issues. Colin4C 10:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Attacks 

message: I have created an article on the Jill the Ripper theory, (I was surprised that wasn't already one though), and I would appreiciate help expanding it.
:List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects already covers the couple of Jill the Ripper theories, and Jill the Ripper redirects to that article now. There's really not any way to expand it beyond what's already there, and certainly not much reason to, as it's an extremely minor theory. I also undid your change to mention Jill the Ripper in the lead, as, again, very minor theory, and even people who talk about Jack the Ripper possibly being female still call it the Jack the Ripper crimes, as that's the well known name. DreamGuy 02:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jill the Ripper]] 

message: Why are there hardly any references in this article? A very shoddy piece of work indeed: disorganised, incoherent and tendentious. This article needs a complete overhaul.Colin4C 19:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article could use some improvement, yes, but you've shown from your history of edits here that your idea of what would improve the article was often very shoddy itself and often based upon a gross misrepresentation of the sources to foist your own particular views onto the article. If this is your way of announcing that you've come back to start that all over again, I would advise against it.DreamGuy 23:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to start adding references to the article proper, as we could get it up to GA status without too much work. It might be best reading through the article, and seeing what statements we can attribute to books on the subject. Ideally every statement of fact should have a source. I'd suggest we mainly draw from Sugden's The Complete History of Jack The Ripper and Evans and Skinner's The Ultimate Jack The Ripper Sourcebook. They seem to be the most authoritative and least biased accounts. Thoughts anyone? Martin 16:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are two of the better ones, yes. Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates by Evans and Rumbelow additionally has the benefit of being much more updated and recent, and at least less biased to the author's opinions than most. Even all those will only get you so far, as research into the field is very active and ongoing.  DreamGuy 23:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Loading my watchlist today, I find that Dorset Street, London has been nominated for deletion.  As the articles for the other four locations are of similar length and content, I fear they too may be nominated next. 
If you think these articles are worthwhile parts of this project, please assist in improving them (particularly Dorset Street, as it's in immediate danger), and participate in the deletion discussion.  MattHucke(t) 21:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ripper location article nominated for deletion