Talk:Whitechapel

message: There are a lot of inconsistencies between underground-station and tube-station in the links, which I will try and fix according to WikiProject London. --/Mat 10:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Stations

message: Am I mistaken in believing that more than a century before the major influx of Jews and Irish, there was an influx of Huguenots? Certainly true in the area immediately around Brick Lane, I don't know farther soutn/east in Whitechapel as well.
:Huguenots were throughout the area from Shoreditch to Bethnal Green (Huguenot weaver riots led to two ring leaders being hanged outside the Salmon & Ball for 'cutting cloth' - damaging the product). Weaving was homeworking, with piecework being taken to the masters (in Spitalfields) for onward sale. Huguenots were also active in furniture and boot making - around the area; and further afield in clock and instrument making - around Clerkenwell.
:There were several Huguenot chapels in the area, many reused as synagogues and latterly as mosques. One of my ancestors came here in 1585, but most arrived at the end of the 17th century. Since the community was pretty close, marriages took place within it and the last identifyingly 'french' name in my family died out about 1900 in Bethnal Green. There were many Huguenot charities and societies, including 'reading clubs' many of these led to early workers' associations, trade unions and other socialist organisations Kbthompson 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huguenots 

message: Shouldn't we mention Whitechapel Art Gallery? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
:Absolutely, yes! I will do something about this soonest. One of my hobbyhorses, (that I haven't had time to pursue) is that given its importance in East London, contemporary art in the area is covered very poorly indeed in Wikipedia, but the overall subject needs a proper revamp. In the meantime, it's well naff to leave the Whitechapel out. Tarquin Binary 19:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one! I fixed the redlink to the gallery, though. It does actually have a pedia entry, which I think I or someone else should strive to get a pic for. There's a lot of good material in this piece, actually, but I do think it needs organising into sections, which will generate a contents menu for a start. And more pix will help with layout too. Tarquin Binary 23:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitechapel Art Gallery 

message: Jmabel, I wote this article a couple years ago and it has stayed basically the same since (not that it should always stay the same, I'm just establishing I'm no casual editor on this one). I'll go with your deletion of that "flowery phrase that implies malign divine intervention, and tells reader he/she must believe in it", at least until I think it over more. I'm afraid, though, that you've misinterpreted it and also that one man's flowery is another man's well-turned. It is the latter point that concerns me most, actually, because I fear this general tendency to make the tone of all articles on all subjects match the tone of sci/tech articles is extremley damaging to the project. I think the best editors do believe in variety for variety's sake, and an article on a colorful hard-scrabble neighborhood presents a fine opportunity for a varying tone and spirit. It makes me think of what the best zoos have done in recent decades: instead of havng absolutely every animal locked down in a tightly caged exhibit, some have been given space to run and fly. Sure, you can clip every bird's wings and have an endlessly neat aviary. But is it better than having a few exhibits in which the birds can zing around and show off a little? Not to me.
For reference's sake, here's the removed sentence: "Regardless of one's politics, it is difficult to read either How the Other Half Lives or The People of the Abyss without wondering if such deep, large scale social ills (poverty, homelessness, exploitive work conditions, prostitution, infant mortality, etc.) are caused, or at least abetted, by something or somebody more culpable than fate."
As its author I can tell you there is no implication of malign divine intervention. The implication is that the wealthy of Olde London, those basically of the Ebeneezer Scrooge cast, as most of the wealthy in most cultures, had been so industrious over generations in concentrating the great majority of resources into their own hands that they must share some culpability for the bad condition of all these hundreds of thousands whose antecedents had not been so acquisitive (or one might even say "rapacious"). Perhaps malign, definitely not divine.
That covers the "somebody" of the sentence. The "something" also does not imply God/gods but points to greed itself as a disembodied force.
I admit the phrase is ornate and rather throwback in tone (as you can see, I'm fond of writing this way). But I submit that this sort of writing is not always inferior to the direct, clipped approach employed as the default in Wikipedia. Come now, when we are honest we admit that we enjoy Dickens more than we enjoy Hemingway. That's not to say that in the end we get more from Dickens than from Hemingway, but it is to say that the ornate familiar voice can sometimes have its place. Think it over. JDG 10:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flowery phrase 

message: Where does Whitechapel end and Spitalfields begin? This is confusing me. For instance Jack the Ripper's depredations are often referred to as the 'Whitechapel Murders'. However the infamous Ripper pub, 'The Ten Bells' is adjacent to Christ Church, Spitalfields and the site of Mary Kelly's murder is just a few yards away.... Colin4C 09:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of the Ripper, http://www.met.police.uk/history/ripper.htm should sort this out for you. In more generality, I don't know the precise borders, or even whether there are legally established borders of anything other than the City. - Jmabel | Talk 00:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Off the top of my head, Whitechapel was a distinct region of London, part of Stepney - with an eponymous 'chapel of ease'. Spitalfields originated as 'the open land beyond Bishopgate and Whitechapel' related to the old Bethlehem Hospital (the original Bedlam, lies beneath Liverpool Station) - either because it funded it, or because it was where the patients worked. So, Spitalfields had no seperate identity, but became attached to the name both of a C17th estate and an C18th market that later occupied the site. If demanded, I can probably dig out references. I have maps, but they're only photocopies. It was also a 'tenter ground' being used for the dying of cloth - so, might be one of the origins of the area's associations with the rag trade. HTH Kbthompson 16:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Philosophical Question 

message: how would I make an article about the death metal band named whitechapel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.47.231.39 (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You would need to be signed in, to create an article. If the band were considered non-notable, or the article were considered self promotion, it would likely be deleted at an early stage. A quick web search shows it to be a relatively new US band, and it might be more appropriate to wait until they were better known. Kbthompson 12:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: For the technicalities of the matter, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. - Jmabel | Talk 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and they are mentioned on the whitechapel (disambiguation) page at the head of this article. Kbthompson (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  Whitechapel (band) !! Artlondon (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Whitechapel (band)]] 

message: Please can people remember to make it a priority to cite sources in the appropriate form for all material added to date as well as any new material. Cosmopolitancats 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your unnecessary edits: material here is cited. Try to be more creative with your time and energy! Colin4C 11:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page DOES cite sources. I don't see what your problem is and I don't need your advice on wikipedia guidelines. This article is one of wikipedia's best and does not need to be disfigured by otiose citation notes. Do you have any positive information on Whitechapel or are you just one of those people who revel in negativity and pedantry? Colin4C 11:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you find the need to respond as you do.  'Best' is an assessment that can only be made after a structured evaluation.  So far as I am aware this article has never been subjected to a wikipedia evaluation as it has no assessed standard attributed to it.  Would you like me to get somebody to assess it to clarify whether you or I are correct in our assertions.  Alternatively I could ask User:JPD the administrator who reviewed and commented on sourcing for the Bow, London article and its citation to review this one also and advise.  Maybe that would be best?  For the record I'm certainly not denying that a lot of good work has gone into this article, nor that most of it can be verified from reliable sources.  I'm only suggesting that the approach to sourcing does not conform to wikipedia standards and that this article could get a better assessed grade when it is assessed if it did. Cosmopolitancats 12:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not claiming to be authoritative or anything, but while the article is indeed quite good, it could definitely be improved by citing more sources. Putting general tags at the top is not necessarily the best way to achieve this, and arguing about it here is definitely less productive than actually finding the references. It woudl be more helpful to add footnotes to soem of the statements in the article. Having said that, inline citations are often over-emphasised - it would even be good to simply relable some of the external links as references, if they were indeed used as such. JPD (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite sources

message: The serial killer known as 'Jack the Ripper' has been called such from 1st October 1888, in the midst of the  cycle of killings up to the present day. The horrible death of Mary Kelly was ascribed to 'Jack the Ripper' by contemporaries at the time in 1888. There were eleven murders in total known as the 'Whitechapel Murders'(1888-91) in the police files, however they were almost certainly not committed by one single 'Whitechapel Murderer'. Also the first two murders in the sequence attributed to the 'Whitechapel Murderer', were almost certainly not committed by the serial killer known as 'Jack the Ripper'. The first was indeed probably commited by a gang.  Therefore it is imprecise and misleading to equate a putative and most probably non-existent single 'Whitechapel Murderer' with the serial killer known as 'Jack the Ripper'. 'The Whitechapel Murderer' is an inaccurate expansion of meaning of the term 'Whitechapel Murders'. For instance are all the murders committed in London this year the work of the 'London Murderer'? It is illogical....Whereas there was a serial killer 'known as' 'Jack the Ripper' who was almost certainly responsible for 5 of the the total of 11 Whitechapel Murders. Jack the Ripper was of course not his real name, but there was a single person behind at least 5 of the Whitechapel murders. Similarly the 'Yorkshire Ripper' has been equated with Peter Sutcliffe. Its a question of semantics....Colin4C 11:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack the Ripper 

message: :Until 1985 a large purpose built mosque with a dome and minaret was built in the heart of Whitechapel, attracting thousands of worshippers every week, until it was further expanded with the London Muslim Centre in 2004.[10]
What is meant there?  I suspect a broken transition from the previous sentence... --Jim Henry (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence 

message: Check Virginia Woolf's Flush!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.176.178.184 (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature 

message: On my display at present, the section heading Literature appears superimposed over the photo of the East London Mosque. Going into edit mode, I can't really see what the problem is (just too many images further up the page?). Anyway, it looks pretty dreadful: can somebody try to fix it? Thanks. GrindtXX (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Whitechapel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120525050352/http://www1.salvationarmy.org/heritage.nsf/titles/1878_Foundation_Deed_Of_The_Salvation_Army to http://www1.salvationarmy.org/heritage.nsf/titles/1878_Foundation_Deed_Of_The_Salvation_Army
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140429204751/http://www.ajplus.co.uk/b_bank/search_results_details/?report_ID=7048 to http://www.ajplus.co.uk/b_bank/search_results_details/?report_ID=7048
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120313220740/http://www.onetowerhamlets.net/your_local_area/consultations/june_2010/whitechapel_station.aspx to http://www.onetowerhamlets.net/your_local_area/consultations/june_2010/whitechapel_station.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This edit:  of 9 August this year introduced text that does not conform to WP:UKCOUNTIES. I reverted the text to the long standing version pre 9 August. The editor who added this has now reverted it back in. Per WP:BRD this should be discussed, although the editor is aware from elsewhere that the consensus and the guidelines are that we do not talk about historic counties, in wikivoice, as though they still exist within their traditional borders. Reverting the wrong and challenged version back in is not helpful. You may wish to find a version of the ext that meets the agreed consensus, or else I ask you to self revert it back out again. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middlesex No Longer Exists