Talk:Jack the Ripper/Archive 4

What is remaining to Suss out?

What changes are we proposing for the main article at this point? Are we going to replace it with the User:Jaysweet/Jack_the_Ripper temp page graciously afforded us by Jay, or are we doing something else? What are some key points about the article content that still need addressing? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks okay to me, as long as we are now all agreed that we are allowed also to have The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91) article to cover that aspect of the strange case of JTR. In general I hope we are agreed that not everything to do with the case has all to go into the same article or that an Agatha Christie type who-dunnit perspective is the only one permitted. This case had complex social and historical ramifications in reality as well as being the happy hunting ground for crank theorists as to the identity of JTR. The latter aspect is not the only or even most important thing about the case to my mind. How often have we seen a fanciful house of straw built on the flimsiest foundation of fact in this case. The Ripperologist Sugden's book is a case in point in which he makes a great deal out of supposed eye witness descriptions of the Ripper, something which has been proved over and over again in police practice to be a very dubious precedure. Basically most people can't remember very well what people looked like and different people give widely different accounts of the same person. None of which bothers the average Ripperologist with a gullible public out there to fool and to pay for his speculative nonsense. Colin4C (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[conflict] I'm still loathe to make changes to an article that will be reverted at the first opportunity. I think the intro could do with some work, there needs to be a linking narrative to develop the story - there's nothing wrong with much of the detail (subject to some of the fact checking indicated by Colin) - it just can't be presented as a list of evidence/suspects/etc. The article needs structure and deserves to be developed by GA and FA guidelines, not just left in aspic. Kbthompson (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In aspic? ewww, you would have to remind me of my Aunt Carol's Christmas dish, wouldn't you (shiver).

So, the Jaysweet draft page is an acceptable replacement for what we have now? I think we should incorporate those changes which present the subject not - as Colin and Kbt have noted - as a whodunit, but instead simply stating that this was a serial murderer, here are the victims most agree could be attributed to him/her, here are the ones s/he might have also killed, and here is what was done at the time to catch the person. Subsequent info could address how successive generations of 'ripperologists' have applied modern forensic methods to the crimes, with varying solutions and degrees of acceptance. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with your Aunt Carol, we all have our personal shibboleth's ... I'd describe the Jaysweet version as a start. I have issues with it, and think that I could improve it for structure and style, I wouldn't dare to mess with the substantive stuff. I'd still like to get some input from DG - if he can be persuaded to work collaboratively, rather than obstructively. He actually has a lot to offer on the subject. Kbthompson (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with the Jaysweet version as a start and I personally am happy to work in a constructive collaborative fashion. My motto (nicked from Chairman Mao) is 'let a thousand flowers bloom' and 'trust the people'. I oppose control-freakery in all its forms, especially on this particular subject. Subjective interpretations by particular editors should not be foregrounded as immutable fundamentalist biblical revelations. If we don't know something we should admit it, not pretend that we do know. Do ghosts exist? Nobody knows. Does God exist? Nobody knows. How many people did JTR kill? Nobody knows. Who was JTR? Nobody knows. Is Bush a Martian? Yes. Colin4C (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Its very quiet round here. I'm getting nervous...These streets of wiki-Whitechapel are so dark at this time of year and who knows what editor might be lurking round the wiki-corner with a razor sharp knife in his hand, waiting to pounce and cut me up?....Colin4C (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

DG has not posted anything on the project since 12/16, is a good part of why things have quieted down. When one side of a discussion goes silent, the discussion tends to taper off as well. At some point it will make sense to assume he's gone and not returning, but it's hard to judge when that point has been reached. MIA 1 month? 2 months? I really don't know. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is probably best to proceed on Jaysweet's test article, wait until it's fairly stable and then check for a consensus for it to replace the current edition. To be well structured and to cover the topic, it may require several subpages - so, we'll just have to keep track somehow. Kbthompson (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Okay. I think it might be helpful to archive alot of the older stuff (as we all know what has been discussed) and set the link for Jaysweet's page at the top of this one. Subsequent 'editions' can be listed there as well. Sound good? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as an update, DG has apparently not been absent, but says that he had not noticed that his browser had logged him out, and he has thus been IP editing for a couple of weeks now. (See here and here for details of his return to logged in status.) So my musings above about what to do if DG did not return to editing are moot. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, its an excuse that has become a bit threadbare. Eitehr way, while I feel he was useful as someone who knew a lot, there is no sense in using a reference book that cuts you every time you use it. We are all fairly intelligent and Colin seems to know the material just as well. Let's just move on. If DG comes back, he will have to behave. if he doesn't, he might go away again. I for one am not planning my editing around his schedule anymore. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whitechapel Murders Timeline

I'm hoping to develop a Whitechapel Murders Timeline at The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91). I'm sure that once everything is put in chronological order it will make more sense than skipping around and back and forth at the whim of dubious post-hoc subjective interpretations about what is relevent about this case. The timeline will also demonstrate how late in the investigation the 'Jack the Ripper' hoax was foisted on the gullible public. Colin4C (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding. Perhaps there would be useful citations that we might be able to cull from there for use in the ripper article. If you need help or a non-ripperologist pair of eyes, give a shout. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Arcayne! Maybe 'The Investigation Timeline' section needs bullet points or to be highlighted or jazzed up a bit??? Just to add that it is still in a fairly rudimentary state. I fully intend to give it more attention but am a bit worried at the moment that you-know-who will try to have it deleted making all my labour-in-vain. Colin4C (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:kbthompson - recusal

Just a note to say that as I have been involved in prior discussions I recuse myself of administrative functions on 'Jack the Ripper' unless there is complete consensus. I reserve the right to contribute in a forthright manner! Thanks. Kbthompson (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with you editing here at all. Admins do it all the time (just ask Texas Android, an admin). I think objections would arise only if you started making people 'talk like a duck' else you'd block them :). Not likely to happen. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you misread. I reserve the right to contribute in a forthright manner, i.e. in respect of this article, but I am recusing myself of administrative functions in this respect, as I am involved. Still, maybe I'll reserve the right to make you talk like a duck in a forum of my choice 8^). Kbthompson (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Walter Dew

Hi everybody, I am having one or two problems on the Walter Dew article. The Ripper section has been reverted a couple of times by someone called Dreamguy. I have re-reverted his edits and have put a detailed explanation as to why on the article's talk page. Could some one else take a look at it to see if I'm wrong about it. I feel that maybe I'm too close to the article, having started it, to be entirely objective about it. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it look. I just read a book about Walter Dew last week called 'Walter Dew: The Man Who Caught Crippen' by Nicholas Connell. I have also read several books about the Ripper. Colin4C (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with me archiving the older stuff? I will summarize what we have already come up with at the top (for consensus' sake), as well as including the Jaysweet temp page. Please let me know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection requested

Things seem to have pretty much stalled out. Given DG's absence from the discussions, and the general lack of progress on the user space version in the last month, I have filed an official request to have the situation examined by a neutral admin with an eye towards removing the protection and performing a history merge of the user space version over the old protected version. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird. I just now noticed that there was a redirect from the talk pageto archive 4, I wonder how that happened... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to what I think you are referring to, it is because I archived by Move, which is a way of archiving that allows the history to remain with the archived comments. The talk page is moved to a new name (Archive 4 in this case), which creates a redirect automatically at the original talk page location. The redirect is then replaced with a reconstructed talk page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like protection was lifted. Are we in agreement to adopt the Jaysweet page draft to replace the article currently in place? We can work from there onward (keeping the parts of hard-fought consensus in place). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree to adopt the Jaysweet version. Colin4C (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're still awaiting the history merge between versions. I don't know how to do that! Kbthompson (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

History merge requires admin tools (it involves deleting and restoring the history at certain points). It's now done. The history of the Jaysweet user page version is now part of the history of the main page.

For anyone who is interested, a history merge basically involves:

1) Move page A over page B deleting page B in the process (the last is admin only).

2) Undelete the revisions of page B deleted in the first step. (admin only again)

3) Depending on which version (A or B) you want to remain as the active page, and which name you want it under, a couple more non-admin clean-up steps may be needed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, it has lost a number of recent edits by Bletchley, but they should probably read the talk page. Kbthompson (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Texas, i knew you were the right guy to ask for help with this. I am not too concerned with Bletchley's edits; most of them were unsourced and the main image he added shouldn't have been used as a placeholder image anyway, as its fair use rationale and summary weren't as solid as the ones we already had. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Er....this doesn't look like the Jaysweet version at all. Its exactly the same as the version which was frozen! Colin4C (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not having followed the actual discussions that closely, I don't know what either particular version looks like. I just merged the history from the user space version into the main JtR page history. I assumed that someone else had already copied the latest user space version over the active article to activate it. Anyone is welcome to do that as if doing a normal revert. All edits from the user page are now in the JtR page history. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Gone ahead and done it. Anyone who has made useful edits since the unprotection will need to redo them. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's better! Had me worried for a bit...Colin4C (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is now the 'Jaysweet version' - feel free to correct if anyone feels wronged. Kbthompson (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Investigation

Just thinking it might make sense to incorporate the material under the heading of 'The Goulston Street Graffiti' with the 'Investigation' section together with further material about the police investigation I have provided at The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91) thus providing a coherent and chronological account of the police investigation into the Ripper crimes. What do people think? Colin4C (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am of two minds on this. Allow me to ask a couple of questions so I can decide, if I may:

• Were the letters considered by the investigating officers at the time as actually being from the killer?
  • If so, what was gleaned at the time from the investigators (leads, etc.)?
  • If not, who did the investigators feel wrote the letters?
• Were the letters investigated concurrently with the murders as they were occurring, or only after the fact?
  

I think that if I could get an answer to those, I could render an opinion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The police were sceptical as to the authenticity of the Dear Boss letter, received 25th Sept, and the Saucy Jack postcard, recieved 1st Oct, both signed by 'Jack the Ripper' but felt duty bound to investigate them. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Charles Warren wrote to the Home Office on 10th October: 'At present I think the whole thing is a hoax but of course we are bound to try and ascertain the writer in any case'. Inspector George Littlechild the head of Special Branch thought that they were penned by the journalist, Tom Bulling, who had forwarded them to the police. The letters had first been addressed to the Central News Agency where Bulling worked rather than directly to a newspaper or the police. All this was highly suspicious. However the jury is still out on the notorious "From Hell" letter sent to George Lusk of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee on Oct 16th, signed "Catch me when you can". This was the letter enclosing half a kidney which the writer claimed he had taken from the body of Catherine Eddowes (the other half he claimed to have fried and eaten). The writer of this letter does not use the name 'Jack the Ripper' but as to whether it is genuine or not who can tell? Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell (2001) by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner is a fascinating book on the subject of the letters. As for the Goulston Street Graffiti, there were conflicting views in the police force as to whether it had been written by "Jack" or whether he had fortuitously left part of Eddowes' apron next to a bit of anti-Semitic graffiti that was already there. There is of course a whole conspiracy theory involving the royal family and the masons concerning the graffiti: if you want to know more about that the most painless way is to rent out the film From Hell or the earlier film Murder by Decree which delve fully into the sublime nonsense of it all. Colin4C (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I needed. Thanks for explaining it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I am thinking we might want to apply for semi-protection, as we seem to be encountering a fair amount of IP vandalism. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been worse. Maybe a group of editors could form themselves into an anti-vandal patrol, known as the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee ... I don't know what criteria are used to decide, some pages seem to qualify and this hasn't, in the past. It's a low level , but continual nuisance. Kbthompson (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

76.114.86.121's edit

The above number editor has just deleted The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91) article without saying anything on the Talk page and has altered this article to suit. I have reverted his edits until he explains his actions here. I would also like to ask 76.114.86.121 whether he has previously edited under the name of 'Dreamguy'? Colin4C (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A warning has been issued, with a request that any suggestion that the two articles are linked - or, not - should be discussed in the proper way on the talk pages of the article. Another user has suggested that this account is a sockpuppet, but I don't think in a procedurally correct manner. I would suggest that you allow this editor the courtesy of assuming 'Good Faith' and if they wish to press the point discuss it on the relevant talk page. Please remember, it's the article, not the editor. Kbthompson (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So are 76.114.86.121's and Dreamguy allowed to have three reverts each until it is proved that they are one and the same person? Are they allowed to combine their forces to defeat anybody in an edit war up until the point when the number is revealed as a sockpuppet? I am not an expert on wikipedia law so would like this point clarified. Colin4C (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Its just that several months back I wasn't aware that an anon number and Dreamguy were the same person and assumed that they were in a majority, but now I realize that in that case 1+1 = 1. I feel ashamed of myself for having been duped by this lousy trick and don't wan't others here to be duped also. The peremptorary tone of the number's comments and the fact that he seems incredibly well versed in wikipedia rules for a new user leads me to be suspicious. I am not going to be duped again, not for anybody's benefit! Colin4C (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[Conflict] I take it that that is a merely rhetorical question? There is no 'wiki-law', merely chaos moderated by consensus. The situation is under review by independent admins, have confidence in them and stick to issues regarding the article. Kbthompson (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This was a good one: Code of Hammurabi from 1760 BC. Old King Ham could teach wikipedia a thing or two methinks. I guess wikipedia law is more like those Dark Age laws of Trial by Combat or floating witches to see if they sink or swim or holding a red hot bar in your hand to see if it burns or not...: Trial by ordeal.

Colin4C (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please Cease the edit warring

Please stop the edit warring on this page. The vandalism is bad enough. Why not bring your ideas on the article into this talk page and let's work it out here...? Thank you, Berean Hunter (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK do people think that linking The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91) is better than unlinking it? In my edit I support linking. Colin4C (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they be linked?..sounds logical to me. Is there an argument against linking them or how they are linked? Berean Hunter (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask Dreamguy and/or 76.114.86.121. They/he are/is the one(s) who unlinked it. Just to say that though they seem to be in the majority I strongly suspect they are the same user. But if they are different I hope they will accept by apologies for confusing them. What do other editors think? Colin4C (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't even see what the problem is. It seems like DreamGuy, yet again, thinks he knows best and refuses to discuss it with anyone. --clpo13_(talk) 22:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, can I ask for calm. DG can I ask you to participate in a discussion. It's this kind of thing that got the page protected in the first place. Can I remind others to limit their discussion to the article, not editors. Kbthompson (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kbthompson here. If you are infuriated by another user's edits, deal with them here. If they refuse to participate, then they miss out on consensus. If they continue to act in a way that is disruptive, report them to AN/I. Clearly, kicking a hole in their bum here isn't a big enough encouragement to act better. We should try to avoid rising to the bait of bad behavior and mischaracterization, and focus on the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they need to be linked. Jack1956 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As do I. Kbt and Colin (who's actually published in the friggin' field) feel it should be linked. Four for, one against. Call me zany, but I think we're done here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe they should be linked...both Rumbelow's Complete JTR and Sugden refer to most if not all of the listed victims on the Whitechapel Murders Article...looks like Ripperology 101 to me. No one has stated a counter-argument...? Berean Hunter (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal view is that the case file of the Whitechapel murders overlaps this topic, but not all the murders are attributed to JtR. I think, for the sake of clarity they should be separate, and that offers an opportunity to concentrate this article on the Ripper's attributed killings. Kbthompson (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

They should be linked, but not merged. Of that I am absolutely certain. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Latest anon edit:

"One author of note who focused his writings on Jack the Ripper in the late 19th Century was Guy B.H. Logan."

Just to say that I've never heard of Guy B.H. Logan and a google search of the name yields no results. Anyone else have a clue to this enigma? Colin4C (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick look on abebooks.com suggests he was a true-crime hack of the 1920s, with titles like "Guilty or Not Guilty?: Stories of Celebrated Crimes" to his credit. (Try searching without the middle initials.) Barnabypage (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No cite means no inclusion. This article has seen enough fallout that it is clear that without citation and consensus, no contentious edit will be added tot he article. I would suggest that you invite the editor who added it here to discuss the citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Very simple and obvious edits being removed for no reason?

One more time (though it has been explained and ignored by Arcayne more than once already in his rush to blind revert any edits I ever make to this article):

• The site jack-the-ripper.org is nothing but spam. It has no encyclopedic content. If you go to the victims page, for example, all it has is photos and names saying they died. The site has SIGNIFICANTLY less information than this very article. WP:EL rules are pretty clear on this, we don't just add links to add links, they have to have encyclopedic purposes, and this site is primarily Google adfarming with info copied and pasted apparently from this very page.

• The Fairy Fay section needs a cite for who claims it was based upon the song. There is no reason to link to the lyrics of the song, as that provides no source for saying anyone claimed that that's where the alleged victim's name came from. When I add a tag request WHO said it, either provide text saying exactly who did or leave it, don't just remove it in a blind revert.

Bottom line here is I have just as much rights here to make edits as anyone (and if WIkipedia were set up to give more weight to people with demonstrated knowledge on a topic, much more), and a calculated and demonstrated history of blind reverting all of my changes simply will not fly. He's adding spam and removing calls for cites, for crying out loud. Can't get more basic than that. DreamGuy (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you keep strictly to the article content and can I also suggest that everyone gives each other the consideration they all deserve. As we are all aware, these revert wars just end with the article being protected. Kbthompson (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just got here. I was out blind-reverting lotsa articles and misinterpreting Wiki policy to a bunch of reporters while running over a busload of nuns and cute little puppies. Gosh, destroying Wikipedia single-handedly is hard work. :P

I have no problem with DG editing in this article, so long as he somehow learns the value and rules of seeking consensus with his edits. Deleting information with but a speculative edit summary does not constitute discussion. Deleting precisely the same information after it has been restored less than two weeks later is another example of seeming contempt for his editors (or admins, if his User Talk page is to be considered a true viewing of his unhappiness). In short, it is unreasonable to expect editors to tolerate edits from someone who has all the social graces of someone raised by wolves. Therefore, discussion is key. It doesn't matter if he is the DaVinci of the subject, his weight of contribution is going to always be weighed against his ability to work well with others. Its a community; if he wants to be a luminary, he needs to seek another venue.

The Jack-the-Ripper.org site is not a spam site. DG's seeming disallowance of this particular site seems less than genuine, especially when one considers that he admins a JTR site, and we neither have no way to know if the site in question takes away visitors to his site nor do we know if he personally endorses hs own site. In fact, we do not know what site he admns for; that said, it would seem prudent for him to recuse himself on matters concerning external JTR links, unless he is willing and prepared to disclose what site he actually admins on. He doesn't have to do it here. As Kbthompson is in fact an admn, he needs only disclose it to him, and Kbt can evaluate the legitimacy of DG's contention with the contested site. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I don't "admin" a JTR site, and these sorts of attacks are just more of the nonsense Arcayne is known for: bad faith, blind reverts and the assumption of wrongdoing because of personal bias. This also seems to be a particularly bad faith claim coming from someone he had previously argued that Colin's edits should take precedence because he supposedly has written for the field. No evidence of Colin having written anything or being respected or so forth has been demonstrated, and if Arcayne were interested in fair dealings instead of just attacks he should have asked Colin what his biases were. DreamGuy (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also for the record, the claim it is unreasonable to expect editors to tolerate edits from someone who has all the social graces of someone raised by wolves is especially ludicrous coming from Arcayne. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If everyone stuck to the article and its content, life would be a lot more pleasant for everyone. All parties, just be civil and stick to the point. Kbthompson (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ps www.jack-the-ripper.org doesn't strike me as particularly authoritative. If you can find another reference, that would be better. Kbthompson (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

pps OK, an external link, not a reference. I don't see ads, but then I block 'em. It should be fine, let readers make up their own minds. Kbthompson (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a question about making up their own minds, it's a question of following Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia:External links is pretty clear on this issue. We don't link to things willy nilly, they have to have an encyclopedic purpose. Being added by someone for self-promotional purposes (added by an anon IP as only edit), having more ads than content, not having any more information that the article itself already has are all reasons which on their own would mean it shouldn't be here. Put them all together and there's no justification for keeping it here. Please start following the policies you claim you want to follow instead of just deciding to oppose anything I do, no matter how obvious it is. DreamGuy (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not the sole authority in determining what sources are good and which aren't We are, and the consensus thus far is to allow the reader to evaluate the strength of the website themselves EL is clear on a great many things, but it requires someone who can interpret the rule correctly; in order to use it effectively. Jack-The-Ripper is just as flawed as the other sites (one of which you have previously claimed to web-admin for - which seems to represent a significant conflict of interest since you haven't declared your special interest); all have ad space, and all have accurate and inaccurate (or speculative) information. We either allow them or we don't. EL is pretty clear on that, too. Both links follow current policies.It doesn't matter if an anon added it. Were that anon a sock-puppet, for example, then the edit would matter. Are you contending that the anon was a sock, DreamGuy?

Allow me to restate the question, DreamGuy, as I might have the titling wrong. Do you or do you not work in some capacity for a JTR website? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny how you pretend that my doing anything in the field is supposedly a bad thing while Colin claiming to have done something means you support him. First off, you should welcome people with actual expertise in the field and not try to run them off. Second, I never said I was an admin of any site, so I don't know where you came up with that. Third, anybody who is anyone in the field could be construed as "work in some capacity" for a website.... that would be thousands of people all told. Fourth, why aren't you loudly demanding that Colin not be allowed to edit, since you claim he is some sort of expert (which I sincerely doubt, based upon the content of his edits and comments over the years). All of my edits here have always been done following Wikipedia policies, including conflict of interest policies. Most importantly, the link in question does not come ANYWHERE CLOSE to following EL policy, which you'd have to admit if you actually read the thing instead of just blind revert anything I do. Why is it that you have not let a single edit of mine go by without blind reverting it for more than six months... even the ones you later were forced to admit on the talk page that you agreed with but only removed because you don't like me? You've got a serious problem here, and all your wikilawyering and flailing around and denial won't fix it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not what I asked, DG: do you work in any capacity for a JTR-type website beyond occasional user contribution? If so, you should disclose who that website is - if it is a cited source, you need to stay the hell away from defending it or criticizing others. It seems an easy question to answer yes or no to, without slipping into semantics. As for never admitting that you work/do work for a JTR website, are you really, really sure you don't want to retract that statement? There are enough folk who know you do work at one.

Secondly, the reason we don't give Colin as much of a hard time is that he is polite and is willing to work with others to find both consensus and sometimes compromise. Additionally, his block log is empty, so he's never been blocked for 3RR, gaming the system, edit-warring and whatnot. Were he uncivil and rude, he would likely find the Bucket o' Good Faith to be about as empty as you are finding it now. As it is, he doesn't use any Essjay crap to push his viewpoints through.

Now, if you want to discuss why you think the link doesn't follow EL policy, we can do that. You need to prve it doesn't, and we need to be able to agree that it doesn't. Its how we do things here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Colin certainly is not polite, nor is he willing to work with others to resolve any disputes... we just have a bunch of people who have decided to gang up and support each other's edits despite the fact that they very clearly violate policies. I think what we need to finally do here is get some new blood: people with a clue both about the topic and, preferably, how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Because the people who don't even pretend to care about either have taken over, and it's just sad. DreamGuy (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

DG, you haven't ever shown how the edits are violating policy. You have just stated they do without backing that statement up with any reasoning. Wikipedia's guidelines and policies are not concrete, so a simple statement that edits violate them isn't enough. And it would help a lot if you--and everyone else--would refrain from making major changes to the article while this discussion is ongoing. If you really want to work with other editors, discussion (minus the comments on other editors) is the first place to start. --clpo13_(talk) 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been shown. If you refuse to read the policy and refuse to read my explanation, or if you do read both and refuse to see how utterly obvious it is, that's your issue, that doesn;t mean I haven't "shown" it. DreamGuy (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that, as tragic crocodile tears are a drip-drip-dripping and threatening to deluge the immediate cyber-vicinity, that I for one have a clue about the topic and the wikipedia. If you look at the edit history you will see that I was the first editor on this article to include the absolutely basic information about where the bodies of the victims were found. This had apparantly not seemed worthy of mention by editors in the previous 4 years the article had been in existence, which is sad...snivel...[gets onion out]. Colin4C (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. That sure shows a lot. Probably not what you thought it would though. DreamGuy (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with DG on the "Fairy Fay" thing. I've never come across any suggestion that the name comes from the song, and if someone wants to make such, then they should provide a source. A link to the lyrics is not a source--the fact that the song exists is not evidence that the claim is true. revmagpie

From Richard Jones.

I sincerely apologise if I offended you in any way by posting a link to my site, but please could I stress that my site www.jack-the-ripper.org is not spam, nor is intended as spam. I am a ripper historian, and have been for over 25 years. I have in fact published several books on JTR, as well as creating a documentary dvd which has been well reviewed on Casebook.

My site is most certainly not a cut and paste of this "very article" but is the beginning of what I hope will be an online resource concerning the Jack the Ripper crimes. I admit the victims page lists the victims, as this page does, but that is because they were the victims of Jack the Ripper. However, they all link through to a far more detailed synopsis of each one of the killings, as well as looking at the wider context of the murders.

The google ads are simply a way of funding the photographs on the site, all of which were acquired or taken by myself or by Sean East. Few of them appear in this article and those that do are victim photographs that we actually took in Scotland Yard's Crime Museum.

The sections on the Common Lodging Houses, Prostitution in 1888, the Police Officers on the case are all original as indeed are all the sections on the site.

Once again I do apologise for any offence that I might have caused and assure you that I am in no way attempting to spam, but am trying to create a valuable resource. It is very much in its early stages and a certain amount of trial and error is inevitable.

Best of Wishes

Richard Jones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.172.38 (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr Jones, to begin with, you have nothing to apologize for. Your posting of the link without hamming it up here in the Discussion page (or tearing down another link) is to be commended. Also to be commended is your coming forward to explain more about the site. In fact, on behalf of most of my fellow editors, i apologize if you felt insulted by having your website characterized as spam. Sometimes online, there is a tendency by some contributors to act like bulls in a china shop, gaining imaginary courage from the relative anonymity of posting here in Wikipedia. Don't take it seriously. And please, feel free to contribute to the article as you will - someone interested in the subject matter for over 25 years cannot hurt the article at all.

I would encourage you to set up an account at Wikipedia (not using your real name, of course) and begin contributing. This allows for your good edits to accumulate and your reputation as a solid editor to grow. If you need any assistance in getting started, please do not hesitate to drop me a line. Welcome to Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, if Richard Jones would take a look at WP:COI and WP:SPAM he would find that adding a link to his site here is absolutely improper. Regardless of whether he is capable of writing good content or not (his book was pretty decent), that does not excuse linking to a site with very basic information of less content than this very article. Now, certainly, there are certain pages he has written that might be worth sourcing... the page he has on one of his many sites with [www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com/jack_letters.htm info about the Ripper letters] is quite good... but this guy is making money off his tours and feeding people to a secondary site for commercial purposes. DreamGuy (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, he isn't hawking the site; he's offering it as a source of valid information, which two other editors have already commented on as having. Every JTR site listed in the article is making money in some way. At least, Jones steps up and says, 'hey, this is my site - I can answer any questions about it that people have'. He isn't saying, 'my site is better than someone else's.' This is in marked contrast to other editors in the article who are suspiciously reticent about revealing the JTR website they are affiliated with while at the same time tearing down those sites that offer similar info. The up-front guy is going to win over the sneaky guy. Every single time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as I said, er, somewhere on this page, many websites Wikipedia considers reliable (e.g. news websites) contain advertisements. As long as a website isn't dedicated solely to advertising a product and as long as the information it contains is freely accessible (not subscription-based), it's not blatant spam and therefore shouldn't be discounted without discussion. As for the conflict of interest problem, well, that can easily be solved by having another editor add the link should it be removed. --clpo13_(talk) 03:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Which I am almost positive has happened a few times. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Channel Five paragraph

What an active article.

Anyway, I think the Channel Five paragraph should be removed:

On November 20, 2006, the British television channel Five released an E-FIT-generated photo illustration showing what the researchers affiliated with the documentary believe the serial killer may have looked like...

I don't think this is notable. In the long history of Jack the Ripper speculation, one particular 3D sketch created by one particular TV show surely doesn't mark any actual advance forward in identifying Jack the Ripper, the silly policeman's quote notwithstanding. The "Computer Enhanced!!" aspect of the 3D sketch is meaningless. Tempshill (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I noted this before. Your actual contention is that it is inaccurate. That a tv special was made, a sketch created and silly statements issued by policemen are all notable. Again, the threshold for inclusion is citability, not truth. I would recommend that you find info specifically characterizes the television program as bollocks (or whatever), and we can provide balanced info. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't try to tell him what his contention is. I also don't think it was notable. The fact that it was bollocks was already included, but that's really not enough in this case because even bringing it up unfairly biases people toward thinking it has any credibility at all in the field, and it doesn't. It was just a cheap gimmick for a documentary. DreamGuy (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the paragraph. It was referenced and NPOV, giving the pros and cons of the proposed identification. Not the definitive answer to the mystery of JTR's identity, I grant you, but that shouldn't be the criterion of inclusion here. Colin4C (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You should go look up WP:UNDUE weight rules for the exact criteria. Even mentioning something so ridiculous gives it more attention than it deserves. The image has no historical or factual basis. It was created as part of a publicity campaign for a documentary. We have notability and NPOV rules here, and both are majorly violated by wasting any time on that. DreamGuy (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We aren't in the business of biasing people one way or the other, and we aren't going to disinclude info because it happens to include all the trappings of tv. As well, we aren't her to play elitist parlor games; all have equal standings in the eyes of Wikipedia, Ripperologist or not, professor or not, money or not. Let's avoid that altogether, as it will only lead to furthr unpleasantness. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, every time you put it back you are, in fact, in the business of "biasing" people. And, frankly, no, not everyone has equal standings as far as the policies of Wikipedia are concerned. If you don't follow them, you aren't contributing. And, frankly, considering that you tried to claim Colin's edits had to stay because he was allegedly "published" in the field (which again is extremely doubtful, based upon his edit history here), you were the one preaching elitism. I am preaching Wikipedia policies and making an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy is continuing to remove this paragraph, as well as the jack-the-ripper.org site. I've requested that he discuss it here, but he appears to be ignoring me, as my first request was on the 11th and his most recent edit removed the exact same content. Still no reasons given, though. --clpo13_(talk) 22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's give him the chance to wise up and approach the discussion. No one is going to get tired of reverting his undiscussed non-consensus edits, so he will either edit his way into either an RfC/UC or AN/I or an eventual topic ban. So long as we follow the protocol for dealing with disruptive editing (and not be goaded into reciprocal bad behavior, which would only distract admins from a highlighting of the DG's pattern of behavior), the problem will more or less get resolved. Stay cool, and simply report him if it gets to be more than 'a flea on the dog' to coin a phrase. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made the mistake of edit warring with DreamGuy, which resulted in admins ignoring his tendentious edits and focusing on me. Following the rules is always a good suggestion. --clpo13_(talk) 23:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Clpo13 claimed "Still no reasons given, though."? Hello, reasons were given. The fact that you and a couple of others simply ignore them doesn't mean they weren't given. DreamGuy (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Where were these reasons, then? I can't ignore something if I can't find it. --clpo13_(talk) 01:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can't find it then you clearly have not even looked. The difference between that and ignoring it outright is virtually nonexistent. DreamGuy (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of coherence, it'd probably be best to limit this discussion to the section below, since it's on the same topic. --clpo13_(talk) 04:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Museum in Docklands

From 15 May, the Museum in Docklands is mounting an exhibition of the original (Scotland Yard) evidence in the case, from the National Archives. Kbthompson (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

But will they will be selling Ripper T shirts and souvenir mugs? Worth a look I guess - though no doubt there will be one or two dodgy looking Ripperologists hanging about the building trying to entice one into completely futile arguments... Colin4C (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go, then - quisque pro omnibus.  ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'd probably take the train ... 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Gah, punishment - surely a product of an English education...- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparantly a new book entitled 'Jack the Ripper and the East End' is being published in association with exhibition: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-East-David-Spence/dp/0701182474/ref=sr_1_43?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205187087&sr=8-43 Colin4C (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring again!

Can I remind everyone that it not good to edit war - that just gets the page protected so no-one can edit it. Can I also remind people to discuss changes. Those particular changes appear to have reached some kind of consensus for inclusion - that's only amongst five-six people, but bullying reverts don't get anyone anywhere - so, talk about it before taking them out. Oh, and remember 3RR! Kbthompson (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's it. I'm not touching the article again, but DreamGuy reverted to his preferred version once more without discussing it. If someone else wants to talk to him, feel free, but I'm not going to get into a tussle with him (or anyone) so long as my RfA is going on. I did notify him of the discussion, however, as a courtesy. --clpo13_(talk) 01:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the people blind reverting me would be the only group engaged in "bullying reverts". And the problem is, it has been talked about, with very clear links to the policies in question, but those are ignored. We can't ignore Wikipedia policy just because a gang of people who do not understand policies or the topic this article is supposed to cover decide their main strategy is to blind revert every edit I make. This isn't making an encyclopedia, this is just sheer gaming the system by trying to fake a consensus -- a real consensus looks at the edits, compares policies, and makes an informed decision. There has not even been the slightest attempt to do that from certain people in the last six months or more. People seem to be treating this more like some online game instead of a serious attempt at making an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If there has been discussion before, would you care to link to it or provide diffs? Also, consensus can change over time, and policies are not set in stone. That said, what policies are being violated? --clpo13_(talk) 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you not even look at the talk above? There's hardly anything on this page. Asking me to provide diffs to show something that's easily visible on the very page you are asking for it strikes me as quite peculiar. DreamGuy (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So when you say "it has been talked about before", you're referring to discussion not even a month old? That discussion never ended. This is a continuation of it. No consensus has been reached recently. --clpo13_(talk) 04:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You stated on my talk page that you disregard policy. Policy is super-consensus. Actions that violate policy overrule the desires of people who want to ignore the site's rules. The link in question is the most clear-cut example of WP:COI and WP:SPAM you could ever hope for, as it was posted by the owner of a site and the site has next to no info, Google ads, and exists to promote his commercial interests. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I said no such thing. I said "our opinions on how much policy matters differs greatly". Nothing about that says I think policy doesn't matter. You drew that conclusion from my words, and it's completely false. Policy does matter, unless it gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia (again, WP:IAR, which, ironically, is a policy). Consensus can always overrule policy. If the participants in a discussion decide a link isn't spam or evidence of conflict of interest, then it isn't. --clpo13_(talk) 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Cipo is right here, Dreamguy. If you want the edit you keep insisting upon, convince us of your viewpoint. After you are reverted once, youneed to realize that edit summaries- and snippy ones at that - are not going to get you the results you are seeking. In fact, reverting without discussion would eventually have some negative repercussions for you.

Consensus is not a static quality, unless the same majority remains unconvinced of the minority viewpoint. If something is being added against the rules, take the time to point out precisely what rues are being avoided. I think you get extra points if you can do so with a minimum of vitriol. Consider this your opportunity to address these points. Take the time now, since your edits/reverts aren't making any headway. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, you have proven yourself unwilling to llisten to any edit I make simply because it is me making it. You also in the past have explicitly said anyone with experience in the field ought to be ignored because they are all wackos. Your actions here are simply kneejerk obstructions to any improvement to the article. I have made discussions, so your continuing attempt to falsely claim I am reverting without discussion is clearly yet another attempt to try to create justification for disciplinary action under more false accusations. You (and one or two buddies who blind revert out of revenge for edits on this and related articles they didn't get to keep) are the ones violating a whole slew of policies. The difference is I don't bother taking the time to report you to try to get you in trouble, while you spend all your time trying to come up with ways you can try to justify filing some false report or another (one of your clueless buddies repeatedly falsely accused me of violating 3RR recently). You aren't interested in having an encyclopedia article that follows Wikipedia policies, it's clear you're just out to play games and try to win at any cost. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been asked to confine your comments to edits, and not editors. Your edits are not being singled out for reversion. They are being singled out because you choose to add in precisely the same edits over and over again without discussion, or specifically pointing out how they violate policy. Simply throwing out an acronym isn't good enough. We all know the policies and guidelines; you explaining how a particular statement/link/etc. violates them allows us as your fellow editors the opportunity a view into how you are interpreting - or misinterpreting - those policies and guidelines. You need to explain to us why we all of us are wrong, and not just say we are wrong and go back and revert back in a version that aesthetically pleases you.

Frankly, addressing your numerous uncivil, unsubstantiated (and largely inaccurate) accusations would be tantamount to making this discussion page all about you yet again, and that is simply boring. Your choices have negatively impacted your working environment here in Wikipedia, and that isn't because of some grand conspiracy to "Get Dreamguy" but because you've attracted enough negative editorial and administrative attention to yourself that you are now finding that the Wellspring of Good Faith can in fact flow a bit shallow. Own your mistakes and move forward. Continuing to blame everyone else for your misfortunes is simply going to marginalize you even further from the Project.

This is the last time I want to address your behavior here. The next time you act uncivilly or attack another editor or disrupt the article, you will simply be reported to AN/I or AN/3RR, depending on which policy or guideline you violate with no further warning. The article is about Jack the Ripper, not Dreamguy. Do what you need to to ensure it - and this discussion page - stays that way, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Steven Knight conspiracy theorist

Sorry, I should have checked the discussion page (or even just thought about it for a second), but it didn't occur to me that this article would have so much edit warring going on. Anyway, I removed the additional qualifier 'conspiracy theorist' from the description of Stephen Knight. I am aware that he had a theory about a conspiracy-but the term is pejorative, as it implies that the person so described is wrong. I'm sure that Knight is wrong, but I think that we can do better than this. The explanation about a Masonic plot makes the phrase redundant anyway.FelixFelix ^talk 21:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is edit-war central. Even Jack the Ripper himself would hesitate to dip into this particular piranha pool IMHO. Colin4C (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist author is an accurate and nonbiased title for Stephen Knight. He's the one who wrote the major book about the Royal Conspiracy Theory, which is what it's called, so there's no way getting around that description. DreamGuy (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Conspiracy theorist isn't a pejorative unless it's used like one. In this situation, it's perfectly descriptive: the man theorizes about conspiracies. --clpo13_(talk) 01:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, a 'conspiracy theorist' isn't just someone who has a theory about a conspiracy, they also have to be wrong. Which is why I tend to remove the phrase when I see it. Its almost always redundant (as with Stephen Knight in this case, where the passage decribes his theory about a masonic plot) and is nearly always used pejoratively to imply disapproval. And the royal conspiracy theory is what the WP article is called, I note previous editors objected to that title. FelixFelix ^talk 09:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Felix on this, Cipo. If someone called me a conspiracy theorist, he'd be picking up his teeth spread like bloody chicklets from the gutter. In almost any instance, it is a pejorative, lik the nutters who see the Gnomes of Zurich or the Vatican behind the curtain of all world events (FNORD). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly see how it can be used pejoratively. I'm guilty of using it that way myself. But I still don't think it automatically implies they're wrong. Unproven, perhaps, but not necessarily wrong. At any rate, given the concerns, I'm willing to let it slide. I suppose it is a bit redundant, considering the man is mentioned in the context of what would be considered a conspiracy theory. --clpo13_(talk) 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Which policy is violated?

There seems to be a revert war going on about policy violation. I don't understand. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the accusation gets thrown about a lot. Hopefully, the accuser will cite the specifics of what is violating policies and how. In the absence of proof, I'd say utterly disregard it. Good of you to ask, though. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Information was already provided. I say we utterly disregard those editors, like yourself, who knowingly pretend no specifics were given to try to justify their own bad behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, you could simply answer the question about how a certain policy was violated. That would be the civil thing to do, instead of attacking the person. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

New Information - help add it please

There is information on Jack the Ripper that is not mentioned on the page. It was found at casebook.org but here is the exact address that should take you to the information I am specifically talking about: http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-left.html It discusses the details of Polly Nichols's post mortem body, quotes Dr. Llewellyn, and ponders the possibility that Jack the Ripper was left-handed (he cut his victims' throats left to right, etc). I would edit the page myself but I'm not sure how to use the source, etc and want it done properly (as I'm sure everyone else does as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.207.111 (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not really new information, and not particularly noteworthy either. It's just the opinion of one person. Certainly the idea that the killer was left handed has been thoroughly debunked by most authorities on the topic over the years. DreamGuy (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

With a modicum of respect, is it in fact a single opinion that the Ripper was a leftie? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arcayne. Yes, pretty much. Dr. Llewellyn was the only person who examined the bodies and came to the conclusion that the killer was left-handed. Every other doctor who participated in a Ripper autopsy either disagreed with Llewellyn or said it was impossible to tell. Any belief or claim that the Ripper was definatively left-handed can be tracked back to a single source--Dr. Llewellyn. Revmagpie (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, Dreamguy may be correct in that this might not be notable. Allow me to pose a question: should it be mentioned that the initial doctor of record thought the killer was left-handed (ie, is it notable, as he was in fact the first doctor of record)? Or is the weight f subsequent doctors enough to drown out the other voices that claim otherwise? I ask, because this sort of notability will be used to judge other things in the article that have similar claims against the weight of opinion. Is a single, professional scientific view notable in and of itself, or does it require concurrence for the purposes of this article? Is Llewellyn notable enough on his own? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the one hand it's somewhat notable, because the erroneous assumption that the Ripper was left-handed has entered the common lore of the case (for instance, Jack the Ripper routinely appears on lists of "most famous/infamous lefties", etc.). However if it's going to be mentioned at all, it should also be stressed that Llewellyn is a minority view, both then and now.Revmagpie (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that although Llewellyn was a doctor, he was by no means a forensic specialist, so while his opinion might be more "scientific" than the average joe of the time, it doesn't really justify the assumption that it was particularly "expert"--the only Ripper doctor who approaches that standard was Dr. Bond--and even he was learning as he went along. The whole concept of forensics was relative new and there was virtually nothing in the way of establish procedure.Revmagpie (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we should wait to get more input than just two or three editors, since there are something like 5-6 active in this article currently. I think that while Llewellyn's notability is intact (he was an actual doctor who had his hands in a Ripper victim), his assertion that the killer(s) was(were) lefties is decidedly less so. Countering that is the fact that this assertion - fallacy or not, minority opinion or not - has wriggled its way into lists like the one you mentioned (and should probably cite for good measure, please). My opinion is that if it were included, it should be stated in the same sentence that it is in fact a minority opinion not agreed to by the majority of the forensics folk who have since come late to the autopsy info. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The lists I mention appeared for instance in several editions of this publication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Lists. Also many early books and articles about the Ripper erroneously assume a left-handed killer--an error that can be laid squarely on Llewellyn's doorstepRevmagpie (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• It should be mentioned, but with the emphasis cited in the above discussion. Jack1956 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I also wanted to point out to the anon user that there is only a finite amount of evidence and info specific to the Ripper/Whitechapel killings. The same cannot be said, unfortunately, for the number of Ripper books out there. A lot of the same information is used over and over again - sometimes evaluated, and sometimes just taken at face value while taking a back seat to the presentation of yet another theory of the crime and/or the culprit. That the killer being left-handed has come up a few times isn't really surprising. If more than one doc or investigator at the time had suggested it, that would be worhy of more than a mention. That Llewelyn noted it as the first medical professional of record to comment makes it notable enough to comment, but not worthy of much more than that, to my reckoning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Image discussion

I am wondering if we could discuss the infobox image currently being used in the article. Recently, someone helped me locate the link to an image that I was thinking might be a better choice. It is located here. As I understand it, the original image is old enough (c. 1888), so it is copyright-free.
Might I get some polite input on the subject? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Both images seem good to me. But what would you say makes the newer image better? --clpo13_(talk) 19:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It puts a face -at least a face that people thought should belong - to the killer. It's also more engaging. Honestly, the first time I saw the Puck image, I thought it was some sort of carnival or circus illustration. It didn't seem to fit the mood of the subject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I'd support changing the main image. But something needs to be done to get that Photobucket watermark off of it, unless there's another version somewhere. --clpo13_(talk) 19:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• How about this [1] (see right) or this [2]? I know I've seen the image in a couple of the better books on the subject. Jack1956 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The first example seems a bit more flexible in terms of sizing it to the article. Now, while the picture is pretty nifty, what exactly was it supposed to portray (at the time)? As well, knowing exactly when and where the image was first published would be perfect for licensing and summary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The caption for the second example says "A Suspicious Character", which implies, to me, that the authorities were suspecting anyone that seemed shady, especially since the picture adjacent has a caption saying "Homeless" and depicts a detective/policeman/vigilante accosting a homeless guy. I've never seen that picture before now, so I can't say for certain what it's really about, or even what licensing information it has. --clpo13_(talk) 03:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the group of men on the right are members of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee (note their smart clothes) patrolling the area for suspects. The suspicious looking man on the left is evidentally some guy whom they suspect of being the Ripper. Perhaps it is indeed him....Colin4C (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• The image is one of two from 1888 captioned 'With the Vigilance Committee in the East End'. It is taken from the Illustrated London News for October 13, 1888 [3]. Jack1956 (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think we have the information we need. I don't mind uploading it, but I think that Jack has earned the right to do so - he did a lot of the grunt work in finding it. Once uploaded, I will check it over for licensing issues that might pop up. I am thinking that maybe the Puck image can also be used, lower in the article (maybe in the Murders section).

Oops, it look like Jack is a lot more efficient than I thought - it's already uploaded. I'll adjust the summary accordingly. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to call for 'ayes' and 'nays' on the image substitution. I say 'aye'. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• 'Aye' from me. Jack1956 (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sake... the image in question is NOT of Jack the Ripper. The image currently at the top of the article IS, and it's in color to boot. There's no reason to change the image. If you want to put the image in the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee article, or in that section of this article, feel free, but there's no reason at all to make it the main image. DreamGuy (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And I should also add that we discussed this image previously on this talk page, and it failed then for these very reasons. I believe Arcayne was part of these discussions previously, so it seems odd that he'd be acting like this was a wholly new suggestion. DreamGuy (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

New participants, new discussion. --clpo13_(talk) 22:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And it bears pointing out that the current image is NOT of Jack the Ripper, either. As neither image can authoritatively identify Jack the Ripper, the image that communicates the subject material best should lead. I am not saying that we should do away witht he circus-style one from Puck; I am just saying that this one is better suited to describing in the art of the time what some people thought the killer might look like. I dig that this picture is your preference (for all I know, you uploaded the image in the first place), but this one seems to work better. First rule of Wikipedia: if you aren't prepared to be edited mercilessly, Wikipedia isn't for you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• I also like this image for the lead as opposed to the current, for the reasons cited by Arcayne. --David Shankbone 01:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to DG how do we know that the fellow slinking away in the hat is not Jack the Ripper? Seeing as the latter fellow was never caught it could very well be him. I think ambiguity as to identity is at the very heart of Ripperological enquiries - so the picture is a very apt one for this article. Colin4C (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like either of the cartoon images. To me, they speak of Dickens and Conan Doyle. This is an article detailing the murder of prostitutes in one of the poorest areas of 19th century London. It also details the popular mythology surrounding the identity of the murderer. I see the photographs as the most appropriate, though least palatable, candidates for prominence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.40.39 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point, but the article is about Jack the Ripper, and there are no no known photographs of the killer(s). Therefore, much of what grew out of the murders came out of public speculation and fear. The illustrations demonstrate that, as well as assigning physical traits that corresponded to what they thought about the killer(s). Because of that, I am thinking that the illustrations are appropriate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that the illustrations represent fear. They are too light-hearted. There, no doubt, was real fear among the prostitutes on the streets, but I don't see that in the illustrations. It's difficult because, in the 21st century, The Ripper largely is fun. I see his place in the public consciousness as somewhere close to a Stephen King creation. And, of course, the article must reflect that. But I feel that the article would be better served by preferring the forensic over the fictional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.40.39 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think they have a place, as they are contemporary illustrations. You're right that the modern view is akin to an 'anti-hero' rather than a murderer. Forensics have little place here, as they didn't have them - need to ground the article in historic accounts, leavened with reliable modern interpretations of them. Has to be the approach of the historian, rather than the criminologist. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

... and just for the record, I don't see any particular need to change the current lead image ... cheers Kbthompson (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But the alternative image does actually show us the streets of Whitechapel at the time and shows us what really went on then. I.e. the patrols of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee looking for dubious looking individuals who might be connected with the murders. As the identity of the Ripper was never discovered the fellow on the left could well be him. The ambiguity about the Ripper's identity and dubious claims to have discovered who he is, is the leitmotif of Ripperology then and now. And unlike the current picture this alternative works on both the realistic and symbolic level. Colin4C (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are two distinct strands to The Ripper story. The first is factual; it deals with the murder of prostitutes on the streets of 19th century London. The second is almost folklorish; it deals with the films, the books, the Ripperologists. Both strands clearly belong in the article. But, for my money, photographs of the victims carry much greater weight than an abitrary illustration taken from the folklore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.40.39 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is to do with the Ripper, whoever he or she (or they) might be, and his/her legend. The more factual aspects of the story and information on the victims are included in the article The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91). Colin4C (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say that I feel there is an even stronger argument for that article to lead with a photograph, rather than a cartoon. But, getting back to this article, or indeed any article dealing with this subject, I feel that the kernel of the issue is the murder of the girls. Pictures of those girls are extant, and should, imo, be at the head of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.40.39 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to point out that the title of the article is Jack the Ripper and not Jack the Ripper Victims. I appreciate the political correctness of giving attention to the victim and not the killer, but political correctness isn't the hallmark of a good encyclopedia.

If we had a picture of Jack the Ripper, you can bet your last shilling we would lead with it. Unfortunately, Jack failed to take a picture of himself and send it off to police. Without that or some CCTV coverage of the killing ()which wouldn't be in place for almost a century, we are pretty much stuck with illustrations. The illustrations we should use should be representative of the topic.

On a side note, I find the images of the victims to be a bit too graphic, but haven't said anything thus far, as the matter is of small importance, considering the larger movements of the article thus far. It's a topic for another time, I guess. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that I agree with Arcayne's side note. I think it does a disservice to the victims to merely show what they looked like after JTR carved them up. There are other illustrations from newspapers of the time depicting how they looked when they were alive. Colin4C (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, if we had a photograph of the murderer, that would be used. The question is: in its absence, what is the next best thing? For me, it's photos of the victims.

As you say, the article is indeed about Jack the Ripper. And Jack the Ripper is about the murder of several prostitutes. That's all. The only reason anyone is remotely interested in him is because he murdered several young girls. And I see that as a strong argument for using the photos of those girls at the top of the story.

Regarding the graphic nature of the photographs: that is my whole point. The story of Jack the Ripper is the story of the brutal murder of several young women. To my way of thinking, the cartoons sanitise that; and that is not what an encyclopaedia should be about. An encyclopaedia is about facts. Those horrible black and white photos of the victims are the best facts, the best historical record we have.

I won't belabour the point any further as I can see that it's not going to carry the day. I didn't expect it to but wanted to add my opinion anyway. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.40.39 (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you offering reasoned thought about this, 81. I disagree that Jack the Ripper is about the murder of several prostitutes; the article is not just about the murders but the horrific nature of those murders, the ensuing public panic, the taunting letters and the increasingly bizarre theories as to the underlying reasons of the crimes as well as the likely culprit(s). Without trying to sound callous here, the victims are incidental to the discussion about the killer.

Another thing: the illustrations aren't "cartoons" in the sense that you likely thinking of them. Photographs were still pretty expensive, and not within the budget of a great many folk, and certainly not amongst the hand-to-mouth subsistence existence of London's bottom economic rungs. That the victims didn't have photos of them while living is not unusual. That photos exist of them after death is amazing foresight by someone to photograph them after death. Newspapers likely used few photographs, as the cost in inking them was likely more expensive than line illustrations. Illustrations were the 'photos' of newspapers in that bygone era. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arcayne. This seems kinda trivial, but I included line breaks in my post; you removed them, I put them back, and you've removed them again. I included them simply because I feel it makes the entry more readable. I've put them back in. If I'm running counter to some guideline governing how to post to discussion pages, please feel free to remove them again and point me to the relevant info. If it's purely a stylistic choice, please leave the line breaks in; it's just the way I prefer to post. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.40.39 (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to sign your name Mr Anon. I always find that intercourse is more civilised when one's interlocuter has a moniker. Colin4C (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Or rather, it is easier if you create an account. You don't have to give your actual name (and actually, you shouldn't ever do that in Wikipedia). Creating an account allows you to generate an editorial rep, but do what you will. I don't mind calling you User:81, or maybe just '8' for short ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam Link?

Just read some of the supposed 'spam link' that Dreamguy keeps deleting. It seems very good. The section on prostitution, for instance, goes beyond the usual tabloid cliches you find in most Ripper books and I liked the bit about Inspector Abberline. Colin4C (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if it were explained how the link supposedly violates multiple policies, it might help to clarify the resistance to its inclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The 'policy' on external links is quite clear, they are permitted if consensus on the talk page is for inclusion. Something is not SPAM, or conflict of interest if it is discussed. The gentleman who added the link had the good grace to discuss their addition, let's give him/her the benefit of doubt by not calling it spam and discuss whether it should be retained. Keep the discussion to the topic, not the editor. Kbthompson (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That said, wouldn't the conflict of interest go away if someone else added the link? And it seems that it's only considered spam because it has ads in it. So do hundreds of legitimate online newspapers that are used as sources on Wikipedia. --clpo13_(talk) 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My main point was meant to be that, having read a bit of it, I thought it was a valuable contribution to the subject. There is so much re-hashed rubbish on the internet that it is a pleasant surprise to see something worthwhile. The info on prostitution connects with some other articles on the wikipedia I have edited concerning W.T. Stead and the Eliza Armstrong case. Sorry, I'm just thinking aloud here.... Colin4C (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thinking aloud is fine, Colin - in other fields, we call this an aspect of Brainstorming. It often leads to new ideas. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Why it is a spam link (and violation of WP:COI and WP:EL) was included above. Continuing to insist that it has never been explained is a pretty odd strategy to be making. The person who put it there even admitting to running the site. But, hey, unfortunately after all the blind reverting I don't expect them to look at it rationally later and admit they were wrong, so they need to justify to themselves why it belongs. DreamGuy (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And I have explained, twice, why it isn't spam or a conflict of interest and therefore warrants discussion before being removed. Discussion has occurred, with the end result that most parties feel that the link should remain. --clpo13_(talk) 22:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, DeamGuy, if someone says they cannot find your previous comments, it is up to you to provide them again. If you could be troubled to re-explain for us your specific issues (why a certain link is spam, why an image is a copyvio, etc.), I think we would all appreciate it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add my link to the "external links" portion of the article. Rather than encounter a potential conflict of interest issue, I will just place the link here and hopefully if another editor considers it a worthwhile addition they will add it. The site is http://members.tripod.com/~Magpie_IX/ripper/ Revmagpie (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Those transcripts of the original 1888 newspaper articles look useful. Colin4C (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Assessment (2008-03-19)

There is one big problem with this article from the very start. Its title is "Jack the Ripper", yet I find a "The Ripper Murders". It is understandable the criminal has almost become synonymous with the murders, but it is an incorrect name for the article at hand. There is another article dealing with the murders, The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91), but this Ripper article has became more detailed than the Whitechapel article regarding the murders, becoming a WP:CFORK issue. This is a big factor in my decision; it indicates the article has gone beyond its scope, losing its focus.* I recommend splitting the article into one dealing with the case in general (dealing in detail with the murders, and investigation, and legacy), and one dealing with the Ripper himself (dealing in detail with the suspects, his characterization, legacies specific on him). No doubt there will be a certain amount of duplicated content between the two; but one article would deal with the duplication in general and the other in detail, and vice versa. Regardless, the following is my assessment of how the article stands without factoring the name into account.

Prose

• As the subject deals with events taking place in London, I advise adopting British English. If this was the step taken, then a few American English has slipped through the editors' work. "Analyze", "capitalize", and "rumors" should be "analyse", "capitalise", and "rumours".
• Sentences in the lead could be shortened or made clearer. "The victims were earning income as casual prostitutes" is practically the same as "The victims were casual prostitutes". "Newspapers, whose circulation had been growing during this era" -> "The growing newspapers". "[W]ere first strangled in order to silence them and to explain the lack of" -> "were first strangled to silence them, which would explain the lack of".
• Consistency is a good thing but instead of sticking with "born on", a few victims are stated to be "born circa" and "born c.".
• One sentence paragraphs (The Ripper letters and the Jack the Ripper in popular culture) are discouraged. Please merge or turn these sentences into minimum three-sentence paragraphs. The Suspects section can list the most prominent of suspects with short backgrounds.
• Avoid very long sentences. "This became standard media practice with examples such as the Boston Strangler, the Green River Killer, the Axeman of New Orleans, the Beltway Sniper, and the Hillside Strangler, besides the derivative Yorkshire Ripper almost a hundred years later and the unnamed perpetrator of the "Thames Nude Murders" of the 1960s, whom the press dubbed Jack the Stripper." is a particularly long "snake" which is also slightly confusing. Break it up.
• Do not question the reader as in "The Pinchin Street Murder" paragraph. State it as the article bringing up a question on the identity of the murderer or a quote. *
• Do not use "(see above)". The illustration's caption should be stating the picture and its relevance to the article.
• Do not use "and/or".

Factualness *

• Avoid "weaseling" the way out. "Perhaps more interesting were ...", if they were not interesting, why should they be mentioned here? "[P]erhaps genuine, either by period or modern authorities", those authorities did consider them as genuine. To state the dispute of their authenticity, bring in the opposing forces' views instead of using "perhaps".
• What is the relevance of Albert Bachert's claim to the presidency of the committee (Investigation)? Was he a prominent man of society then? Citation?
• Although there are inline citations used, several other cases require them, such as:
  • The Goulston Street Graffiti messages (both of them)
  • The other authors besides Stephen Knight in the Graffiti section (it is also weird to see Stephen Knight being outed here)
  • The "Saucy Jack" postcard, curiously the only one among the three bulleted to not have an inline citation
• It is advised

Images

• Free images of the victims should be moved to the Commons, or have their rationales as public domain properly sectioned or templated. Refer to Image:Marthatabram.jpg for an example.
• Whitehall mystery image's caption should expressly state its origin *
• Caption for "The Nemesis of Neglect" should follow that of the Punch cartoon criticising the police, and state it is a commentary on the society's neglect of the poor. *

I am failing this GA nomination. If the critical issues(*) have been addressed, please renominate the article at WP:GAC. If there is a disagreement with my decision, please bring it up for discussion at WP:GAR. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While I think it was unwise to nominate this for GA just yet (a peer review would have garnered us essentially the same information, if not from a wider range of editors), Jappalang makes several god points. What say we get cracking, and do the fixes recommended? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, "god points". That made me laugh. Anyways, I agree. This article definitely needs to be fixed up. --clpo13_(talk) 07:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I support Jappalang's judgement that the The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91), and Jack the Ripper are separate areas of concern and should have separate articles. I will try to beef up the former article in line with this judgement, so that this article can more strictly concentrate on the great mystery man of all time: JTR (and his legend). Colin4C (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I thank the reviewer for a thorough review, personally I would have failed it for a lack of stability 8^). Some decision needs to be reached about the treatment of the murders, the Whitechapel murders are a superset of the Ripper murders. To my mind, contemporary Whitechapel still needs attention - it's not wrong, just a little offset; and I think the structure needs attention (what the reviewer calls 'refactoring'. Although premature, I think that was worthwile, as the reviewer has not been involved in the usual arguments. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) You know, until Jappalang said it, and Kbt reinforced the message, I completely missed that we've been focusing on the killings and not the killer him/her/themselves. If the acts of the killer are notable in and of themselves, then they should be in a standalone article, and the article about the killer should focus upon the person extrapolated from the crimes (if uncaught) or the fuller view of the killer based on not just the nurder information, but accounts on who the person was outside of the killings (much like there are articles for the tenures of many US Presidents in addition to their personal articles).
I agree with Kbt and Colin that a more attention to the Whitechapel murder article would benefit this one, and be able to link info about the actual killings from there, so as to not replicate info. As well, discussions as to the identity of the killer would allow us to more closely connect this article (acting as transit hub) to the Ripper Suspects article, and only note the suspects given the largest amount of concurrent agreement from Ripperologists and scientific folk.
I actually now feel good about the GA eval (I had been disappointed that it had been nominated too early), and now think - through leaner compartmentalization between the related articles that this will work out a lot more effectively. 'Til now, the diferent editors working this article might have been working from differing points of view on how the article should look. We don't have to do that anymore. This article doesn't have to be a clearinghouse for all things JTR; it can be a info portal of sorts from the killer to his deeds, possible identity and maybe even Victorian England. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed over to British English those terms mentioned by Jappalang (analyze, capitalize and rumor), but I haven't been to ol' Blighty in a while, so the mental muscle I used to use to switch spellings over has atrophied somewhat. Could one of our resident limeys (heh) address this issue more fully than I? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also addressed the circa issue, standardizing all of the daes as "c.", as in Skippy von Thud, born c. 1842. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Its title is "Jack the Ripper", yet I find a "The Ripper Murders""' -- Wikipedia naming conventions are to use the most commonly known name. In this case it's Jack the Ripper, pretty clearly. I don't understand what that's even trying to get at.

But, as he said the other article is a WP:CFORK violation, and I agree, I have redirected that article to this one. It's the same topic, two competeing articles is a major violation of policy. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with that sentiment, DreamGuy. Two editors other than I agree that the Whitechapel murders article is not a content fork, as evidenced by the discussion on that article's talk page. What's more, the reviewer was referring to this article as the WP:CFORK issue, as he goes on to say that this article has lost its focus.

To elaborate: this article is about the murderer: Jack the Ripper. His murders, however, are a different but related topic, especially since there isn't widespread agreement regarding the murders actually committed by Jack the Ripper. --clpo13_(talk) 21:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Accordingly, the redirection has been undone in the Whitechapel Murders article, which still has a great deal of content to it that differs from this article - content unseen by using hte redirect. It might be worth discussing merging the two articles, so that future redirects don't overlook content from one or the other.

Something else we might want to consider - after such a merging - is renaming the article to The Whitechapel Killings or the Ripper Murders, and place numerous redirects in place (Jack the Ripper and the other title) so it all comes toa single article. This way, we are not endlessly debating cntent forking and the like. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the Whitechapel Murders article - in an augmented and improved version - should be the main one with a Jack the Ripper article as an (important) subsidiary. The Whitechapel article can state the facts leaving the Ripper article to cavort gayly in speculations about which murders are 'canonical' or not. Ripperology has its place in a democracy but I don't think its peculiar concerns should pervert an encyclopedia. Colin4C (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

After having read the Whitechapel Murders article, i guess I agree with you; were the murders a Venn diagram, the Ripper murders would, while far more sensationalist, be a subset of the larger series of murders. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have started to improve the various articles on individual Whitechapel Murder victims - a lot of which were in a very shoddy state and unreferenced etc etc.(Colin4C (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Torso Killer"

I am wondering about what references there are to back up these statements in the article about a mysterious Serial Killer No 2:

""The Whitehall Mystery" and "The Pinchin Street Murder" have often been suggested to be the work of a serial killer, for which the nicknames "Torso Killer" or "Torso Murderer" have been suggested. Whether Jack the Ripper and the "Torso Killer" were the same person or separate serial killers of uncertain connection to each other (but active in the same area) has long been debated." Colin4C (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we would have to determine if the debate is notable enough for inclusion. Without extraordinary citation, an extraordinary claim like that cannot be included, to my reckoning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea of there being a mysterious Serial Killer No 2, active at the same time as Jack, intrigues me, but I would like to see what the references are. The Pinchin Street Torso, The Whitehall Mystery plus Elizabeth Jackson were all examples of dismembered female corpses found at various places in London at the time but whether this is sufficient to link them to a serial killer even more mysterious than Jack I wouldn't know - not being a policeman, detective or forensic scientist myself. Colin4C (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert Only When Necessary

Explain reverts. "If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert, rather than the other way round." Calling a bold edit "mass alterations" hardly amounts to an explanation, in my view. The article even contained fairly obvious factual errors - also reverted: "The Ripper murders were perpetrated in public or semi-public places towards the end of the day..." ? They all happened past midnight. "Constable Alfred Long discovered a bloodstained scrap of cloth..." ? PC Long's report says "portion of an apron", at the inquest he said "a portion of a woman's apron". So much for caring about historical accuracy. I say these faults were symptomatic, and still are - after the revert.
I'll leave it to you. Sabina F (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sabina. We are quite willing to accept justified alterations but please give the other editors here the courtesy of explaining your reasons in the edit summaries and here. We are not mind readers. And just to add that this article has an unfortunate history of 'bold edits' which make us all very nervous one when is launched on us without warning from the sky before we have had time to duck for cover...Colin4C (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanations are always nice, even if just in edit summaries. An edit without any explanation at all is usually deemed suspicious. --clpo13_(talk) 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

JTR edit

Colin, I was wanting to discuss with you, relatively unobstructed, your revert in JTR, linked here. While most of the revert was solid, I think I should point out a couple of problems that need to be addressed (and just a few of them are created by your revert):

• "Some believe that the victims were first strangled in order to silence them and to explain the lack of reported blood at the crime scenes." This is a weak sentence, Colin. 'Some believe' is what WP calls weasel words, and we are to avoid them at all costs. If this is a direct quote, we need to note with both attribution and quotation marks. At best, it needs rewriting. At worst, it needs to be purged.

The strangulation hypothesis can be traced back to the inquest testimony. Some Ripperologists accept it, some don't. I usually depends on the suspect you're putting forward.Revmagpie (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Then we should note that, with citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• "sometimes missing the murderer at his crime scenes by mere minutes" Honestly, the other version, noting escape, is a better paraphrasing of the source.

• "Rumours that the murders were connected intensified in September and October, when a series of extremely disturbing letters were received by various media outlets and Scotland Yard," - the rumors need citation, as well as for the growing intensity of them.
• "The original police investigation focused on eleven murders, of which five are generally accepted within the "Ripperology" community as almost certainly having been victims of the same serial killer." We need citation that these five are generally accepted within the Ripperology community.

It's not without controversy, but they are known as the "Canonical 5", and almost every Ripper book acknowledges at least that those 5 are an identifiable group.Revmagpie (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I am not doubting it, Rev; I am suggesting that a newcomer to the article isn't going to know why only five are generally connected, or who proposed that they are. I am thinking we should say that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• (section title) "Goulston Street Graffiti" I think that not that many people (outside of Ripperologists) would even connect Goulston St. with the writings. The other version was a bit sensationalistic, but I think its going to be more accessible to the reader.

Brief note. It should be "Graffito" rather than "Graffiti".Revmagpie (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mores the point for an alternate section title. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

'The Writing on the Wall' seems like a vague cliche. Magpie's suggestion 'Goulston Street Graffito' has the benefit of precision and accuracy. And maybe we could hyperlink it to a new article: Goulston Street Graffito where all the theories about the Jews, the French and the Masons (and some detail on the steet itself?) could be aired in detail. Colin4C (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think the Martin Fido stuff should be included, since we aren't supposed to show a preference for any particular author or theory (just the notable ones).

• "The perhaps most ingenious explanation of the sentence was presented by Robert Donston Stephenson (20 April 1841–9 October 1916), a journalist and writer known to be interested in the occult and black magic." Is there a way to cite why he is known to be interested in the occult?

He wrote at least one article on Black Magic, and moved in Theosophist circles where he had a (probably unearned) reputation as a Magician.Revmagpie (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We should cite that, then. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Some believe that 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, and the Hillside Strangler, besides the derivative Yorkshire Ripper almost a hundred years later and the unnamed perpetrator of the "Thames Nude Murders" of the 1960s, whom the press dubbed Jack the Stripper." This whole paragraph simply reeks of uncited OR. First of all, the weasel words 'some believe', then the supposition that the name was created to sell more papers. Then, the supposition that this is 'standard media practice' before making a lot of synthesized connections between Jack the Ripper and the others listed. -

The "some people" in this case are various members of the Police Force. Robert Anderson, Henry Smith and Walter Dew, for instance.Revmagpie (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, we should be specific instead of speaking in generalities. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Er...just to say that I merely restored the status quo ante before the Anon number and Sabina made their mass alterations. If the Anon number and Sabina do us the courtesy of explaining their edits and providing references I might very well agree. Colin4C (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't mean to say that you created the mistakes. Sorry for the inference. Those were just some issues I noticed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to explain my "mass alterations"

First, I was adding a couple of sentences about Robert Donston Stephenson's idea about the writing on the wall. I also added a link to a website - JTR Forums. As the link was removed with the explanation that "we" do not allow linking to any kind of forum I'll simply have to assume there is such a rule. A main reason why I did make the link was that there is information relating to Stephenson there, otherwise not that easily available (as far as I'm aware).

After making those (in my opinion) rather minor edits I noticed that there was expressed a need for citations concerning the theories about the writing in Goulston Street. So, I thought, why not make a quote from Stephenson's article in the Pall Mall Gazette. And so I did. Without explicitly mentioning Stephenson's main idea, about the French word juives. And just in case there should be any doubt (as it would seem to be from one comment in the list of edits): JUIVES is indeed a French word. An extract from Wikipedia:Juifs -

langues juives traditionelles. des cultures juives très diversifiées. les communautés juives. les différentes sectes juives. la cacheroute (lois alimentaires juives). persécutions anti-juives. au cours des diasporas juives. lois anti-juives de l'empire des tsars. des masses juives. les personnes (...) juives. les populations juives. Congrès d'Études juives.

The perhaps most famous instance: Robert Garnier's tragedy Les Juives. (Originally: Les Juifves) And there's also the (strictly speaking) grammatically wrong use of les juives instead of les juifs. (as mentioned by Stephenson) A fairly large number of instances can be found by specifically Googling for it.

And then I began reading the whole article from the start, and immediately found at least one rather glaring error: It said (and still does say) that the murders happened towards the end of the day. Very odd that nothing has been done about that error. Or perhaps not odd at all.

I also changed the expression "Ripper murders" into "murders". Mostly in order to simplify. And I removed this sentence:

"Some believe that the victims were first strangled in order to silence them and to explain the lack of reported blood at the crime scenes."

Some believe... And I think inferred beliefs like that should be mentioned further down in the article, if at all. I found the next sentence to be rather terrible:

"The removal of internal organs from some victims led some officials..."

I just felt like doing something about it. I'm not saying my attempt cannot be improved upon. I also removed this:

"This has given rise to the term Ripperologist to describe professionals and amateurs who study and analyse the case."

I think perhaps it would be better to mention it later, if at all. There are a couple of other words coined from the Ripper nickname. Ripperana, Rippermania. Perhaps a couple of more words like that can be found. In my view it is a phenomenon expressive of the same mindset responsible for the Ripper nickname. And Ripperologist is in fact also the name of a magazine. Perhaps these words could be worth mentioning in a separate paragraph. It might also make it easier to discuss the relevance of it to an article about the murderer, possibly also to the understanding of the case.

In the next paragraph I made a change to there was at least one fairly obvious error. The murders did not happen in rapid succession from the beginning of 1888. There was one murder in spring, later to become associated (to an extent) with the series in autumn. I'm not saying my edit was ideal. But I'll say one ought to be made there.

I also changed my intial text about Stephenson. Attempting to be more precise. And then I altered the last part of this sentence:

"These mushroomed later in the Victorian era to include mass-circulation newspapers as cheap as a halfpenny, along with popular magazines such as the Illustrated Police News, making the Ripper the beneficiary of previously unparalleled publicity."

That just sounded wrong to me. Perhaps the murderer did find the publicity "beneficient". Perhaps that is the best way of putting it. I'm not quite sure.

And I made an edit to the question of why the nickname was invented. I'm not saying my version necessarily was much better. But that sentence also started with "Some believe..."

Finally, I also made a few changes to the list of additional reading. Casebook.org was mentioned under "Further Reading" and "External Links" so I removed it from the first list. Instead, I added the book by L. Perry Curtis - Jack the Ripper and The London Press. And I pushed Evans & Rumbelows book about the Scotland Yard up the list. Sugden, Evans, Rumbelow, these are, in my view, the best place to start. 80.203.34.227 (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also this:

"The authority of this list rests on a number of authors' opinions, but the basis for these opinions mainly came from notes made privately in 1894 by Sir Melville Macnaghten as Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police Service Criminal Investigation Department, which came to light in 1959. Macnaghten's papers reflected his own opinion, which was not necessarily shared by the investigating officers (such as Inspector Frederick Abberline). Macnaghten did not join the force until the year after the murders, and his memorandum contained serious errors of fact about possible suspects."

I say it is at best a much too general claim. It would have to be argued that the authors in question where in fact basing their opinions on Macnaghten's notes, and not on a more general impression gathered from a variety of sources. And I say that calling the apron piece a "scrap of cloth" is an easily recognizable attempt at twisting the facts of this case. The apron piece found by PC Alfred Long never was referred to as a "scrap of cloth" at the time of the murders, as far as I know. It is a fact that the apron piece has been referred to as a "scrap of cloth" at the Casebook website. Repeatedly. But repeating an error doesn't make it any less an error. Can a book be found wherein it has been described as a "scrap of cloth" ? I very much doubt it. And even if it could, it would still be a misrepresentation of the historical facts. PC Long explicitly stated that he found "a portion of a woman's apron."

The same problem tends to turn up with the interpretations of the writing on the wall. Quoting Stephenson without making any other citations may of course seem unbalanced. But why not come up with one citation more instead of suppressing the one that was there ? It surely can't be that difficult to find a quote from Martin Fido ? And if there are no citations to be found for the other alternatives they could perhaps be slightly expanded upon instead.80.203.34.227 (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you sign your name (doesn't have to be real one) so I can address you properly? 80.203.34.227 sounds like something out of a science fiction nightmare and besides I can't remember it...When an Anon number editor turns up here we usually have good reason to suspect the worst. Colin4C (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Science fiction nightmare... Well, Arnold will do fine. That is a real name... I guess there may have been more vandalism to this article than I suspected. And I am aware of the problem with anonymous editors. A few weeks ago I made a small repair to the article about David Canter. Some mischief there, possibly relating to a similar field of interest. But there were no other edits made from that anonymous address. Though I can see the problem, I would have thought the edits I have made would make it fairly evident that I most probably was acting in good faith. In my experience the worst kind of vandals quite often happens to be acting under the guise of their own name. However odd that may seem. 80.203.34.227 (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Arnold, I think that Colin was suggesting that - because you are new - you might not know that the best way to sign your posts is by typing four ~ after them before hitting enter. As well, there is a button at the top of the editing symbols box that can shortcut it for you, called: Sign your username. That said, your contributions are thought out - you should create an account (t's free, btw), so that way you can start accumulating an edit history. Anon accounts are usually not seen as more credible as someone who has taken the step to build an edit history. You don't have to edit more after you do so, but every edit you do will build your rep. Also, becoming established allows you to edit in semi-protected articles.

I am going to mull over your post before responding. I have some issues, and agree with you on others. Allow me to think on it some more. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Arnold 80.203.34.227 is still not providing edit summaries for his mass alterations and I don't like his naff 'Chalk Writing on Wall'. Could we discuss that? Colin4C (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it bears discussion. Mebbe send him another request to discuss his edits, and if we gt no response, we'll discuss it without him and take action accordingly. Let us give the lad (or lass) a chance to ante up. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"My personal opinion is that the Whitechapel Murders article - in an augmented and improved version - should be the main one with a Jack the Ripper article as an (important) subsidiary. The Whitechapel article can state the facts leaving the Ripper article to cavort gayly in speculations about which murders are 'canonical' or not. Ripperology has its place in a democracy but I don't think its peculiar concerns should pervert an encyclopedia. Colin4C (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)"

I may tend to agree with the first part. That was one reason why I made one of my alterations - i.e. removing the reference to "Ripperology". I don't think it warrants mention at the outset of an article about this case - that is, first of all, the murders and the contemporary investigation. But neither do I think there should be any place in this encyclopedia for "cavorting gayly in speculations". The contemporary investigation should perhaps be more strictly separated from any modern perspectives. But that is also an argument against calling the writing at the Model Dwellings in Goulston Street 'graffiti'. It is a fact that various ways of describing this possible clue has become part of certain controversies relating to the "modern perspectives" on this case. Calling it 'graffiti' tends to be more common among people seeing it as "just another piece of graffitti", and thus of no real value to the investigation. It has been argued that chalk writing would have been quite common in the area, thus warranting the use of the word 'graffiti'. That may, for what I know, to some extent be true. But downplaying the significance of the writing/graffiti/message would seem to stand in contradiction of how the police officers at the scene was reacting. It seems modern historians and researchers with some greater belief that it might have been written by the killer, tend to call it a 'message'. Sugden, Evans and Rumbelow keep to this version. The contemporary description was however 'writing on the wall'. Perhaps some might wish to avoid the associations relating to that phrase, but these certainly would have been part of the contemporary perception of the case, and thus of the writing on the wall... I say any encyclopedic article ought to reflect that in some way, instead of replacing it by a seemingly neutral, modern description.

And I actually added (the word) 'chalk' to make the headline less striking... Though I think 'writing on the wall' would be, historically, the best way of describing it.
ΑΩ (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think 'Graffiti' or, more properly, 'Graffito' is a perjorative or NPOV word. It is a descriptive term for 'that which is written'. It is commonly used in lots of academic contexts for messages scrawled on walls, e.g. the Roman graffiti at Pompeii. Graffiti can be as important or as unimportant as anything else in this world: according to Simon and Garfunkel' 'the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls'. What do other people here think? Colin4C (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting, for great justice) Why not leave it simply as writing on the wall? It's more accessible to the reader that way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Goulston Street Graffito" is the term it goes by in the field by the authors who are experts on the topic. "Graffito" is in no way misleading or POV-pushing, as it is a word that accurately and unambiguously describes the thing being discussed. If you object to the term as used in the field, go see about getting the term changed there. Wikipedia is written to reflect outside reality, not to try to change people's opinions by inventing up our own terms. DreamGuy (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Map image/placeholder image

I have moved the Reynolds map image of (presumably) Whitechapel from one of the placeholder images to the section on background, where I think it better belongs. I think - personally - that a streetmap featuring the spots where the murders took place would be far more informative. Sorta like this, though less lurid and dramatic. Or, as an alternative (to the rather unpleasant thumbnail images of the victims, we could use photos of the crime scenes instead. Photographic technology of the period (mostly B&W and sepia tone) would be a nice effect on the tne of the article, also showing some of the blight that Whitechapel suffered through.
I am also going to move the Puck image lower into the article, likely into either police investigation or media, replacing the placeholder image with the 'suspicious character' image discussed earlier. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. I much prefer the suspicious character in the hat to the Puck image. Colin4C (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Now, with A's addition of a murder map, I've removed the Reynolds map as redundant (and kinda off-topic) as well as the canonical 5 textbox (also redundant, as it appears in the section about those very same five).

I'm feeling bold - should we talk about the individual images of the murdered women? I am pretty grossed out by the excessively large image of Kelly's mutilated corpse. Of course, that's just my feeling. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the post-mortem picture of Kelly is very grotesque. Not sure what purpose it serves displaying pictures of horribly mutilated corpses in an encyclopedia which can be accessed by people of any age or gender or sensibility. As for the other images we could always substitute artists' impressions of what the women looked like when they were alive (like the smaller Kelly image). Colin4C (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All kinds of pictures can be accessed on the web, that might be offensive, disturbing or unhealthy to some. The Kelly photos are easily accessible at the Casebook website mentioned in external links, and without much of a warning. I can however see that it might be wrong to present the photos without a warning. So, I have replaced it with a link. I do think those photos are relevant to the understanding of the case; more so than some of the other information in the article.
ΑΩ (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I looked a the Vietnam war article, and found this:Media:Deadmanandchild.jpg. I say it would have been wrong to remove it. ΑΩ (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But as another comparison the Yorkshire Ripper article contains no pictures of the mutilated corpses of his victims. Colin4C (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I, too think that the removal might have been premature, considering that Wikipedia is not censored. While I thought the initial sepia image was a bit too large (thereby enhancing the graphic nature of the image), its demonstration of the sheer brutality and monstrosity of the murder clearly defines why it captured the fears of Londoners by the throat. I think that, without that image, the horror that JTR represents would be lost in the drone of the daily ickyness that we can turn on CNN or pick up a magazine to see. We've seen this stuff before. The people of Victorian London had not.

With that in mind, I would ask that the image (either sepia or b&w) be reinstated, albeit at a smaller size. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, being bold, I have removed the images of the victims, as the article isn't about them. As well, I have resized the murder map image so it didn't overrun the article. Lastly, I have moved and re-sized the Puck image and placed it in the victims section, so as to have an image there, that, while unrelated, shows the concern/fear that was brewing in London due to the killings. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Note the date of the Puck Image: Sept 1889 - in the year after the 'autumn of terror' and immediately after the non-canonical murder of Alice McKenzie. So maybe it needs to go down a bit into the next section. Colin4C (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that. I was unsure as to where the Puck image belonged, but didn't want to remove it. Do you want to move it, or shall I? That is, unless ΑΩ moves in his blindingly speedy way. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Colin's comment above (09:05, 9 April 2008), I'd like to register my disagreement with the decision to remove the photographs; I feel the modified version is less encyclopedic.

"Not sure what purpose it serves displaying pictures of horribly mutilated corpses": I would argue that the very reason that this article exists is because "Jack the Ripper" murdered women and "horribly mutilated" their corpses. If he hadn't, he would have been forgotten. And for that reason, pictures of those mutilated corpses belong in the article.

"which can be accessed by people of any age or gender or sensibility.":I don't see that the gender of the readership is any way significant. Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopedia and editorial decisions should not be taken with a view to making it suitable for children. I would argue that an adult (of either gender) of average sensibility would find the images disquieting, but not inappropriately so.

I'd also disagree with Arcayne's assertion (19:21, 9 April 2008): "it isn't about them". I'd say it's very much about them. Without them, this article would not exist. Why, if not for them, would anyone be interested in JtR?

A balance needs to be struck between the crime itself and the folklore that it engendered. It's clearly a very subjective decision but, for me, the current set of images leans too heavily towards the folklore and away from the crime. --81.86.40.39 (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be more about the folklore. It is, after all, titled after the murderer. The murders themselves are best discussed at The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91), which deals more with the murders than the murderer. --clpo13_(talk) 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the encyclopedia would be better served if the two articles were one. Either way, I disagree that "this article is supposed to be more about the folklore". It's about Jack the Ripper, who murdered and mutilated prostitutes.--81.86.40.39 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Absent any concrete information about the murderer's identity, folklore is all there really is. There's plenty of evidence regarding the murders. But no one person has been pinned as being Jack the Ripper. There's even an entire article about the suspects. --clpo13_(talk) 06:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that 'Jack the Ripper' does in a sense represent 'folklore'. But there was a real investigation and there are facts relating to that investigation. And these facts certainly do relate to the identity of the killer, perhaps more so than any 'folkloristic' aspect. 'Folklore' may contain truth, but in a double sense, covering or even glossing over the reality of the case and any fact relating to the identity of the killer. I'll say it is quite significant that 'Jack the Ripper' was most probably not an alias, as stated at the outset of the article; not in the sense of being a name assumed by the killer in order to cover up his real identity. It was most probably a name assumed by someone falsely claiming to be a murderer. And it became a 'given name' as it was appropriated for what might perhaps be called journalistic-folkloristic purposes, strongly contributing to the building of myth.

Folkloristics is the formal academic study of folklore. What actually constitutes folklore is disputed even within the discipline, but generally folklore focuses on the forms of artistic expression communicated within groups. Historically, folklore has directed its attention towards oral narratives such as fairy tales and mythology, but in recent years has gained a strong focus on social science research and no longer limits its study to strictly oral communication.

What would be the 'artistic expression' ? The way I see it, the press coverage would perhaps be the most relevant folkloristic aspect. ΑΩ (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just been reading a very interesting piece on Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Christopher Frayling in his 'Nightmare: The Birth of Horror' (1996). Apparantly the premiere London theatrical performance (at the Lyceum on the Strand) of Jekyll and Hyde was August 1888 - just before the first of the canonical murders (Nichols). According to Frayling some popular ideas of the Ripper were influenced by J&H: making him a respectable doctor (Jekyll mode) by day and a lunatic madman (Hyde mode) by night. Hence the Ripper's mythical black bag and mythical top hat and the idea that he might be operating (in all senses of the word...) from the London Hospital in Whitechapel. Conversely, according to Frayling, our image of Hyde in all the film adaptations is mediated by the Whitechapel murders. In the film adaptations it is apparent that Hyde is consorting with and killing prostitutes in the East End. By contrast in the book the location of Hyde's crimes are unclear and there are no women characters of either the nice or naughty variety (the only female characters in the book are a maid who looks out the window and sees Hyde killing Carew and a young girl whom Hyde tramples on - but doesn't kill). Colin4C (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are two distinct strands in the article. One strand covers the crimes themselves. The other strand covers everything that has grown up around the crime. It doesn't really matter what term we use to describe the second strand: popular culture, myth, fiction, folklore but my point is that the images over-represent the second strand and under-represent the first.

I'm not saying that one strand is more important than the other, they are both at the heart of the article. But I am saying that the article is unbalanced in that the images favour the second strand at the cost of the first. --81.86.40.39 (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As has been mentioned before, this article is about 'Jack the Ripper' the assumed perpetrator of some of the eleven Whitechapel murders, whoever he or she or they might be. The murders (not all of which were committed by 'Jack') have a separate article. There were eleven Whitechapel murders. Some of these were possibly committed by an individual or gang whom we denote by the term 'Jack the Ripper'. Almost all we think we know about the latter is a mythical construction - which has, however, its own importance. The real 'Jack' is situated at the vanishing point of knowledge. To assume more is to participate in the myth oneself. Colin4C (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You make my point in your very first sentence, Colin. The first and only thing you mention in trying to describe JtR is the crime, the murders. You also say: "Almost all we think we know about the latter is a mythical construction" well it's true that the sketches of JtR are imaginary, but the photographs of the victims are not. --81.86.40.39 (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Folkloristic/Mythological Perspectives

The 'Map image/placeholder image' headline seems misleading considering the direction of the above discussion, so I'm making a new one here.

And I'll say... any rational investigator (and architect) will be well aware that reality contains no actual vanishing points. They are indeed mere imaginary constructions. I suspect that is why Ressler and Shachtman[4] were quoting Nietszche, a "mytho-logical thinker" - "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss the abyss also looks into you." Surely, some deeper understanding can be attained by situating oneself at a certain kind of threshold. But if I were to apply that to this article I would say that one image, that of Mary Jane Kelly's remains, ought to be enough when it comes to the question of illustrating the truly monstrous character of this murderer. "Monstrous", that also means, the way I see it, that "folkoristic/mythological thinking" must, literally, be part and parcel of any deeper understanding of this case. I guess that also may be why Stevenson's Strange Case has been described as "one of the best guidebooks to the Victorian era".[5] There is, on the one hand, the 'folkloristic' attempt to contain the monstrous within a "mythological case/parcel". But there is also, on the other hand, the fact that many serial murderers (according to David Canter) tend to be acting out "inner narratives of evil". In cases of extreme narcissism/playacting/hypocrisy the character of these narratives may not easily be separated from that of myth. Perhaps some fitting quote may be found, from Canter's Criminal Shadows - Inner Narratives of Evil. ΑΩ (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To be candid, I don't think this heading is an improvement. My point relates simply to the photographs, to how many should be included, and to what level of prominence they should be afforded. My feeling is that if you open the article and scroll through it,it should be very clear that the heart of this article is a series of brutal murders. Pursuant to those murders, a fug of stories and fictions and conjectures has emerged. That fug is just as important as the crime itself, but not more so. In my view the images are imbalanced. They do not give appropriate weight to the crime and the nature of the crime.--81.86.40.39 (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

ΑΩ (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, some time has passed since I made that heading now, and I still think it is an improvement. At least a general improvement, in the sense that the question of realism vs myth/folklore needs to be explicitly raised. As for the question of the images, I may agree that there is an imbalance. But I'll say it is first of all caused by the two "Ripper illustrations"; perhaps in particular the one from Puck. If it had been up to me none of them would have been placed in the first half of the article. Personally, I would rather have preferred a black square inside the infobox. I somehow doubt there would be much support for the idea though. But I'll say it might have been the best way of presenting a realist NPOV, whilst perhaps also conveying at least some of the original fear and bewilderment.

Reply to the above:

I think the "suspicious character" illustration captures very well the confusion and ambiguity of this case. To the left is a person in the hat who might or might not be Jack the Ripper and to the right you have the representatives of the eternal disagreements which the question of the identity of Jack the Ripper generates. And just to reiterate for the umpteenth time, the 'Whitechapel murders' have an article for themselves for the very good reason that they are not all necessarily connected with 'Jack the Ripper'. Imagine 11 deer were found mysteriously shot with arrows in Sherwood Forest and the Sheriff later got a hoax letter written by a bored monk claiming that the mythical 'Robin Hood' was responsible. Would you report this on the wikipedia as 'Robin Hood' or as 'The Sherwood Forest Shootings'? Would the bodies of the deer be integral to the case against 'Robin Hood'? Maybe they were all shot by different archers? How would you track down the mythical 'Robin Hood' who according to the hoax was responsible? Maybe suspicious looking men in green seen in the company of merry men and a noble lady would fit the bill? But hold...wasn't this stuff about 'Robin Hood' all a hoax by the disgruntled monk? Lets have a look at those deer again...and whilst we're about let's spread some rumours that King John was responsible and make the subject into a sell-out play...and use it to drum up the tourist industry for Sherwood Forest... Colin4C (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent analogy. I applaud you. --clpo13_(talk) 19:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The carcasses of eleven slain deer, some grossly mutilated, with the best parts callously left to rot... I would think a fairly conscientious Sheriff might report it all as 'The Sherwood Forest Shootings'. But, I'm quite certain, he would also have been taking due notice of the fact that some of them did not at all seem to have been killed by the usual poachers. And I suspect that may be why he would, in the first place, have been making that file for all of the eleven shootings. Though he might see rather clearly, that perhaps half of them may just as well have been the work of the regular runners robbing the wood. Troubled by rumours about the twisted habits of King John's second cousin. Possibly to be found among the representatives to the right. ΑΩ (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Body moved

I am a bit curious as to this edit by Colin, wherein a change was made to the section 'Other victims in the police files' with the edit summary:

"This is a list of victims, not incidents - and besides the body was only dumped at Pinchin street - the murder was not commited there".

While it seems obvious that someone wouldn't be dismembering a person on the street (although it seemed like there were Big Bags 'o Crazy™ being passed around Whitechapel at the time), would it be prudent to cite any statement that the body had been dumped at its found location? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Info from Evans and Rumbelow, who are already cited in the paragraph devoted to the Pinchin street torso. Everything in that paragraph can be referenced from Evans and Rumbelow apart from the intriguing assertion about Serial Killer No 2: "The Torso Killer". I have thus put a {{Fact}} tag after sentences which refer to that particular item. Colin4C (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If the same info is present in a previously noted citation, post the same reference; I think it ibid's the reflist. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Have done so. Colin4C (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Silver

I should strongly advise that mention be made of this character, whom Charles van Onselen recently exposed in The Fox and the Flies (Jonathan Cape, 2007) as Jack's most likely identity. For myself, I think the evidence overwhelming. Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, overwhelmingly bad!

Small excerpt of review from http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/03/arts/04book.php:

"Energy and persistence, rather than criminal genius, marked the career of Joseph Lis. Van Onselen tries to leap this hurdle by blowing clouds of smoke, elevating his subject to arch-criminal status through numbingly detailed accounts of his numerous crimes and, in a drastic case of overreaching, by arguing that he might very well have been Jack the Ripper."

More bad reviews

http://extra.rippernotes.com/?p=62

..and from Kirkus reviews

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Fox-and-the-Flies/Charles-Van-Onselen/e/9780802716415/:

"The author bases his assertion on descriptions, names, access, personality, coincidence and other circumstantial evidence. "I never did find," the author concedes, "the one piece of incontrovertible evidence that could convince everyone."A vast canvas painted in florid detail, but the climactic indictment certainly is not documented enough to persuade a jury or even an especially skeptical reader."

..sounds almost as fruity as Patricia Cornwall blaming Walter Sickert

..if you have $35 to burn this book is for you. Berean Hunter (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Look, this article is going to tend to attract crufty, non-notable madness (it already has done that). With respect to RG and BH. there is an article for the Ripper suspects. Perhaps we need to set up a discussion as to what precisely this article should be about. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

---

New edits

This is just tedious. I show up to edit the article and fix some improper capitalization, change the "Writing on the Wall" to "Goulston Street Graffito" as it's called by the authors in the field, point out that the nickname was not "saucy Jack" but "Saucy Jacky" (as you can see in Saucy Jacky postcard), remove a fiction reference that is already covered in the Ripper fiction article, and someone just blind reverts all of it without any sort of justification, falsely labeling it "vandalism" and putting a fake "vandalism" warning on my talk page like he thinks I should get in trouble for actually editing an article.

This kind of nonsense just can't fly. If someone disagrees with one or more things in an edit, change those things. Blind reverting the whole thing to add several indisputable errors in grammar and so forth back in just to be contrary is completely against the Wikipedia standards. I know that there are some people here with personal conflicts and histories who just like to do blind reverts, but I would hope any editor here who cares about Wikipedia in general would not put up with this nonsense. It's likely this editor will just continue to blind revert, so I would hope some sane and reasonable people would admit that I am capable of making good edits and put those back. DreamGuy (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And now Arcayne blind reverted also (he and Colin are the two with the most consistent pattern of such disruptive and bad faith behavior) with the edit comments of "please take the time to discuss your edits before you make them, pls" -- yeah, well, some of those edits are bloody obvious if you look at them, and as described above. How about Arcayne discuss his reverts before he reverts? OR is it just Arcayne thinks he owns the page and will continue to blind revert anything and everything I do just because I do it, per his standard history here? DreamGuy (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are making out like some great injustice has been done to you. For the record, it wasn't a "blind" revert...2. I have no personal conflict with you..3. I don't believe that I have ever reverted you before today...so what are talking about? And please stop attacking the other editors as well...⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a revert of every change I made without even looking to see whether they were good changes or not, which included several changes that even someone like Arcayne had to admit were good edits once he bothered to actually look at them instead of just hitting the "undo" button as a kneejerk reaction. That's the definition of a "Blind revert". Trying to claim otehrwise would mean that you looked at the changes and specifically choose to undo several capitalization changes, sources, spelling fixes and so forth because you preferred them to be wrong. If that's what you are saying, then you need to stop that. If you aren't saying you intentional readded all of those errors, then you blind reverted. You also falsely labeled my edits "vandalism" which is extremely uncivil, bad faith, and not to mention an outright lie. Please go read the actual policy before you make such accusations again. It's not an attack on you to point out accurately what you did. If accurately describing your behavior makes you feel attacked in some way, the problem isn't that I pointed it out, the problem was your behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With respect, you have been an editor long enough to know that how you react to edits is almost as important as the edits themselves. Characterizing edits with summaries such as:

• "leave an article alone for a while and it's filled with nonnotqable trivia and bad capitalization and so forth"1
• "undoing a blind revert -- people have to stop just undoing whole edits for no reason"2
• "falsely labeling my edits "vandalism" in no way demonstrates good faith"[6]

doesn't endear you to those editors who (I would presume) you would wish to take your edits in god faith. You may wish to consider a less confrontational tone with both your edits and edit summaries and when reverted, follow [[W{:BRD]] by heading immediately to the discussion page. Assuming that people are "blind" in choosing to revert your changes is the very definition of bad faith. Your first edit after more than a month away should not contain an edit summary about how everything went to Hell in a handbasket simply because you were not around to "protect" the article. If you want good faith, you need to give it. Good faith doesn't mean we ignore bad behavior. Now, I am not saying your behavior is necessariy bad, but it is uncivil and demonstrates bad faith. Those qualities are not going to endear you to others - others you must edit alongside. You, I and other people have bumped heads on this article before; you need to take specific care when interacting with us, as none of us (yourself included) need/want a rehash of our prior disputes.

That said, let's look at your edit:

1. "alias=Saucy Jacky " - I am not sure why we need a no-wiki about this; if the Saucy Jack moniker is explained in the article, then the alias is self-explanatory. If it isn't in the article yet, then it should be added, with appropriate sources. (update: it is explained in the article)
2. "Some of Swanson's notes on the case survive and are a valuable record of the investigation" - I actually agree with this edit, as it is a better grammatical transition.
3. "The Goulston Street Graffito (section retitling)" - I do, however, disagree with this, as Goulston Street isn't necessarily a helpful section title, as most readers will not know Goulston Street from High Street, but they will know about the writing on the wall. As the article is to be for both the uninitiated as well as the Ripper fan, using a more general section title pulls both types of readers into the section, whereas the the specific name of the street only serves to confuse the reader.
4. Whilst the writing was found in Metropolitan Police territory...(word substitution)" - I am of two minds on this, as using 'whilst' is an outdated form of the word 'while', its a bit more prose-y than the rest of the article. We are writing an encyclopedic article, not a sonnet.
5. "and the highly unusual "misspelling", that the Ripper most probably was of French-speaking origin.Pall Mall Gazette, December 1st 1888" - I have no issue with this, as citations are always a good idea.
6. "An early instance of criminal profiling" vs "An Early Instance of 'Profiling'" - I also think that this is more appropriate, as the new section title is more explanatory.
7. "The growing importance" - a better choice of grammar.
8. "After the murder of Catherine Eddowes, Assistant Commissioner (removed "Sir" as he did not receive the title yet) Robert Anderson requested police surgeon Dr. Thomas Bond" - Whether or not he did, the article is looking back at the matters; referring to the people by their titles - even retroactively - is appropriate. Also, there was the removal of the criminal profiling link to Dr. Bond, which incorrectly redirects to a Thomas Bond who died more than a hundred years before the first Ripper-related murder. A pretty interesting consultation, if I do say so myself.
9. "(in no-wiki) this line is nonsense:" - we don't do that here. Ever. If you wish to challenge the edit, you come to the discussion page and discuss it. Period. Comments like that almost instantly get you reverted, as they are bad faith attacks on the contributor who added them.
10. "Many theories" - again, a good grammatical choice.
11. (removal of Judas Priest and From Hell references from pop culture section) - unexplained removals almost always get reverted. As they specifically (and not tangentially) refer to JTR, they should remain. Of course, you can always take the time to discuss this.

You also fixed a citation, added a book and removed an external source. In the case of the latter, it is the very same external source which you have not found a consensus for removal in the past. If you can offer new and compelling arguments why it does not belong, then argue them. Do not simply remove them and get upset when others revert the unexplained removal.

All of this 3RR action on your part could have been avoided if you had chosen to discuss your edits here first. As some of them are perfectly appropriate, they might have gone unchallenged. Some of the others would have been, as I am sure you are intelligent enough to realize. Work with us, and not in spite of us, and you will find a more hospitable editing environment. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As per the post above, I am re-adding the info which is least likely to be controversial in nature, namely that info of a grammatical and citation nature (adding or fixing citations, not the removal of such). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of your edits may have been fairly obvious, others were clearly not. You "blind removed" a citation from the 'Goulston Street' section. The issue has been discussed before. And I'll say there should, quite obviously, be some quote made from Stephenson's text in the Pall Mall gazette, as there are no other contemporary articles of a similar kind.
And there is no generally agreed term for the writing on the wall at the Model Dwelling. The perhaps most highly regarded authors in the field - Stewart P. Evans, Donald Rumbelow, and Philip Sugden have been calling it the 'Goulston Street message'. The more recent use of the term 'Goulston Street graffito' tends to relate to the position that it is not a 'message' of any evidential value. Neither of these terms may be neutral. But at the time of the murders the writing on that wall was in fact called "the writing on the wall". ΑΩ (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne that some of your edits aren't contested which is why I responded with this on my talk page;

There were good faith edits made over the last few days..I fixed the wikilinks on one of them after verifying..they are notable..meaning that there are objections to SOME of your edits. Try doing them in a more granular fashion using edit summaries and then some may stick but doing a whole batch in order to disguise the same old things that you edit-war over won't work. I'm willing to roll with any consensus that may be met on the article's talk page. Good luck with your editing...

Please work with us...⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

New edits (arbitrary break 1)

Funny, the two people claiming that I should work with them are the two editors least working with anyone. Both editors have falsely labeled my good faith edits as "vandalism" and have implied that my edits were bad faith. This is simply inappropriate behavior for Wikipedia editors.
Regarding some other things that were reverted by these editors and some other topics mentioned above:

• "Saucy Jacky" -- The name is Saucy Jacky, NOT Saucy Jack. That's the correction I made, and I left a note so people could go check the spelling. Arcayne above seems to have completely missed the explanation and talks about not referring to the name correctly or that maybe it's not in the article. It's in the article, but it's Saucy Jacky, not Saucy Jack. This is a completely obvious edit for which there's no possible reason to object to.
• "whilst" -- Arcayne objects to this change with sarcastic remark about not writing a sonnet. This article is written with British English, and "whilst" is used in several other locations throughout the article. I changed it to remain consistent.
• "Comments like that almost instantly get you reverted, as they are bad faith attacks on the contributor who added them." That is utter nonsense. It was noted so people could see that it was wrong and not accidentally add it back in later. People making good faith edits can still add material that is simply out and out wrong. Arcayne just likes to label everything I do "bad faith" so he can go run off to complain in an effort to wikilawyer his way to getting what he wants. So stop trying to invent up.
• "All of this 3RR action on your part could have been avoided if you had chosen to discuss your edits here first." No, no it couldn't because the regular editors were blind reverting anything and everything I did regardless of talk page comments, notes added to the article explaining why the actions were needed, as well as notes to the edit of the article itself. All these things have been explained, or, for the grammar and so forth were self-evident to anyone who looked at the edit in good faith instead of blind reverting it because I made it. You keep talking about discussing things on the talk page, yet you're the ones reverting without talking here first. So you have no room to complain.
• Goulston Street Graffito -- Arcayne above claims that the line is for people unfamiliar with the case so we can't use techinical terms, yet this is an encyclopedia where such terms are explained. If we couldn't use names and refs average readers wouldn't be familiar with there'd be no article to start with. "ΑΩ" claims there is no agreed upon term -- I have cited three extremely key books that prove that this is the term used in the field, but there are also several others. He also claims that "term 'Goulston Street graffito' tends to relate to the position that it is not a 'message' of any evidential value" -- this is nonsense. That is a very recent argument made by a couple of online posters and generally not any actual Ripper authors. "Graffito" in no way implies that the writing was not evidence, it's an accurate and neutral description suggesting that this writing was on a wall or other outside object instead of written on paper or elsewhere.
  

In short, I have made the edits again, and added extensive references. The people who blind revert for no reason and falsely label my edits "vandalism" need to work with the rest of us, the ones who care about accuracy and Wikipedia standards. Any attempts for them to portray themselves to be acting in good faith while they post attacks, mischaracterize other editors' actions, and talk a talk about working together while not making any reasonable effort to do so is just a waste of everyone's time. DreamGuy (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This kind of bickering will get the article locked, again. DreamGuy, you have long asked for an uninvolved editor to come along and take a look at the article. Berean Hunter fits that description, but, since he happens to disagree with you, he's suddenly a bad editor? When will this end, DreamGuy? When can a compromise be made and stick? If you won't accept outside opinion, what will you accept? --clpo13_(talk) 19:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Berean Hunter's first edits were to blind revert all of my edits, including a whole bunch other editors later admitted were good edits when they actually looked at them, and to falsely label them vandalism. That does not at all appear to be the action of an uninvolved editor, and certainly not one making reasoned decisions. DreamGuy (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I will simply like to point out that this "DreamGuy" also has been accusing me of being one Howard Brown.[7] Though 'accusing' may not be quite the right word; perhaps rather "conjecturing", and rather ineptly. Slightly amusing, and weirdly flattering in a way, but surely also expressive of a somewhat... less than rational approach ? Possibly dreaming some how ? ΑΩ (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh... this is funny... Howard Brown emailed me at my personal (non-Wikipedia) email account asked for help restoring a link to his own blog he added (or had added on his behalf, he is unclear) asking for my help to restore it... This being the same link that User:ΑΩ added. Is that an *amazing* coincidence or what? DreamGuy (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It is going to be instructive for all of us to follow Kbthompson's advice here and try to focus on the edits and not the editor. If an editor thinks another is guilty of sock-puppetry, the place to make those accusations is over, thattaway. Otherwise, let's keep it off this board. Even if a specific editor feels that they are facing uncivil commentary (and conventional talk isn't working), go find an admin or take it to AN/I. This is not the 'DreamGuy is once again being a pain in the ass' or 'Colin and Arcayne and all their sock-puppets are "blindly" trying to take o'er the world via this page' article; it is the JTR article. Let's confine our comments to the subject at hand. Let's not mischaracterize the edits of others as "blind," "nonsense" or in otherwise unflattering ways, as it's often incorrect and almost always uncivil. People who cannot hold their tempers, or at least their tongues, are going to find themselves blocked (or back in front of ArbCom). And, please, lets not have any of that 'he made me be uncivil' tripe - we are all (hopefully) toilet-trained and completely in control of our own behaviors. Assume ownership for your own civility and follow the Golden Rule; if you cannot, you are going to be very unhappy with the consequences. That goes for everyone, myself included.

That said, I'll address DreamGuy's replies to the edits (and I won't be replying to the ad hominem attacks by him; he should feel free to report me to AN/I if he feels I am acting in bad faith towards him because - again - this ain't the place):

1. Saucy Jacky - actually, I take a hit on this. It is the correct usage of the nickname, and not 'Saucy Jack.' My apologies for that, but there remains the question as to whether this is actually notable, or if there are not other monikers he/she/they were known by.
2. whilst - actually, the very reason why the term was replaced is because it is overused elsewhere. Defending the usage (or utter replacement for 'while') as being a British English article is rather faulty on its merits, and quite likely promulgated by a uniquely American characterization of British idiosyncrasies. They don't always wear bowler hats and say "tally-ho, old chap"; Brits just speak funny - they do not live in a time warp. They do eat blood sausage; feel free to make fun of them for that. :)
3. Goulston Street Graffito - I am unconvinced by DG's argument as presented above. First of all, the usage of the term 'graffito':

"The word graffiti is a plural noun in Italian. In English graffiti is far more common than the singular form graffito and is mainly used as a singular noun in much the same way data is. When the reference is to a particular inscription (as in There was a bold graffiti on the wall), the form graffito would be etymologically correct but might strike some readers as pedantic outside an archaeological context. There is no substitute for the singular use of graffiti when the word is used as a mass noun to refer to inscriptions in general or to the related social phenomenon. The sentence Graffiti is a major problem for the Transit Authority Police cannot be reworded Graffito is ... (since graffito can refer only to a particular inscription) or Graffiti are ... (which suggests that the police problem involves only the physical marks and not the larger issue of vandalism). In such contexts, the use of graffiti as a singular is justified by both utility and widespread precedent." ¹

As this is the English Wikipedia, let's use the term that is in use more, please. 'Graffito' is primarily used as an archeological term to denote ancient writing or "a rude decoration inscribed on rocks or walls", and is inappropriate for this usage (despite what some amateur writing yet another book on JTR might wish).

Secondly, I am uncertain how using the specificity of the street name in the section title is going to be more effective for the casual/average/uninitiated reader than the more generalized 'Writing on the wall' title. The specificity as to where the writing was found is better confined to within the section itself.

Before anyone replies, remember that WP:BRD has three specific components: making a bold edit, waiting to see if it is reverted, and then discussing the difference of opinion until a consensus is found. Anything else leads to edit-warring and lost tempers finding their way to a noticeboard. If you don't like the way the article looks, make an edit. If you are reverted, discuss it (and not simply posting your opinions here and re-adding the reverted material - which is a proclamation and not a discussion) and build a consensus.

If someone feels the article is being owned by one or more editors - and this is worth italicizing - take it to an admin. Chances are, you aren't being objective, and an admin who doesn't give a rat's ass about JTR will be able to render a neutral opinion. Or, you can seek mediation, or Third Opinion. This article discussion isn't a pissing contest. No one - not even the most wiki-addicted of us - is smarter than anyone else in the room. Period. Thinking thusly is an almost sure way to get schooled somewhat fiercely. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've provided a reference for the usage 'Saucy Jacky'. 'Saucy Jack' was a fictional rock opera based on the life of Jack the Ripper mentioned in the film Spinal Tap...so I guess in terms of popular culture this name could also be classed as an alias...Colin4C (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• When people capitalize "Historian" in the middle of a sentence and then reverted it back for no reason as part of a blind revert, it's clear that this action is not being done with the best interest of the article at heart.
• When a section is tagged as needed references for claims of facts in that section, and i add several references, and those are all removed and the tag demanding references is placed back, it's clear that this was not being done for any good reason but simply to revert a change I made because I made it.
• When someone disputes something is called by a specific term in a field and is given three clear cut references PROVING that it is the case, arguing that some dictionary has some definition of one of the words that might be interpreted to mean something or another is WP:OR -- The term is what the experts use. Your own personal opinion about the term is not relevant. We went over this in the past with "Ripperologist" and so forth. The term is the term, I have proven it's the term, insisting that you don't want to use that term is completely irrelevant and shows that you are more interested in pushing your own ideas onto the article instead of following what the authors have to say.
• Devoting a huge section of this article to a minor theory about the meaning of a word in a graffito, including a huge block quote, when that argument is not only obscure but directly contradicted by another source in a better position to know, removing the source proving it wrong, restoring this long, pointless quote and so forth is clearly giving WP:UNDUE weight to a nonnotable idea. This is not an article on every last theory anyone ever had about the meaning of the word Juwes, this is about the overall Jack the Ripper crimes.

It is ridiculous that the same couple of people keep blind reverting the entire article back to an old version to remove all sorts of changes that have NOTHING to do with what they are even discussing on this talk page. This is nothing but major WP:OWNership issues and obstructionism. It's also ridiculous that some people seem to think that they can ignore what documented citations prove the experts in the field have to say and replace it with their own ideas.

This needs to stop, and I honestly don't know how things will ever improve when blind reverting the whole article is rationalized away as the right thing to do. I have just as much right to edit this page as everyone else, but apparently I can't even make what are completely unobjectionable improvements without somebody with a personal conflict reverting it all in one fell swoop every single time. That's not editing in good faith. That's not even close. DreamGuy (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

New edits (arbitrary break 2)

The recent bout of edits (or rather, reverts) seem to have a bit more substance, although some of the same problems still exist. I've taken the liberty of fixing them, and addressing the changes here:

1. victims=unknown, generally five are agreed upon - 'at least five' is more concise. The dissent as to the actual number is addressed within the article.
2. occured - incorrect spelling; Dictionary.com's notes¹ that the spelling is correct. Checking "occurred" renders a definition, whilst "occured" does not.
3. This was the first "Whitechapel Murder," according to the book Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates by Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow (removal) - no explanation was offered for this removal, either in the edit summary (which of course is the wrong place to do so) or here in discussion. Without discussion (or the resulting consensus), it doesn't get removed.
4. "The Whitehall Mystery" and "The Pinchin Street Murder" have been suggested to be part of a series of murders, called the "Thames Mysteries" or "Embankment Murders", by a single serial killer. Whether Jack the Ripper and the "Torso Killer" were the same person or separate serial killers active in the same area has long been debated. (removed and replaced with cn tag dating it as April) - we don't remove cited information without discussion and resulting consensus. That's a given.
5. Other alleged Ripper victims <nowiki--not all of the following cases were murders, so can't say "other murders"--> (re-titling) - normally, a no-wiki is unnecessary when the editor making the changes does so after posting in the discussion page or operating from a consensus. As the section deals with other possible victims, it refers to possible murders. The killer certainly didn't kill the possible victims with moody thoughts, grape-flavored lollipops harsh language. If there are entries in the section that do not belong, it is in the article's best interest to discuss why they don't belong, instead of trying to work around the apparent disagreement with their inclusion. Towards that end, I've retitled the section, "Other possible victims".
6. Goulston Street Graffito (re-titling) - I've made my points in regards to this matter in the previous section. The contents of the section can explore the citations involving the usage, but the section is a signpost to readers unfamiliar with the touchstone words that the amateur Ripperologists use. The block text (from a reference source) was used to illustrate that "graffito" is being used incorrectly in this case. Now, if there is a specific and convincing argument to include it, address it below. The citations offered as reasoning for changing the title and using a grammatically and genre-incorrect term doesn't serve us, the encyclopedia or the reader.
7. historian (capitalization) - this is a correct application of grammar.
8. Skinner and Evans citation (removed from "An early instance of criminal profiling") - again, we don't remove citations without discussion and consensus.
9. Many theories about the identity and profession of Jack the Ripper have been advanced. None have been entirely persuasive - I think the previous version was better and flowed better: "Though a great many theories about the identity and profession of Jack the Ripper have been advanced, no one person has been conclusively identified as the killer." Let's get some feedback on which is preferred, instead of playing a revert-game.
10. The 1976 Judas Priest album, Sad Wings of Destiny features a song about Jack the Ripper entitled "The Ripper." (removed) - again, this needs to be discussed.
11. the Ten Bells (reverting the removal of a redlink) - there is no article on this establishment. Until one is, we don't need a bright red link telling us that we have no further information about it. Perhaps someone could write the article.Y

It is instructive to point out that the excessive usage of no-wiki is considered an example of instruction creep, which unnecessarily crowds the edit page. By simply discussing the edits here in the page called - curiously enough - "Discussion", we can all comment on the ideas that are being set forth in these no-wiki commentaries.

Again, let's stick to addressing the edits in a polite, professional manner, instead of running about and accusing folk of OWNership issues, editorial blindness and grand conspiracies. If an editor thinks others are blind, then it is his responsibility to illuminate his edits in such a way that everyone can see. Repetition (aka edit-warring) is not a substitution for discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that, though it may surprise people to hear me agreeing with DG, that I think 'Goulston Street Graffito' is better than the 'The Writing on the Wall'. The latter is somewhat vague and allusive, whereas 'Goulston Street Graffito' is more precise and could possibly be used as a subsidiary article heading (maybe combined, in the interests of economy, with anything else of significance known about Goulston Street). The urban and social geography of the streets of the East End are a burgeoning area of interest in Ripper studies (vide the recent published book 'Jack the Ripper and the East End'). However I am not going to make a song and dance (or rock opera) about this and will abide by the conscensus. Colin4C (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• "at least five is more concise" -- It's also a clear case of POV-pushing. If we need concise then "unknown" is far better than "at least five".
• "occured - incorrect spelling" -- THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP CHANGING IT TO THE INCORRECT VERSION?!?!
• "no explanation was offered for this removal, either in the edit summary (which of course is the wrong place to do so) or here in discussion" -- Both of these statements are incorrect. My edit comment "no need to name a single book for ref on first Whitechapel murder, as all books on topic have same info, made it sound like only this one" explained that edit, and I don't need to explain every edit on the talk page before making it, especially not when it's explained in the edit itself. If you'd pay attention instead of just undoing anything and everything I do just because I do it, you'd realize it. You don't WP:OWN this page. You don't get to insist that every single minor change needs an explanation, and you don't get to demand WHERE the explanation by placed.
• "we don't remove cited information without discussion and resulting consensus" YOU ARE THE ONE WHO REMOVED THE CITED INFORMATION *I* ADDED. You don't even pay enough attention to know the difference between what you changed as part of your blind revert and what I changed as part of my edits. This is ridiculous.
• " As the section deals with other possible victims, it refers to possible murders." At least read the section before making completely incorrect claims. Annie Millwood, Ada Wilson and Annie Farmer, all listed in that section, were attacked by a knife (or allegedly anyway with Farmer) but did not die from that attack. If they did not die as a result of an attack there's no way it can be called murder. The Whitehall torso discovery and Elizabeth Jack, also listed in that section, also aren't necessarily murders, as they could have died under some other circumstances that the people who disposed of the bodies didn't want the police to find out about, such as a botched abortion, as has been often suggested. Fairy Fay by most accounts never existed at all, so a nonexistent person can't be murdered. Of the SEVEN cases in the section you insist upon being called "other murders" ONLY ONE can be proven to be a murder, and AT LEAST THREE can be proven to NOT have been a murder. If there's even only one case in there that isn't a murder, "Other murders" would be an inaccurate heading. And complaining about the fact that I added a comment tag there explaining the edit there is just ridiculous. And your response that "The killer certainly didn't kill the possible victims with moody thoughts, grape-flavored lollipops harsh language." as an explanation for why you think "Other murders" fits there shows that you are highly uncivil and not even paying attention.
• "Goulston Street Graffito" you claim "the section is a signpost to readers unfamiliar with the touchstone words that the amateur Ripperologists use" -- again, you obviously did not even look at the content of my edits, as I provided THREE sources that showed tht the term was used by experts who are NOT "amateur" Ripperologists. As far as your block quote in which you claim that "Graffito" is an inaccurate term, you're just plain wrong and you don't get to declare that words used by the professional experts on the topic are wrong anyway. Wikipedia goes with what experts say, not whatever some online guy who thinks he's smarter than the experts say.
• "historian (capitalization) - this is a correct application of grammar" -- No, no it's not. You don't just randomly capitalize "historian" for no reason.
• " I think the previous version was better and flowed better" The one I changed it to is the "previous version." "no one person has been conclusively identified as the killer." is a new version, apparently added recently within some instance of blind reverting, and seems to be worded to suggest that people have been identified but not yet conclusively.
• "The 1976 Judas Priest album, Sad Wings of Destiny features a song about Jack the Ripper entitled "The Ripper." (removed) - again, this needs to be discussed" No, not really. All instances of music titles and fiction have always been omved to the Jack the Ripper in fiction article so as not to clog up the main article. In fact six months back when you were blind reverting you eventually agreed that music and fiction needs to go to the other article, so it already has been discussed and you already agreed, you just are ignoring that as part of a general blind revert of all changes.
• "Until one is, we don't need a bright red link telling us that we have no further information about it" That might be a good strategy for See also items, but it's standard practice to include links on items for which articles should be made so that people can see it there, realize the article needs to be created, click on it and make it. See WP:RED.
• " If an editor thinks others are blind, then it is his responsibility to illuminate his edits in such a way that everyone can see." Sorry, but when you aren't even looking at the content of your edits to see what you are doing (going so far as to think in some cases that changes *you* made were ones I made and arguing against them) and ignore edit comments, comment tags added to the article and previous very clear explanations on the talk page, it's impossible for me to illuminate my edits beyond what I have already done. It is YOUR responsibility to see what YOUR edits do to the article and not just assume any edits some other editor makes are bad. It is YOUR responsibility to read comments and explanations already offered. I can't make you see what's starting you in the face but which you refuse to look at. DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Continuous blind reverts as an organized pattern of obstruction

This is just so tedious. Arcayne even admitted in the edit comments to his most recent blind revert of the entire article to remove all of my recent edits that even he admits that some of the edits were good, so there's absolutely no justification for removing all of the edits.

He claims that I have to discuss changes and gain consensus before I make them and that he is justified in reverting everything I do otherwise.... this is simply not true. I do not need to establish consensus before I fix capitalization errors, spelling errors, and misleading section titles for example (the "other murders" section including one or more people who were NOT murdered). I do not need to sit here and talk people through some long explanation of why when a tag in a section of the article requests that a statement have a source cited to back it up that I feel it is perfectly reasonable to go in there and add sources. Yet ARcayne keeps removing them and claiming that i have no right to make edits until he approves of them first.

Anyone who has been editing here for any length of time should understand that blind reverts are simply unacceptable and that repeating them is a major violation of WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL and countless other standards of conduct here. If you disagree with a change to a section, you go in there and change THAT part, you don't go and undo every single last thing I ever do, including a whole string of things that nobody could possible object to.

This needs to stop. And if Arcayne is unwilling to stop blind reverting the whole article to his last version every time I make an edit, just as he was warned against doing more than six months back and which caused the article to be locked, then other editors need to stand up and take responsibility to undo his blind reverts and show a good faith effort that they are here to actually make improvements to the article instead of participate in a longstanding personal grudge. And if other editors do not even attempt at trying to take reasonable steps here to end Arcayne's longstanding animosity form holding the article hostage, then there's no way anyone can even try to claim here that there's been a real attempt at consensus building and working together. DreamGuy (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the various parties could take a single section of the article and see if there is any area of agreement on content. I don't find it helpful that the article cycles through two editions; including, I think, some unintended consquences, for instance, why have you excised the ref "Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner (2001) Jack the Ripper: Letters From Hell: 29-44"? (No, you realised and corrected)

I think both parties have much to offer this article but get very frustrated by the large scale changes that recur on a daily basis. You both need to find a way of working together. Kbthompson (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that edit was that I went back and checked individual edits between the times Arcayne blind reverted me looking for individual edits that were good so that I could re-add those by hand. I saw Colin's edit and went to readd it but missed the second instance of the source being added. I don't know if at the time I decided that the second case of citing the reference was unnecessary as the same source had already been cited at the top of the page for the same claim or if I just missed it. But the thing is that I do go back and double check edits afterwards, and that this wouldn't have been a problem if Arcayne would stop blind reverting every single last thing I do for no reason, including a bunch of edits that he apparently even agrees are good ones. Back when this page was protected last fall I said we need to make it clear that blind reverts are unacceptable, and Arcayne (with the help of a new editor) is still doing it. There is no possibility for any good faith work on this article when spelling corrections, added sources, very clear section title changes and so forth are all wiped away by a guy jumping to click the Undo button every time he sees my name without bothering to look at the content. DreamGuy (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Which "new" editor? Me? I challenge you to support that statement with diffs. You are accusing the new editor of "still doing it". ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down everyone, please don't try to throw allegations around (even oblique references) and try to concentrate on content and not allocating blame. There's a problem here and it's better to solve it through discussion than the inevitable article locking and clagging up the noticeboards with counter-claims of bad behaviour. The things I would suggest for this situation are:

1. Obtain consensus before changes
2. Let someone else make the changes required
3. Make incremental changes that are easy to agree

I hope that helps. Kbthompson (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that we should welcome new editors who wish to work on the article. Too often they're driven away by the constant bickering. There needs to be a co-operative environment that moves the article forward. Much time has been spent on it, and it's still not even at GA. Kbthompson (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm calm. I'm kinda laughing about it because he just threw a tantrum and went over and BLIND reverted the Whitechapel article in the hopes to draw attention and maybe bait someone in. Dg must subscribe to the "Do as I say not as I do" philosophy. He can't support his accusations...Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah. I didn't blind revert that article. I knew exactly what the changes would do: make it in compliance with Wikipedia policy. The problem is some people either do not know or stubbornly do not care what policy is and why it is important. DreamGuy (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to give DG credit for communication. You may be able to garner some support that way and I might agree with you on some points. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's try it as Kbthompson suggested. Let's address the problems one section at a a time, starting with the sections wherein DG has made consistent reverts, starting with the subsection below. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

Victims (from infobox)

Please discuss the following options

1. "victims=At least 5"
2. "victims=unknown, generally five are agreed upon"
3. or an alternative?

Discussion:

• I'm inclined to brevity, but since the infobox heading takes two lines, there's no real penalty to using the longer version - (nitpicking) 'u' should be capitalised for consistency. Kbthompson (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• I prefer the first one as well, as it is brief. The phrasing notes that there is some debate as to the actual number that is best expressed within the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Prefer the first for simplicity. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Might I mark this as resolved (the first choice, as it seems to have been the option favored by all three respondents?) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you may...Colin4C (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Other possible victims" (section title)

Alternatives:

1. "Other possible victims"
2. "Other victims in the Whitechapel murder file"
3. or an alternative?

Discussion:

• No 2 as it is more accurate and specific. Colin4C (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Again, I'm inclined to brevity - particularly in headings - but there's a risk of some confusion with the next sub-heading; so it would need to be 2, or 3. Generally, headings should be as succinct as possible - with distinctions explained in the text. Kbthompson (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Again, the briefer one, and it could be said that this section and the one below it could be combined. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

But the murders in the section below were never included in the Whitechapel Murders file. Combining them would confuse the issue. Colin4C (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Combining them would be a mistake, the Whitechapel ones are in the same area; the others are increasingly unrelated to the Ripper cases. I think this article is best focused on the attributed Ripper murders, the investigation and the murderer. Kbthompson (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• #2 -- I agree with Kb that the article should keep focus...other possible victims will have all kinds of unfounded inserts possible...⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, combining them would be considered a mistake; sorry for muddying the question. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So, where are we at with this question? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone is agreed on #2. Colin4C (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Pinchin street torso (text)

Alternatives:

1. ""The Whitehall Mystery" and "The Pinchin Street Murder" have often been suggested to be the work of a serial killer, for which the nicknames "Torso Killer" or "Torso Murderer" have been suggested. Whether Jack the Ripper and the "Torso Killer" were the same person or separate serial killers of uncertain connection to each other (but active in the same area) has long been debated."
2. "The Whitehall Mystery" and "The Pinchin Street Murder" have been suggested to be part of a series of murders, called the "Thames Mysteries" or "Embankment Murders", by a single serial killer. Whether Jack the Ripper and the "Torso Killer" were the same person or separate serial killers active in the same area has long been debated."
3. or an alternative?

Discussion:

• No 2 - as it is referenced. Colin4C (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Referencing could be achieved, but I can find only one Google ref to "Torso Murderer" in this context - everything else is to the Cleveland Torso Murderer; so 2 then. Kbthompson (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• 2nd one because it is referenced & I think it reads a little better. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• I would point out that there are a number of problems with this statement. First, who is suggesting that the Whitehall Mystery and the Pinchin Street Murder are related to JTR? Secondly, there are entirely too many citations being added to the article from Casebook.org for comfort. As there might be a CoI from one of the editors (who apparently works on that site), it might be best to avoid - or at least minimize the contact with that particular site, which seems full of information that doesn't readily provide the provenance of the information it is providing (what specific citation offers the suggestion that the Torso Killer and JTR might be connected?). Depending on the answers to these questions, I will offer an alternative to the disputed text. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm and I've just noticed that the logical connection between sentence one and sentence two of option #2 is entirely not clear. If the "Torso Killer" is the person alleged to have carried out the "Embankment Murders" this should be spelt out more clearly and explicitly. Colin4C (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If the ref can be tied back to a specific page number, then the sentence could be clarified (so, 3 then ...). Kbthompson (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Does someone want to have a crack at reworking the sentence, then? I'd like to resolve the matter and move on to the other bits. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

How about:

"The Whitehall Mystery" and "The Pinchin Street Murder" have been suggested to be part of a series of murders, called the "Thames Mysteries" or "Embankment Murders", committed by a single serial killer, dubbed the "Torso Killer".Whether Jack the Ripper and the "Torso Killer" were the same person or separate serial killers active in the same area has long been debated.

Colin4C (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Clues found in Goulston Street

DreamGuy claims that the term 'Goulston Street Graffito' is the one used by experts on this case. I say it is untrue. There may be some authors, possibly 'experts' on all or some sides to this case, using that term. DreamGuy says he has been providing three sources for his claim. In that case I'll say they should be explicitly mentioned here, under this heading, to better further a rational discussion of this matter.

Authors Rumbelow and Evans do not use that term in their book about the Scotland Yard investigation, except when mentioning "the possibility that the wall writing was simply a piece of graffiti". They are otherwise referring to it as 'writing' or 'message'. There can hardly be any doubt at all that these two authors, both of them former police officers and lifetime investigators of this case, must be the perhaps foremost experts, especially as their collaborative work on the police investigation is (as far as I'm aware) the only special study of its kind. The extensive references made to it in the article rather proves it's unique importance.

I'll say this all makes it quite obvious that the "Graffitto" heading represents a POV tendency. The reinstating of it has also been performed several times under the guise of fairly constructive minor edits - further evidence, I'll say, that the major edits violates NPOV. (The same might be said about the removal of the Stephenson quote) Finally, I'll say the mere fact that neither the "Writing" nor the "Graffito" heading fully cover the subject of that section indicates a general POV tendency. Two possible clues were found in Goulston Street - the bloody apron piece and the chalk writing on that wall. The more obvious clue is in fact the apron piece. Both of these clues should, ideally, in some way be suggested by the title. ΑΩ (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you say it's untrue then you either have not read more than one or two books on the topic or you are lying. Rumbelow and Evans do not use the term in their book, no, but omission of a term in one book while it's included in countless others does not mean it isn't the accepted term. And as far as explicitly mentioning which three sources I used, it was in my edit on the article, if you were too lazy to go look at the edit history to find them out it's ridiculous to insinuate I was lying.

Let's bottom line this. If Alpha Omega here objects to the term, that's his personal POV. We need to go by what the sources written by experts have to say. Far and away they all acknowlege that it's the Goulston Street Graffito (or Graffiti, for those who prefer the plural form). I have provided three unassailable sources, and can continue on with many more if someone is going to thump his head against the wall in denial of a fact he himself knows is true. DreamGuy (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If I had spent a little more time perusing your edits I would have found the references you did provide. Call it "laziness" that I did not spend that time. I'll say you could have mentioned them again here, if you were indeed interested in any kind of dialogue. I'd say your last comment speaks for itself. Your sources: Paul Begg's Jack the Ripper: The Facts (2004), L. Perry Curtis' Jack the Ripper and the London Press (2001), John Douglas, Mark Olshaker , The Cases That Haunt Us (A compilation of a number of different cases, published in 2000). Who's to decide if and how any source is notable, or more notable than any other, in the sense that the author is an expert within this particular field ? Most people would certainly agree that Paul Begg is a notable "Ripper author", and source. But it is also a fact that he finds it "most probable" that the writing on that wall was "just one of the many pieces of graffiti that we're told adorned the streets" - a statement made in Jack the Ripper - The Definitive Story, without much argument or referencing of sources. So, I'll say his point of view may at least in part explain his choice of that term.

And I cannot see that we have any reason to assume that Evans and Rumbelow "omitted" the 'graffito' term by mere chance in their work on the Scotland Yard investigation. (1st ed. 2006) I'll rather say it seems their work represents a conscious effort to avoid a too general use of the word 'graffiti', with its unavoidable connotations. (In Rumbelow's The Complete Jack the Ripper (1975, 1987, 1988, 2004) there is no mention of 'graffiti', or graffito', at all.) I would have thought these two authors still were considered among the foremost experts on this particular case. And like I've said before, there is no use of the word 'graffito', or 'graffiti', in their work, except as to present the mere possibility that it may, as argued by Begg, have been "just another piece of graffiti". As for the facts of the case, the most neutral book would probably be Evans' and Skinner's Sourcebook. There is, of course, no mention of either 'graffito' or 'graffiti' in that book, as it is a truly singular compilation of historical facts. There may be other valuable works written by other authors, but I would rather recommend countless readings of that one book, and of Rumbelow's and Evans' Scotland Yard Investigates, than wasting time on whatever other "countless" books that may have been published about this case.

Still, I'll admit that I would not be too surprised if the 'graffito' term is indeed about to become the accepted term, to the possible detriment of truth and historical understanding. The obsessive effort at rooting out any other use or view would of course make such a situation all the more likely. ΑΩ (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I ought to have mentioned Philip Sugden too, of course. There is no mention of 'graffito' or graffiti' in Sugden's The Complete History of Jack The Ripper. To make up for my omission, and to make a point of the meticulousness of this professional historian, I'll post a quote from note 17, ch 9, about "The writing in Goulston Street":

"The writing in Goulston Street was probably the only tangible clue ever left by the Whitechapel murderer. The precise wording of the message cannot now be recovered. Begg, Fido & Skinner, The Jack the Ripper A to Z, pp. 96-7, speak of Metropolitan and City Police versions but this is misleading in that there was no unanimity in either force on the matter.

The form of the writing given in the present text was that transmitted by Warren himself to the Home Office. The wording, but not the spelling 'Juwes', is confirmed by PC Long. On 11 October he told the inquest that the words were: 'The Juews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.' When Long delivered the apron to the inspector at Commercial Street the inspector returned to Goulston Street with him to see the writing for himself. 'I wrote [the words] down in my book,' testified Long, 'and the Inspector noticed that Jews was spelt Juews.' This may be correct because both Long and Superintendent Arnold in their reports of 6 November, record the message thus: 'The Juews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing' and Dr. Adler, replying on 13 October to a query of Warren, refers to the spelling 'Juewes'.

Chief Inspector Swanson's summary report on the Mitre Square case gives the rendering 'The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing', which generally substantiates Warren, but Swanson, as far as we know, did not see the writing. Neither did Dr Anderson. He was not even in the country at the time of the double murder yet assured a daily paper in April 1910 that the exact words were 'The Jewes are not the men to be blamed for nothing', which is different again. Sir Melville Macnaghten's version is 'The Jews are the men who will not be blamed for nothing.' Unfortunately Macnaghten did not join the Metropolitan Police until 1889 and wrote most of his 1914 reminiscences from memory. Dew, I Caught Crippen, p. 137, is the same as Macnaghten and almost certainly copied from him.

The ranks of the City Police are in a similar disarray. We have three City renderings, only one - that given by Daniel Halse to the inquest on 11 October 1888 - coming from an eyewitness: 'I took a note of the writing before it was rubbed out. The exact words were The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing.' Press versions of his testimony add that there were three lines in 'a good schoolboy's round hand', the capital letters about three quarters of an inch high and the others in proportion. Since Halse was there and argued for the preservation of the writing it might be supposed that he took the trouble to record it accurately. But Inspector McWilliam, drawing up a report for the Home Office on 27 October, opted for a version closer to Warren's: 'The Jewes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.' Finally, many years later, Smith remembered the message as 'The Jews are the men that won't be blamed for nothing.' (From Constable to Commisioner, p. 153)

The reminiscent versions should be discounted. Nevertheless, in view of the conflicting contemporary testimony, the exact nature of the murderer's message must remain in doubt." (Philip Sugden, The Complete Jack The Ripper, pp. 498-99)

ΑΩ (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Until it's cleared up, I have altered the title to the more neutral "Writing on the Wall." I know Colin also liked the Goulston reference, but the point is that the text within the discussion explains where the writing took place. I will also alter the writing to reflect that graffito is not a widely used term. writing works just as well, and most folk, reading the article, would think we've misspelled graffiti. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Following ΑΩ's suggestion, maybe the sub-heading above: "The Clues found in Goulston Street" would be an acceptible compromise sub-heading for insertion in the article? This would be more specific, definate and accurate than the vague 'Writing on the Wall'. Colin4C (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is that Goulston Street isn't going to mean anything to those not knowledgeable about Ripper stuff. The need for specificity in the section title is negligible, especially when there is ample information within the section text. Maybe a different title would be helpful and bridge the gap between the vanilla 'writing on the wall' and the somewhat esoteric and inaccurate 'Goulston Street graffito'. Maybe the actual statement about how 'the Juwes are not the ones...', etc.

As well, I am quite opposed to the usage of the 'graffito' descriptor, as it is usually used to refer to ancient writings or images in the field of archaeology. It seems a hijacking of a legitimate (and relatively obsolete) term to add legitimacy to what is essentially a group of interested amateurs (with an occasional interested expert) and not an actual scientific field. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous claim, on several levels. If you only use archaic sources you'll only see it used in archaic references, sure, but the term means writing on wall that was put there separate from signage on a building, etc. And your continued insistence that it's amateurs who came up with these things is absurd. I believe the actual originator of the term was Martin Fido, who is a well-respected historian and professional. For someone with an extreme bias against experts in the field of Ripperology it seems strange for you to be editing an article on the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Remember that's also a PoV. I don't think sprinkling an unusual use of the word throughout the text is particularly helpful, but if a reference can be found for its use in the established literature then I have no objection to a phrase such as sometimes known as the Goulston Street griffito being added. I agree that it is not a helpful way of describing the scrawled chalk message for the lay-reader, and its not a word that appears in Chambers (for instance). Better perhaps to use message (and its synonyms) to describe the marks - after their first introduction. Kbthompson (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems the 'message' wasn't actually 'scrawled' either, which means there may be even less reason to call it 'graffito/graffiti'. There's a witness description saying that it was "in a good schoolboy hand" and a report referring to it as being written "in an ordinary hand". (Detective Daniel Halse & Ch. Inspector Swanson) Perhaps it could be worked into the text somehow, or a quote be made from the official statements. ΑΩ (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Where I come from the word 'graffiti' is a very well known term - reflecting a very widespread phenomenon of British urban life in the 21st as in the 19th century. Maybe there is a scientific study of it out there? If so, we could note whether 'graffito' is the term of choice for a single message. Colin4C (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed very common were I come from too. A couple of weeks ago the main entrance into the (late 19th century) building where I'm living, was sprayed down with silver paint by some narcissistic egotist. It is in fact my impression that this phenomenon is common in most modern urban cultures. When did it become quite common, or very common ? There has, as far as I'm aware, been made no serious studies of it, specifically relating to the late 19th or early 20th century. Encyclopedia Brittanica does mention one specific instance from 1930's Germany: SA troops guarding a Jewish-owned business in Vienna shortly after the Anschluss. And yes, the 'graffito' word is there. But they still use the plural when referring to that piece of "wall writing", also relating to anti-semitism. There's another example there of the more common and rather more innocent variety known from our own times. Perhaps that could say something about the changing function, and rise, of "wall writing" in modern urban culture. ΑΩ (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The usage note for the dictionary term (as seen in Dictionary.com and taken from American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed, 2006) might prove useful here (bold text is added for emphasis):

"The word graffiti is a plural noun in Italian. In English graffiti is far more common than the singular form graffito and is mainly used as a singular noun in much the same way data is. When the reference is to a particular inscription (as in There was a bold graffiti on the wall), the form graffito would be etymologically correct but might strike some readers as pedantic outside an archaeological context. There is no substitute for the singular use of graffiti when the word is used as a mass noun to refer to inscriptions in general or to the related social phenomenon. The sentence Graffiti is a major problem for the Transit Authority Police cannot be reworded Graffito is ... (since graffito can refer only to a particular inscription) or Graffiti are ... (which suggests that the police problem involves only the physical marks and not the larger issue of vandalism). In such contexts, the use of graffiti as a singular is justified by both utility and widespread precedent." ¹

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign last week)

Just found this interesting snippet from the Anti-Catholicism article mentioning anti-Catholic graffiti in London in 1850:

"The re-establishment of the Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy in 1850 created a frenzy of anti-Catholic feeling, whipped up by the newspapers. An effigy of Cardinal Wiseman, the new head of the restored Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy in England, was paraded through the streets and burnt at Bethnal Green and graffiti proclaiming 'No popery!' were chalked up on walls". Colin4C (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that chalk was used by graffiti writers in those days in preference to marker pens - presumably because the latter had not yet been invented...Colin4C (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And chalk writing may have been better suited for brick walls.

It is an interesting example. I'll say that context confirms my impression that the activity of 'wall writers' may have been depending more on singular events back then. And they may have been representing a more conscious political effort. I'll say though, that a Protestant's chalking up 'No Popery!' on walls during a political-religious campaign should not be thought of as "just another piece (or more) of graffiti". And if an article were to be written about it, I'd say "Writing on the Wall" might have been a proper headline (for a Protestant paper, certainly), providing a relevant connotation. Perhaps it may be compared, to some specific forms of wall writing in our own times.

I could mention one example from my personal experience, though it may be judged,at best, to be too "original research". Where I live, during the prelude to the invasion of Iraq there was sort of an 'anti-American wall writing campaign'. The character of it contrasted quite clearly with regular 'grafitti', and the relative uniformity of it made it fairly obvious that it most probably was a premeditated effort made by one person, possibly acting on behalf of a group, or maybe (but less probably) the work of several 'writers' acting in unison. Quite interestingly, the message was perceived to be at least slightly ambiguous, and the most conspicuously placed 'pieces of writing' were even removed by about the same speed and efficiency as the writing on that wall in Goulston Street. For lack of a better word it might of course be thought of as 'grafitti'. But I actually think it would be better to think of it as 'Writing on the Wall', in the allusive, biblical sense. It did not at all seem to be the work of any regular 'grafitti writer'. In fact, it somewhat reminded me of Detective Halse's description, of the "good schoolboy hand". ΑΩ (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of years ago I noticed some ancient graffiti on a public building in St Albans urging the Americans to get out of Vietnam...Hopefully, local archaeologists have put a preservation order on it...Colin4C (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would submit that one man's 'ancient' is another man's young adulthood. I am thinking my Uncle Gerry, who served two tours in Vietname, would likely take considerable exception to being deemed 'ancient'. Its a matter of relativity and proper definition of ancient. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

I mean ancient in terms of surviving graffiti. Anybody seen any older stuff which still survives on location? "Vikings Go Home" maybe? Colin4C (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Whigs out!" - the best ones' used to be the semi-conversations "George Davis is innocent" - two years later (on second conviction) - "No, he's not .." added. On appealing the first conviction - "still" added to first bit. A wall in Mile End (to get back within 1/2 mile of the subject - said "Peasant's Revolt 1381" - although I doubt the graffito's claim to antiquity. The Tower of London has several examples of graffiti carved into the walls of cells.

The oldest I've seen, is Viking graffiti carved into a tomb on Orkney. They broke into a neolithic tomb to survive a snowstorm and literally added the runes "holfir Kolbeinsson carved these runes high up" in the stone (see Maeshowe). Sorry, what was the subject of this page? Kbthompson (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol. yep. The subject was teh usage of 'graffito', I think. I would prefer to argue about San Francisco Burritos, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

-1 for me on graffito. Enough has already been said for which I couldn't add to...is it my imagination or are we missing somebody? Colin ΑΩ, you are right about chalk doing better on brick..now, how do you get it off?..quick, quick, before my neighbors get home. 8^D ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Vinegar works wonders. As well, slices of bologna on a car's boot lid can serve rather well to ruin the metal for all time.

And no, you aren't mistaken, someone has not chosen to contribute to this discussion. We needn't worry excessively about it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just read these sage remaks from Rudyard Kipling: "When little boys have learned a new bad word they are never happy till they have chalked it up on a door. And this also is Literature" (from 'The Phantom Rickshaw' published in 1888 - the year of the Ripper...). Colin4C (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read that story now. And (my heartfelt) thanks for making me aware. It seems it was first published in 1885, when Kipling was nineteen. Perhaps most interesting, in my view, is the fact that the protagonist - Jack - is said to be "acting like a child" when about to enter his delusional "fits", whilst the "storyteller" presents the "true tale" as if it were, in a sense, written onto a door by a child. It seems fairly obvious to me that the 'married woman/ghostly apparation' from the 'irresponsible past' represents a mother figure, "mentally murdered" in order to service the (regrettably regressive, as it turns out) transfer onto the "Kitty". Who knows what the "bad words" were, that the 19 year old Kipling had at the back of his mind here... I'll have to say though, I doubt 'Jews' were among them. ΑΩ (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well, we shall charge Kipling for the murders immediately, though in absentia. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Was the Ripper Left or Right Handed??

Thge wiki article is missing important discussion on whether the Ripper was left or right handed. This needs an expert to properly add a section on this with appropriate references. I am no expert so will not attempt it myself, but I have heard that the the angle of the knife wounds suggested a left handed person. If this is true then I want to see discussion on which suspects were left or righthanded in the article too. Also I want to see expert opinion on which Ripper letters appear to have left or righthanded script. Can some suitably knowledgeable people, who have the appropriate references, rectify these omissions in the wiki article?Bletchley (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

They are not omissions. They are subjective theory which have never had any pertinent conclusions drawn apart from individual theorists. There is much written on the subject but all of it is speculative and doesn't necessarily add anything to the article. Philip Sugden's book covers the subject well if you are interested. As for the handwriting, first you would have to prove one of the letters can actually be ascribed to the real Ripper...until then, exercise in handwriting analysis is also subjective & quite possibly futile as the majority (if not all) of the letters were hoaxes. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A question I would pose would be whether books had been devoted to this particular question, or whether it is a constant topic of discussion in JTR books. If it were, it might bear mentioning. If not, then it might be less notable, and not needing inclusion here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought this had been dealt with previously. Some early theories were based on a sparsely supported conclusion that the Ripper was left-handed (one of the doctors testified at inquest that the killer was likely left-handed. His view was in the minority). As part of the folklore of the case it might have some interest, but absent concrete evidence one way or the other, claims of the Ripper's left-handedness are just speculation. Revmagpie (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that not only was it just one doctor who said Jack was probably left-handed (on the Nichols' murder, before there were many corpses to tell by), he later reversed that conclusion and said he couldn't be sure. So there's not much to it, other than the newspapers never let go of the idea. DreamGuy (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, note it as a mostly discounted (with citations to that effect) theory, so that people don't keep adding it in article space, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. We can't bother to document every wild claim that has been discounted, however, and just because newbies wander through and add something in itself is no reason to have it in the article. Whether this point is worth raising on its own merits is worth considering, but we need to make sure we do it for encyclopedic reasons, not just for convenience. DreamGuy (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out that "wild claims" is an entirely subjective phrasing. Of course, we aren't going to render undue weight on a theory that hasn't wider traction within the "Ripperologist" community. If plenty of people outside the field tend to note a hand-orientation/preference, it might be considered a Good Thing to put the theory in its proper frame of reference. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Clues found on Goulston street

It seems that every few months, we have to address the concerns of one particular editor. Sigh. Okay. We cannot call it by the substituted title, as we are not sure that they are "clues" or coincidence. We don't call it graffito just because some hack called it that in his profiteering venture (read: JTR whodunit book). We also don't call it such because its the wrong word - it applies to archeological scribbles and whatnot. Most people know it as writing ont he wall. It's makes no evaluations as to the weight of the writing, it doesn't unduly favor a conspiracy theorist misusing the term, and more importantly, it addresses then connection that most casual readers make when ticking the things they know about JTR off, one by one.
Of course, this was stuff already iterated a few mon ths ago, And a few months before that. Sorry - maybe I am mistaken, but it was my understanding that if you wish to change consensus, you do it here and not by edit-warring a pet version through. WP:BRD is clear; bold edits, when reverted, require discussion. Failing to do so leads to headaches, blocks and the such. Build a consensus. Don't attempt to force one. I can pretty much guarantee that it won't end happily for anyone trying to do that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this advice is that you do not attempt to make a consensus, you just blind revert each and every change I ever make, assuming that it must be bad, and leave an edit message declaring that it's against consensus. To add insult to injury, you insist that I must discuss all changes first, yet you ignore all the edit comments fully explaining the reasons and, to go from bad to worse, erase all of the discussion right off off the talk page as an archive of "old and closed discussions" despite that such discussions are not old (two editors posted comments to them in the last 24 hours) and are clearly NOT closed. That's not responsible editing, that's just obstructionism. A good portion of the content you just deleted detailed step by step all of my edits that you wouldn't let me make last time around which, when you were forced to give a reason why you would't let them go in, frequently accused me of removing a source *YOU* actually removed, or making a spelling error *YOUR EDIT* actually made, or where you claim something was necessary before something could be included but it had already been there for years. You aren't even looking at the content of my edits to determine if they are good or not, you are just undoing every single last one of them.

As this has been your clearly demonstrated tactics over the past year and you show no signs of ever following Wikipedia policies on this matter, I am finally going to take whatever formal steps are necessary to get admins to force you to stop this disruptive behavior and to start following Wikipedia policies. You cannot just come here with an attitude that every published author on the Ripper case I ever cite as a reliable source is some amateur hack you can feel free to insult and set yourself up as the resident expert here instead. You do not WP:OWN this article, and you do not get to treat me as if I were banned from the article, insisting that I have to explain every single last edit on the talk page and get someone else to agree to it first, even in the cases where it's only a spelling error. I had optimistically assumed that eventually you'd grow tired of this behavior and stop on your own, or that perhaps you would end up getting blocked for similar actions elsewhere on this project, but I'm through waiting. DreamGuy (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No way DG, you are trolling here and have been doing so to see who will bite. What you do is intentional...you attempt this by starting with caustic accusations and claims using extreme language in an effort to boost the drama. You try to turn things personal. This happens when you show up & go into your little act. You refuse to follow concensus..so don't be surprised when those you slight take a set against you. You garner it. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's nothing but assuming bad faith and a personal attack. Look at the edits I made. Look at them. How on earth does Arcayne justifying not just reverting some he disagrees with but ALL of them? I am really disappointed that an editor who disagreed with me over an edit would encourage Arcayne in this action. Consensus is not "we call DreamGuy names so we will just revert anything and everything he does without even looking at it". At this point I am hoping admins will step in and discipline Arcayne and clarify things for you. You need to realize that this is not how Wikipedia works. DreamGuy (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

BH, is, I feel, making an observation and much of it accords with my personal experience of your behaviour. The purpose of administrative action is not to manage your relations with the rest of the world - as it appears. It is to move the article forward and the best way to do that is to continue to concentrate on content and NOT indulge in these constant forays into purely behavioural discussions – whether your own, Arcayne's or any innocent bystander who attempts to get discussion back on track. I would suggest that you think about making incremental changes that can be discussed, rather than editing the entire article at once to bring it back to a version that Arcayne seems to have a problem with. The purpose of the talk page is to concentrate discussion on building consensus on changes to the article, not about furthering the vendetta that seems to exist between yourself and Arcayne. This talk page is not about either of you, it is about the content of the article. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

M I know you, KB, have good faith and attempt to follow policies, but it is my personal opinion that you've let a gang of a small but very vocal group of editor's constant complaints blind you to what's been really going on here. My edits were incremental edits, it was Arcayne who blind reverting them all in one fell swoop, and if Arcayne felt they needed to be discussed he could have started a discussion on anything he had a problem with before making any change at all to the article. He never does this. He erases it all, demands a discussion, and then frequently ends up admitting that most of the edits he reversed were ones he has no objections to (spelling, sources, etc.). If you think incremental editing is a good idea, then you would insist that Arcayne and others not blind revert the article everytime they see my name. I am not banned from editing this article, and other editors are not allowed to treat me as if I were. Now, please, go check the content of my edits to the article, both from yesterday and today, and tell me if you think they are good or not. If CONTENT is the issue, do that, don't just contribute to the personal conflict you say you don't want here by assigning blame to only one side. DreamGuy (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My comment there was more in defence of Berean Hunter, than anything else. I personally, am more than happy that you choose to contribute here. I don't feel that I am assigning blame to any one party. I issued my challenge to both you and Arcayne, in AE; work together to get this article to GA status. I have no problem with your edits today, they are concise and well explained. I would caution that removing the Cornwall book invites some anon to add it again - better to leave it in and note it's not actually worth reading! Kbthompson (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A pity they've closed down most of the boxing rings in Whitechapel, then we could all take bets on the outcome of Dreamguy vs The Rest of the World. Just bought second-hand an autobiography of some Jewish guy who actually lived on Goulston Street in the early years of the twentieth century. He remarks on the local legend of 'Jack Dripper' and gives a vivid insight into what a shocking dump the whole area was. Colin4C (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't confuse "a few Wikipedia editors with grudges" and "the rest of the world". In fact, the main problem here seems to be that certain editors are opposed to letting the real world (through reliable sources of experts on the topic) be added here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Stepney Boys Club could probably accommodate such an exhibition. Kbthompson (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they would, but that isn't going to help us here. I appreciate the presence of an admin here - such was the purpose of my AN/I (which ballooned unexpectedly into AE). I don't want this article discussion to turn into a bitchfest session about DreamGuy; I pointedly refuse to contribute to such a derailment yet again. Let's all of us stay calm. As evidenced by the AN/I, there are eyes here now, and maybe we can iron out some of these perennial issues once and for all.

Let's simply address the apparent dissent with the edits newly introduced, and leave discussion of the editors to a bare minimum. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

LEt's also discuss WIkipedia policies. Per WP:OWN, you are not allowed to blind revert the article, nor are you allowed to just decide an editor you have a personal conflict with cannot edit the article directly and demand that everything be explained on talk until you agree with it. I've said for a year now that this article cannot go forward until you and others agree tht blind reverting is not a tool for trying to win conflict. DreamGuy (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read my earlier post, DG. Comment on the edits, and not the editor. If you have a problem with an editor, I am sure you know the venue to pursue them. The article discussion is not the place to do so. Please stay focused. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please reread my early post, A. The main problem with the article is the actions of a certain individual or two violating policies. It would be so much faster for you to simply agree to not blind revert, and to other editors to make that a standard policy here. The fact that you don't is troubling. DreamGuy (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So, you can both agree to further the needs of the article. If everyone can agree not to indulge in behaviour that is guaranteed to wind one, or other party, then we can move on. Kbthompson (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

quick question

I have a quick question I was wondering what school / universtiy that Jack the Ripper went to? I have been told a lot of differnt answers so I was wondering if somebody had a better knowledge than I have? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.242.39 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to know who he was before you could say, and nobody does. DreamGuy (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Or what his profession was. I think the personnel of the Royal London Hospital, which was near the murder sites, were investigated at the time on the possibility that he might be a demented medical student from there. Colin4C (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition

The current group of publications is probably not that relevant here, but for those interested in the C19th, the British Library has a project to put a number of complete editions of publications of the period available on-line here. However, the collection is actively being added to.
There is a wider group of digital editions of British newspapers 1800-1900 accessible from the BL; or from most academic institutions. Hope that's of interest. Kbthompson (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks promsing. Thanks. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Improving the article

What is needed to improve the article? Forming a to-do list could be helpful and give focus. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that might be a good idea. It might be best to avoid blanket criticisms, but instead focus and decide via consensus how the article could be improved.

Number one would be getting editors to read and understand WP:OWN, WP:RS, WP:ENC and WP:UNDUE. Most of the problem with this article is not content-related at all. DreamGuy (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably the wrong tactic to adopt. Historically, that hasn't seemed to actually address deficiencies in the article but instead create tangential discussions that belong elsewhere. Since you have pretty much blocked everyone from posting to your usertalk page, I am not really sure where that might be. Maybe mediation, perhaps. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• It might be an idea to mention the suspected profession of the Ripper: doctor, butcher, 'foreign skipper' etc which were profiled and investigated by the police at the time. Plus suspicions as to his state of mind, ethnicity, gender etc. Colin4C (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That one could be tricky to handle, since it's sort of all over the place. It's also somewhat something handled on the suspects page already, sort of. But if you want to create a sandbox/working doc somewhere off the article to write something up to feedback, that'd work. DreamGuy (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the suspect section here is unnecessarily nonexistent. I think a summary paragraph could be created to talk about broad features, methods, and the fact that people proposed them back then and now, while leaving details of exact names on the suspect article. DreamGuy (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that assessment. I think the only reason it hasn't already been done is that the main article discussing it seems to see a lot of back and forth editing, and it would essentially be like arranging deck chairs on a ship in stormy seas. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? Well what about during the months when I don't bother to post here? Don't see any back and forth editing going on, or any substantive editing to speak of, really. It's only when I start editing that anything actually moves forward. DreamGuy (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, last time I was at a playground, see-sawing isn't really a forward movement. Maybe focus on the hear and now, okey-doke? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I still believe the article has structural problems - it remains a collection of unrelated facts, there needs to be a linking commentary - not much, just to turn it from a GA fail into a wiki article. The background section has some problems too - which I'll try to address when I'm in a writing frame of mind. Kbthompson (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• A number of red links could be fulfilled - mainly bio, but some like Pinchin Street will need to be quick on their feet, as the whole place is coming down for this. Kbthompson (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe someone could manufacture an excuse to include, here, this breezy little rhyme, from 'Jack the Ripper', which I think is not yet mentioned in the wikipedia:

"I'm not a butcher, I'm not a Yid

Nor yet a foreign skipper,

But I'm your own true loving friend,

Yours truly - Jack the Ripper." Colin4C (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose inclusion of that poem. No existence of it can be found among surviving Ripper letters. It seems to be one of the early myths about the case. See Evans and Skinner's JTR: Letters from Hell, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Where are the suggestions from when it failed GA status? The headers above link to a non-existant thread. ('Good article nominee') link. We need this as a working list. I can't find it in the archives.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Assessment (2008-03-19) ΑΩ (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Noncontroversial edits made to article

I've gone through and made more edits to the article. I did not include anything about officially referring to the Goulston Street Graffito as the Goulston Street Graffito despite all the sources because I know a certain couple of editors have a problem with that. As the other edits are not under dispute, as explained in the edit comments accompanying them, blind reverting all changes is a clear sign of bad faith opposition to an editor's work and not the content. If anyone has a problem with any individual edit, feel free to discuss it here. As the edits are made individually, each is easy to revert individually, but if the goal is to have a discussion and then have it be what the consensus says I would hope that any reverting to be done would be done after discussion happens, otherwise it's just revert warring for personal conflict reasons instead of article content reasons. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This happened when I edited the article a while back as well. I would politely like to remind the main people active on this article that they do not own it, and to actually read and engage with the edits made as opposed to blanket reverting. Brilliantine (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Brilliantine, there doesn't appear to be any prior edit history for you in this article before today (at least, under the contribution history for Brilliantine), so I am unsure what edits of yours you felt were blanket-reverted. DG, perhaps you will note that those edits of yours that were not controversial were not reverted - "blind" or otherwise. I thank you for finally coming here to discuss those edits that you feel might not find an initial consensus. This is what I was referring to with my edit summary comment regarding BRD.

Can I trouble you to point out where Patricia Cornwell's book was disincluded by consensus? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you'd stop "archiving" the page down to only one section all the time you could just go read it here, but I guess I have to go find it. I think both Colin (he's here, he can weigh in again if necessary) and RevMagpie, perhaps also KB (can also weigh in again), agreed to it. As far as I know you were the only one who opposed, and with you it's hard to tell if you even know what your opinion is sometimes without first knowing whether I support it or not so you can do the opposite. I'll look, and in the meantime anyone who wants to disagree and build a new current consensus can. DreamGuy (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I was logged out at the time. It was a purely factual, uncontroversial geographical comment - and I even got a warning on my IP's talk page from someone. Brilliantine (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you remember what the geographical comment was? We can probably trace it. DreamGuy (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I put it back in later with (rather unnecessary) citation. I don't really want to go start trawling through IP contribs as I don't really want to see what my flatmates have edited or to edit in the same areas. Brilliantine (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

<==outdent I had removed Cornwell but it was returned with some logical reasoning here. Personally, I would agree with DG that it probably doesn't belong unless someone wants to spotlight the goofiness of it. My way of seeing it: Hyacinth Bucket turns into Sherlock Holmes and proves Col. Mustard did it with the pipe wrench in the conservatory.. it just isn't scholarly. Kb brings up the good point of putting it there and let people know what it is. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there was a general consensus that it was not a particularly worthy book - but it is a famous (publicity seeking?) book - I don't think that necessarily makes it notable. On balance, it probably rates a mention with a health warning - if only to forestall this conversation the next time around. Kbthompson (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can spotlight the goofiness of it on this article. It would be difficult to do briefly without pushing a POV and distracting the rest of the article. The Portrait of a Killer article does that well enough and in a Wikipedia-policy-friendly way. DreamGuy (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about that..⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So, there you go Arcayne -- proof of consensus, and proof you were wrong to say it didn't have consensus when you blind reverted the article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's drop personal comments and move on please..trying to build synergy here. Please...pretty please...pretty please with sugar on top. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no moving on until Arcayne stops his disruptive behavior. As long as people like you and others coddle his violations of policy he'll continue to hold the article hostage and continue to try to advance his personal crusade against all Ripper authors. All it takes is for people to stand up and say that that behavior isn't acceptable. Ignoring it encourages it. You're basically being an enabler. DreamGuy (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one coming off a 96 hour block. Keep your wiki-preaching to yourself, you aren't a good example for Wikipedians to follow. Go ahead, keep jabbing sticks at editors & admins. I've wanted to press forward with things and strangely I find that I'm being accused of "coddling" and other figments of your imagination. You can't help yourself can you? just jab away at people until you alienate them.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem on my part. All I asked fro was proof of consensus and discussion. I wasn't evaluating the removal itself, And yes, let's focus on the edits, and not the editor (third time saying that, now). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

All you did was revert it without looking at it and then later asked for was proof of consensus and discussion, which you should have known already existed if you'd been paying any attention to what anyone else said on the talk page and stopped constantly removing old people's comments to "archive" them inappropriately. DreamGuy (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Structural Suggestions & other miscellanea

Some suggestions for the structure of the article...I'm not stuck on any aspect of it but rather putting it out there to get the creative juices flowing. Generally, breaking things into Contemporary & Modern for most any header will help. Hopefully that prevents people from interjecting that a new death metal band has written another tune right behind contemporary works. Personally, I'm not crazy about the Popculture section in most articles..usually fancruft gathers and it is more a collection of tangents at best or otherwise they are distractions. Nonetheless, like it or not, JTR is a pop icon. Movies, books, magazines, and dedicated websites that go beyond simple blogs. (Hats off to Casebook!). A few possibilities...

Media (expand section with examples, most inline but some as direct image and/or quote boxes)

i. Contemporary

ii. Modern

Public reaction (new section)

A. Contemporary

i. Immediate vicinity

ii. Greater London

iii. Great Britain

iv. World

B. Modern

i. Immediate vicinity

ii. Greater London

iii. Great Britain

iv. World

v. Ripperology

Controversies (new section)

i. Contemporary

ii. Modern

a. Maybrick Diaries (we hate it but the avg reader is uninitiated and wants to know such things)

b. Cornwall

c. Stephen Knight

d. Wikipedia

Alleged eyewitnesses (new section) might need this as introductory or supporting to additional material to Suspects section; you're quoting from them after all..

Suspects - expand with general description(s) from eyewitnesses (Colin & Kb)

Investigation (expand)

i. Methods

ii. Difficulties

iii. Changes arising from case

Redlinks Summary (Stewart P. Evans, Philip Sugden, Chief Inspector Henry Moore, Osborn St., Pinchin St, Stephen P. Ryder, Paul Begg, Donald Rumbelow, Nathan Braund, Robin Odell, Keith Skinner).

Oh, and one more thing. I recommend that we either use a conventional static "To-do" List or a collapsible version at the top of this talk page. This would be useful (and helpful) to coordinate tasks and help keep us moving along with the article. We just need to form that list...⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following the outline at all. The proposed public reaction section seems unnecessarily detailed with breakdowns by time and extremely detailed geography and suggests that "Ripperology" is completely separate from the historical record and other reactions. I'm not sure there's any point to a controversies section, as no indication of what would be included in the contemporary section is listed (and should be put into appropriate sections of the main article as appropriate instead of singled out), and the modern section seems to unnecessarily duplicate the suspects article. Giving separate subsections to the diary, Cornwell (I presume that's what you mean, unless Cornwall did something), and Knight would only encourage adding the level of detail that has always provided a major distraction tot he main article. Mentioning them all quick in a row in one paragraph (or even sentence) is probably all that is needed, as the mention would include wikilinks for people to go read about it to their heart's content. The investigation section should also probably be split more logically, especially as "Changes arising from case" is more the realm of urban legend than actual fact... I can't think of a single actual investigation technique that was changed in policing as a direct result of the Whitechapel Murders investigation, though many unreliable sources have made claims to the contrary. I also think that the pop culture section is more than sufficient the way it currently stands, and that the separate article we have for those matters handles the kind of details that should be somewhere in Wikipedia but are wholly inappropriate for an article on a historic event.DreamGuy (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you recommend? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 10:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I find a few problems with the points that DG raised. I don't think there is anything wrong with the proposed structure, as it presents a neutral view of the subject. Point by point:

1. Ripperology is separate from the actual historical record. It isn't even a science, but instead a collection of disparate folk with a variety of educational and vocational disciplines (like, for example, Creative Writing, or car salesman), and the tag refers to them as an identifier, not a definition of academic accomplishment. Every ripperologist has a pet theory about the identity. etc of the victims. I am sorry, but "ripperology" isn't going to be used to provide any academic or notable weight to those folk self-identifying themselves as such. For crying out loud, I could read two books on JTR, and trawl a ripper website and - poof - I am suddenly a ripperologist. Sorry. When they establish advanced degrees in ripperology from the U of C system, then we can start giving these folk the same notability and weight that we give actual scientists.

2. The controversies section addresses these differing viewpoints and alternative theories as to the identity of the killer (the subject of the article).

3. If the changes in forensics are in fact an urban myth, then we cannot have it. If they can be cited, then it should stay.

4. I think the Pop culture things shouldn't be done away with but touch on concisely those things that can be expounded on via linked remarks.

Lastly, I keep seeing the gaffito stuff being sneakily reintroduced. We can note it, and note that some folk call it that, but saying that most call it such is speculative (at best). Some is better, and that's what should be used. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Ripperology absolutely is not separate from the historical record. Continuing to insist so is just advancing your bizarre little bias you have against the recognized experts in the field. I still don't know why someone so opposed to everything well respected authors have written about the topic is even doing on the article, or an encyclopedia for that matter. Your personal beliefs are not relevant. Only the conclusions of the experts are. Badmouthing all the experts and hoping that somehow means we'll treat you as if you were an expert instead simply will not work. The claim that every Ripeprologist has a pet theory about a suspect is false, as many do not pick suspects. And frankly, everyone having a theory isn't any different from the experts in other academic fields. Opposing experts with opinions isn't a justification of throwing it all out... if it were then the entire WP:RS policy would be gutted.

2) No, the topic of the article is not the identity of the killer, its the full spectrum about the killer, of which the arguments about identity are really only a small part and which already has a full article about it plus several other articles discussing individual suspects and theories. This article cannot start trying to reargue all those different controversies on this page.

3) They are an urban legend (urban myth is an incorrect term). It'd be possible to cite them, but what we would need is not jsut any cite but a reliable source, of which none making that argument exists, because it's all rumors from people who don't know what they are talking about.

4) The pop culture section shouldn't be done away with, and wouldn't be, as they have a whole other article. We also do already discuss the most important parts on the article specifically about the Ripper in fiction and music, etc. You seem to be arguing that that section must be expanded or else it'd be the same as doing away with it completely. That's a false comparison. It can stay the same length and still be a full separate article and do what Wikipedia is supposed to do, and as it has been doing per consensus for several years now.

Overall the kinds of edits being suggested to try to improve the article seem to be ones that would make it less of an encyclopedia article and more of just a random collection of facts and rumors. We ought to instead focus more on the police invetigation and the items identified by outside editors as needing an improvement to get the article to GA status.

Per the graffito topic, which doesn't belong in this section: it's not being sneakily reintroduced, it's being sneakily (by AlphaOmega) removed (he took it all out with no justification) and not so sneakily (by you) removed, despite it being fully cited per Wikipedia policies. If you have a problem with the way facts are cited in this encyclopedia, please try to get those discussed on the policy pages. Don't just ignore policy to try to push your own POV. What YOU think is better isn't relevant. We're documenting what the experts in the field think is better. We already know you opposed use of the term "Ripperologists" and even "serial killer" in this article in the past, but you lost those fights because it was, just as now, your belief versus what the sources said. Reliable sources always win. Please stop edit warring to try to advance your own personal opinions. DreamGuy (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

DG, to not understand that the study of history is separate from the actual actions committed by historical figures is the height of naivete. And I would think you would revel in the opening to create a well sourced article regarding the study of JTR and it's conclusions. Also, I think we need to recognize that there is no real measure of expertise in the study of JTR. If a person were a chemistry professor they could provide thesis papers and such to demonstrate their knowledge of the subject, there is, unfortunately, no such process with this subject matter. Yes, there are a few well respected people in the field but the one overriding fact about this field that makes it different is that we know that we will never be able to know. As for the topic of the article, I think I'm seeing something... This might be where the crux of a problem lies... We need to decide what this article is about. There are other articles that contain speculation and investigation and there are articles that have nothing in them. Now, if we have other articles to expound on the victimology and investigative theories then we should agree to put them there, not here. As for the graffito stuff, if it's cited put it in. If it's not leave it out, but stop the arguing. This isn't about who took what out, it's about getting the article to GA status (as you so rightly put it). Let's see what you've got and we'll talk about putting it in (and please try to do it as if I'm someone asking you a question aboutt he article and not as someone giving you an opening to attack Arcayne). padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

" to not understand that the study of history is separate from the actual actions committed by historical figures is the height of naivete" And to label people as naive by accusing them of saying things they never said is the height of pointlessness.

There certainly is a measure of expertise in this field, just the same as in any other field. See WP:RS. It's pretty basic and clear.

"we'll talk about putting it in" seems to be tacit support for Arcayne's history of not letting me edit the article directory and insisting that I have to explain things to his satisfaction before it gets there. That phrasing is peculiarly similar to Arcayne's goals, especially when your edit history is examined.

You appear to have no edit history on this article at all (which makes the "we'll talk about putting it in" especially odd), and have only shown up now to make what are essentially straw man attacks. Your only previous history with me or Arcayne that I can see was showing up on Arcayne's talk page to out of nowhere accuse me of violating policy and encouraging him to try to get me blocked. You appear to have no actual interest in this topic or article and only an interest in furthering Arcayne's personal conflict. If appearances are deceiving, then you might try to show good faith by establishing an edit history of your own and not merely showing up to act as, at best, a meatpuppet for Arcayne's wishes.

Also, your sig line is completely unhelpful in doing what sign lines are for: directing people to your talk and user page. Instead it links to the Wikipedia article on the word "user", and an article about someone named Padilla. Please consider fixing that. DreamGuy (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, "Ripperology absolutely is not separate from the historical record" this direct quote from the post above mine clearly states that you see the study of a subject (Ripperology) is inseparable from the actions commited (historical record). This is the statement I was working under, since it had been made by you I figured you supported it's meaning. If this is not the case then please let me know which statements you make you believe and which you do not.

Nobody is arguing against expertise in the field of forensics, we are cautioning against declaring someone that has written a book as an expert. I can write a book on JTR, but, as you noted, It wouldn't contain much and I would hardly call myself an expert. The level of speculation in this topic (as with Loch Ness Monster and quite a few others) is quite high due to it's sensationalized status. With that in mind we should be vigilant about whom we declare an "expert".

Sorry, but I have not got the talent for saying things that I don't mean and meaning things I don't say. I've seen others do it but I can't seem to get the hang of it. When I suggest talking about putting something in the article I mean, strangely enough, talking about something to decide what the arguments are and opining regarding including it in the article. To expect someone to give carte blanche to edits that, by your very admission, are being contended is quite naive. Do you think I should just agree with you because... why? No real reason I should just agree with you? I have developed a bizarre habit of listening to both sides of an argument and making up my own mind. I appreciate the offer, but I think I'll keep doing it my way. That is if you will deign to offer your arguments and allow me to hear them.

What significance does my edit history of this article hold? I wasn't aware of a "contribution criteria" in Wikipedia. I was firmly under the impression that anybody could contribute in any way they felt necessary. Did I miss something? Could you please provide me with the contribution limit criteria, I must have missed it.

As for providing straw man attacks, I addressed that by providing the quote with which I determined your argument. If you'd wish to provide me an actual argument I'd be more than happy to review it and provide feedback, it's kind of what I was asking for in the first place.

As for the meatpuppet accusations, I don't know why I would expect differently from you. My involvement in your banning is still fresh and I'm sorry if my tone came across poorly. I was trying to put forth that if you wish to provide your statements and their citations I will put forth my opinion, as unbiased as I can. In point of fact I think I agree with you, but I'm reluctant to say so since I am unfamiliar with the argument (hence the request to have it raised again).

As for my sig line thank you for pointing that out. I had a pipe character instead of the colon that should have been there. The rest is my own personal crusade. The "someone named Padilla" is my father, I don't want to be the only editor on his page so I'm trying to encourage other editors to contribute. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the fact that Ripperology has many books that are by fringe authors, but those have not been used in this article, and a simple application of WP:RS standards usually works. It's not too difficult to sort the experts out from the cranks most of the time. Number of publications, reviews in the field, etc. often clear that all out pretty quickly.

The rest of what you say doesn't get anyone anywhere, other than further demonstrating what appears to be an attempt to continue a personal dispute you jumped into. If you have a serious interest in improving this article, then I look forward to you actually doing so at some point. DreamGuy (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So we're just going to ignore the heaps of personal attacks and logical fallacies you are introducing? Well, are you at least going to post your arguments for including the graffito stuff so I can review them? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we're going to ignore the false accusations, personal attacks and logical fallacies that you have made with the expectation that you might be here to do what you say, which is to work on improving the article instead of trying to escalate the personal conflicts.

Graffito arguments have already been made on this talk page. I shouldn't need to retype them every time some editor refuses to look at what's already here. But, based upon the editing of the article and the lack of objections to the current wording it looks like that whole section is no longer under dispute anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith Colin4C (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you just randomly link to policies you haven't read? Because you sure don't follow this one yourself either. DreamGuy (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources removed with no rationale given (Goulston Street Graffito, again)

Arcayne is once again edit warring to oppose the fact that the Goulston Street Graffito is called that by the authors in the field and trying to remove both the fact and the cites proving it. When it had no sites, he, per policy, removed it and demanded some cites. Fine. Anyone who has read anything in the field should know it already, but if he hasn't and wants proof, fair enough. When three unquestionably reliable and important sources representing the spectrum of view across the field of Ripperology (a popular best selling general Ripper author, a well-respected academic historian, and a world famous leading criminologist) he tried to pretend that it somehow meant that only those three people used the term and insisted on wording that only "a few" authors use it. So I provided five more' reliable sources further across the spectrum of Ripperology, and then he just went back to his old editing tafctic: reverting, insisting it be discussed on the talk page first, while ignoring that it has been discussed on the talk page and that if he opposes fully cited info then he should be the one to discuss it on talk and get consensus of people who can justify their complaints with references to policy instead of just pushing an anti-Ripper expert POV before removing it. This is yet another example of Arcayne's longstanding WP:OWNership issues with the article and complete rejection of what the experts in the field say in favor of whatever peculiar beliefs he comes up with off the top of his head.

Quite simply, this kind of editing strategy does not fly with Wikipedia policies. The term in the field is Goulston Street Graffito. That's just what it is. I've provided more than enough documentation to prove that, but yet Arcayne won't allow that. In fact he won't even allow the phrasing that it is used by many authors in the field. He just wants people to think only a couple of people call it that, and the AlphaOmega person, based upon his edit, seems to want even that fact removed.

I don't think this situation is any different from when Arcayne tried to oppose the fact that people who study the field are called Ripperologists, or when he opposed the fact that the main five victims are called the canonical five. These all have extensive sources to back them up, and personal opinions that the terms aren't good and should not be used, whether expressed by Arcayne or AlphaOmega, are just attempts to use the article for Soapboxing of original research/opinions of a POV opposed to the recognized experts in the field. That's not how Wikipedia works. Reliable sources and representing the views of those who know what they are talking about is paramount. If you want to push your own opinions then you should get your own blog or something along those lines and stop trying to put them into an encyclopedia article... DreamGuy (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I did indeed remove the sentence saying that this piece of writing is called the Goulston Street Graffito (by some, or many). But that was mostly because I found (with some feeling of irritation, I admit) that it was badly placed. The flow/readibility of the article surely ought to be the most important thing. I would not be opposed to a separate article called 'Goulston Street Graffito', as it no doubt is an expression with some widespread use. But I'll say it may be wrong to present this subject to a first time reader with an unknown and unhistorical expression. And, I'll say it would be better to mention the fact that it is a current expression after quoting PC Long's version of the writing. My objection here is mostly directed against this attempt to remove any other description of the message found in Goulston Street. It would be wrong to say that 'graffito' or 'graffiti' is the chosen expression "within the field" when authors such as Rumbelow, Evans, and Sugden show otherwise. Sugden's book was first published 14 years ago, not 40 years ago. And Evans and Rumbelow's Scotland Yard investigates was first published in 2006. And I'd say it is an ascertained fact that these three men surely are among the handful most respected authors in this field.

I also removed one instance of calling it the "writing in Goulston Street", as it simply seemed unnecessary in that context. Arcayne did however reinstate it. And I do find this bickering somewhat tiresome. Could that be why rather few people take much active part in the editing of this article ? Contributors ΑΩ (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's this 40 years thing coming from? Anyway, I don't mind you moving the reference, I mind that your earlier editing removed it completely. Based upon your earlier comments that you personally dislike the term, doing so was a clear violation of our WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well,then, I'll say your behaviour here is practically indistiguishable from trolling, as stated by BereanHunter further up this page. Intentional or not, it hardly matters. If you have been allowed to act this way ever since you made your first edit to this article I suspect you may have driven off several others. Contributors And from what I understand, you have been warned on several occasions. Like I said, I removed that sentence in part due to sheer irritation. That means, of course, that you may have, to some extent, succeeded with your tactics. Tactics, that is, to drive off any other editor that might disagree with you. I'm sorry to have to say this, but if another complaint is made against you at some future date I will be giving it my full support. ΑΩ (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You need to tell the difference between people wikilawyering and making false accusations so they think they can get their way (which admins have stated the other people on this page are doing when those same people have filed their false accusations in the past) and someone trying to enforce encyclopedia policies on conduct and content. If you removed the sentence you were pushing your POV and edit warring on top of it. Trying to rationalize that as being someone else's fault is ridiculous. All these accusations of trolling are just a smokescreen people use to try to make this about attacking me instead of focusing on the edits. In fact, I was discussing the edits and why they violated policy, your response was basically just to attack me and try to ignore that I am right about the policy. Don't pick up bad behaviors just because you see Arcayne and others using them. If you pull that stunt on another article and an admin sees it you'll find yourself in a heap of trouble. DreamGuy (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering... I would call it arguing - in good faith or not, honestly or not. Perhaps much the same way I would prefer to call a piece of writing on a wall for a text, a message, or writing on a wall. And it is not always that easy to separate honest argument from provocation. I'm quite certain that "regular lawyers" would do that sometimes too, in more or less good faith, and for a number of reasons.

Perhaps you're simply very fond of certain ways of expressing yourself, such as "plain wrong", or "ridiculous nonsense". Some people are. But there is a reason why there is a policy concerning "Civility", and "Good faith". As for "attacking", I could say the same about you: You "attacked" me by assuming (or pretending) that there was but one cause for my act. That is, assuming that my edit was made for one purpose only. I did not say that my removal of that sentence merely was somebody elses fault - i.e. your fault. I honestly thought it was badly placed, and I was surely provoked by your comments. The latter may in some measure explain, though not necessarily excuse, why I did not bother much to find a better place for the sentence I removed, or simply could not accept that it would have to be inserted in a less than ideal place. I do think it's better placed now, but I still find it slightly disruptive of the core issue. But that could of course also be caused by what might be construed as a "personal dislike" of it. (I would say I'm feeling ambivalent about it, and that there are some arguments against it.) My irritation was mainly caused by your removal - twice - of some information I had provided. In the first case, concerning "early profiling", you said it was "just wrong", in the second case that "we" know what the majority opinion at the Scotland Yard was - about the writing in Goulston Street. In the first case the source was David Canter, mentioned in the next sentence. In the second case it would clearly seem a matter of interpretation, as Philip Sugden did express a quite different opinion, as to the "most favoured view" (which is not necessarily the same as majority opinion). I can see that there may have been some need for rephrasing, to make it perfectly clear that it was a matter of their interpretation of whatever sources they may have had available.

Please note that I did not say that you actually were "trolling". But I certainly do find your personal style disruptive. It seems to me that you are, some times, assuming too much. The same thing happened when I made my first edits to this article a few months ago, and you claimed - twice - that there was no such word as 'juives' in the French language. You even repeated your "ridiculous claim" after I had provided [8] what ought to have been more than sufficient evidence. Why ? ΑΩ (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's "assuming" that you are motivated by personal dislike for the term when you post comments on the talk page clearly stating that you personally object to the term. I don't get if you are arguing I wrong in assuming that what you said should be considered truthful or if you are denying you ever said what you said. And trying to justify yourself by saying you didn't accuse me of trolling when you said it was "indistinguishable from trolling" is just splitting hairs to try to, again, wikilawyer. The other points you've raised have already been dealt with and it's pointless to keep bringing them back up. You were frustrated because some of your questionable edits didn't stay. Things you want to put in the article must be backed up by reliable sources that actually say what you claim they say. That's a pretty basic rule here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if what I'm about to say will be making much sense to you... But...

From what I've gathered, it would seem a fair guess that you would know who the late Melvin Harris was ? I would not hesitate to say that, in retrospect, it may seem that his "suspiciousness and scepticism" may have been fuelled by a need to find "deserving victims". At the same time, it would seem wrong to say that he merely was trolling for victims. For what I know, most of his work may have been truly valuable and honorable. You may find that I'm splitting hairs. I don't think that I am. I'd say there's a fine line there.

You are reducing my objections to a mere question of personal dislikes, when I have in fact been providing arguments. Arguments which have, certainly in part, been dealt with by the fact that we have been moving towards a consensus that I have shown myself willing to accept. ΑΩ (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

On the wikipedia editors seem to get brownie points from the admins for rote knowledge of the wikipedia guidelines rather than for actually following them...Don't even mention common sense...I guess that there must be a lot of people in the cyber-world who have sexual fantasies about being a lawyer. Knowledge of a subject is a pitiful achievement beside the sheer joy of wikilawyering...and that weird 'diff' game - which I refuse to indulge in... Colin4C (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a bizarre comment, especially coming from you, considering your edit history. DreamGuy (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks Colin4C (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. So you post a hugely ranting personal attack, I point out that's bizarre based upon your edits, and you try to warn me about personal attacks?! You clearly don't get the basic concept. The vast majority of the personal attacks on this page are written by you (with a few by Arcayne tossed in for good measure). Not only do you need to stop, but you need to stop pretending that other people are violating policies you don't even seem to attempt to follow yourself. DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] ... and everybody needs to stop and concentrate on the content of the article. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have again removed the evaluative statement of "many" (which is as evaluative as 'most'), and replaced it with some. Please note that I have not reverted the mentioning of the erstwhile (and of course anachronistic) phrase. We don't need more than two citations to note that it is in fact used by some; anythin g more than that is a WP:POINT argument, disrupting the (flow of the) article to make a point. We don't do that here, or at least, are not supposed to.

Graffito is in, and it is cited, though not used by all. Let's move on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to move on, you need to leave the fully cited fact that many authors use it there and not remove important cites proving it. Trying to claim that "many" is the same as "most" is ridiculous, especially when what you are really doing is replacing it with a word that means "few" and improperly suggests a minority viewpoint. "Many" is fully cited by the references. If you want to say that it's only "some" then you need some reliable sources saying that people don't like that term. You don't have any. All you have is a couple of editors here saying THEY don't like the term. Once again, we need to follow what the reliable sources say and not let individuals authors use the article as a soapbox. It's also ludicrous to suggest that providing cites is in any way a POINT violation. The presence of footnotes in no way interrupts the flow of the article. DreamGuy (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. We don't play favorites here. Not all "ripperologists" use 'graffito', and noting many or most is evaluative. Noting some is the middle ground. Furthermore, adding 5 citations in is disruptive. Use the discussion to make your point and seek consensus. We don't use lots and lots of citations for a single fact, as per MOS. Of course, you are welcome to provide where it says we need five (or even two, which I've kept in) citations for each statement. Failing such, I would point out that doing so is a WP:POINT-type edit, ie gaming hte system to get that which you cannot find consensus for. If you feel the current consensus isn't to your liking, use discussion to create a new one. That is policy; BRD. You've added something bold. It has been reverted. Now convince us all through discussion that most is accurate, and five citations are as well. Otherwise, stop. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If we don't play favorites, why do you think you get to revert to your version and ignore policy while at the same time trying to insist I cannot edit the article unless you agree with me? Not all Ripperologists use graffito, only many, which is what the line in question says and what the cites support. Insisting that I prove that "most" is accurate is a completely nonsensical argument, as my edit does not say most, it says many, which is proven.

You seem to have a major problem accurately describing edits. The article for a long, long, long time said Goulston Street Graffito as a major heading. That was the consensus, and restoring back to that would not be bold at all, it'd just be restoring the status quo. But some people complained, so mnow we have a compromise version. You do not get to just remove the compromise version and claim that your view is consensus, because it's not. You do not own the article. You do not get to insist you can just remove anything you want. And you are the one starting the edit war over it, and if you continue to remove the fully cited line in question you will violate 3RR and get blocked. So, please, start following policy here and don't expect people to have to go with your version. Your edits are highly disruptive and uncivil and those actions will not be tolerated. DreamGuy (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, as you seem unwilling, unable to see where you might even possibly wrong, I am unwilling to expend further energy on explaining the obvious to you. If you are unclear as to why I assert the things I do, find someone with more patience to explain it to you. I am quite done feeding you, and your manky civility traps don't really work on me anymore. You have nothing to say that I particularly want to hear. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Why don't you break down the edits in contention and see what other people think? Regardless of who is right - and who is wrong - the current way other admins are likely to look at this is to block you both for edit warring and being disruptive and/or protect the article. Put animosities aside and start by trying to find something in there that you can agree on. Kbthompson (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no animosity; I would revert anyone who chose to put a contentious edit in place without a solid consensus to do so - and that con sensus doesn't appear tyo have materialized. I believe I have made it clear why the edit cannot remain, but in the off-chance that someone missed it:

• In order to evaluate the number of "ripperologists" or authors (or whatever) who use the term "Goulston Street Graffito", DG would need to quantify that, counting all the books and work ever done about JTR and specifying what fraction thereof use the anachronistic (and archeologically inaccurate) phrase. As it is unlikely that he is unwilling/unable to do this, it is more objectively neutral to specify the number as "some." Graffito wasn't removed completely, as citable evidence exists that some writers and "ripperologists" use it. However, "many" or "most" is evaluative, and isn't supported by the sorts of citations necessary to make that evaluation.
• Additionally, adding five different citations to argue a point better carried out in the discussion page is in fact the very definition of disruptive editing. I have chosenthe first two (assuming that common sense would allow for the citation in descending order of applicability and reliability, etc). I deleted the last three, retaining the last two.

If DG wishes to build a consensus for adding it in, he should pursue that, as per WP:BRD. The edits aren't going to be included through a sheer determination to jam them in, no matter what. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

You aren't going to remove them over sheer determination to remove them either. You don't own this article.

And it's insane to insist that I need to document a percentage of authors who say anything when the statement in question doesn't specify or even hint at a percentage. The line says "many" and the sources are there to support "many", and those sources are reliable sources.

"Some" is a weasel word to imply "only a few" -- but the term is the predominant one in the field. Again, please provide a source, ANY (reliable) source that says that the term is not one many authors use. You can't do it, because you're wrong. You can't even provide any reliable source that would indicate that anyone expert in the field opposes the term.

"is in fact the very definition of disruptive editing" = complete nonsense. Disruptive editing is removing sourced information just because you refuse to accept it, or because of you long stated personal dislike of me where you said you'd revert anything I did because you don't want me to "win". Adding reliable sources that indisputably prove the thing you claim you want proof for is in no way, shape or form disruptive, and it's the height of bad faith to try to claim otherwise. DreamGuy (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Those sources could all have been subsumed under one single footnote. And there could be other alternatives to the words 'some' and 'many'. 'Various' would be one such word. And to what extent is this really an acknowledged "field" of scientific and/or historical study ? (I have been calling it a field myself, on several occasions, but I do find it problematical) It seems to me that the standing of a rather limited set of individual authors is what matters here. And how is their relative notability and seriousness to be ascertained ?

"It is noticeable that many “Ripperologists” (a word I do not like, but I guess it is a term with which we are stuck!), are pretty good armchair detectives, or “Agatha Christie” types, whose reasoning bears little relation to hard facts and reality." Stewart P. Evans, Ripper Notes / Casebook.org

Why is it that one of the handful most notable and respected authors does not like that word ? I would say it does, quite clearly, conflate at least three categories that most certainly ought to have been kept separate: 'cranks and crackpots', amateurs with a more or less serious interest in this case, and (I would say) a rather limited number of acknowledged and professionally qualified authors. Part of the problem, I suspect, could be the fact that there would also be some borderline cases that might see themselves better served by such a muddled pseudoconcept. Evans and Rumbelow are both former police officers, Sugden a historian by profession. So, they surely would represent acknowledged fields of study - literal police (field) investigation and qualified academic historical studies. I say it is no coincidence that they have attained the standing they have, nor that they have - certainly in their published work - shown themselves to prefer the less ambiguous terms of 'message' and 'writing'. ΑΩ (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I am done feeding the disruptive user, unless necessary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Assessment - evaluation

I've looked back at the GA Assessment, but it just appears to be the thoughts of a single individual, no more valid than the thoughts of any other editor here. It was not done as a group project, it was just a one off belief of a single person. Perhaps we should work on improving the article, resubmit it and hope to get a different editor to look at it. The minor changes suggested were mere cleanups on spelling, etc., and the major suggestions that editor wanted were just his opinion and should a complete unfamiliarity with the topic in general and how Wikipedia articles are named. His claims to want the article to discuss the Ripper as a person ignores not only that he was't identified but that all other articles on serial killers use the main space to discuss the crimes themselves. Certainly that's what all the books on the topic do as well, and also what real encyclopedias do (several encyclopedias cover Jack the Ripper and do so under that name). If that individual thinks Encyclopedia Britannica and others don't know how to write a good article, then he/she's got some rather novel ideas on how articles should be written.

I also find it funny that he explicitly said that the Whitechapel murders article WAS a content fork, which I had been saying all along, and that it's entire purpose was to try to do what this article already does better, which again I had said all along, and yet that opinion was just ignored (Colin in fact tried to twist it around as if it somehow was encouragement for his for having made the article in the first place, yikes!) while his other opinions are treated as if they are somehow goal posts we need to meet.

How about this... find some respected books on the topic, like Sugden's, and then use the chapter heading sa a rough outline for how the article should be sectioned out (actual content of those sections being new material so no copyright/plagiarism problems). Can't beat what an expert historian thinks is a good structure for covering the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sugden's book is way out of date. If you know him, Dreamguy, give him a kick up the arse and tell him to produce a new edition. Hopefully some of us here have expended their hard earned cash on the latest Ripper book: 'Jack the Ripper and the East End' (rather than following my example and giving the bulk of it to the brewery industry and loose women) - hopefully this tome will get remaindered or even appear in paperback or someone will give it to me for Christmas...hint...hint... Colin4C (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Way out of date? Not really, no. It is behind the times on a couple of minor points, but overall is still considered the primary source for anyone with a serious interest in the case. Jack the Ripper and the East End, however, has been widely panned as having next to nothing to do with the Jack the Ripper case at all. DreamGuy (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Widely panned" because it has contributions from real historians rather than cranky self appointed 'Ripperologists'? Where and by whom was it widely panned? Ripperologist cranks? Or is this just another of your personal opinions masquerading as 'a concensus'? Colin4C (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Widely panned because it has very little do with JAck the Ripper but was sold under that name to get more sales, and because the content was written by people that might understand their little academic areas but that have seemingly no knowledge of the topic the book is ostensibly about. We're discussing what book to possibly use as a basis for creating an outline for what to do with this article, and Jack the Ripper and the East End would be about the worst one possible, as it's just a collection of random essays on other topics.DreamGuy (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To quote an other editor... "Wikipedia:No personal attacks Colin4C (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)"padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So why are you attacking me then rather than discussing the matter of substance I have brought up concerning 'Jack the Ripper and the East End' and where and when this book was 'panned'? Maybe you have read this book and have something to say on the subject of this article?:

• Q1 Where and by whom was the book 'Jack the Ripper and the East End' widely panned?
• Q2 Who has recently said that Sugden's book is 'still considered the primary source for anyone with a serious interest in the case.'? Colin4C (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As nobody seems interested in answering my question I did a little research of my own and have discovered that 'widely panned' means it was slagged off in one micro-circulation Ripper rag called 'The Ripperologist' because it did not pander to their tunnel vision obsession with the identity of the Ripper but instead delved into the to my mind much more interesting social history of the East End in the late 19th century. Must be worrying for amateur self-styled 'Ripperologists' when professional historians get onto their patch and do some real historical research for a change. Ripperologists and train spotters and other obsessives have their place in any society but I think that their witterings do not constitute valid history just weird psychology. Colin4C (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"As nobody seems interested in answering my question" must in your head equal "I posted this rudely worded aggressive demand and nobody stopped everything they were doing to respond to me right this minute." Widely panned = everyone with any knowlede about the Jack the Ripper case says the book sucks. The review you mentioned is written by Paul Begg, a well known author of multiple books on the topic, including the standard encyclopedia reference, the A-Z. And your disdain for experts who know something for the topic and assumption that they must all be amateurs is hilarious but irrelevant to this article (and especially ironic as Arcayne was trying to insist we all listen to whatever you had to say because he claimed you had something published in the one of those "rags" you talk about). DreamGuy (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sugden is (was ?) a historian by profession, as would not be too hard to understand from the way he was presenting this subject, and from the extensive references made to truly primary sources such as police reports and Home Office documents. I'll say Evans's and Skinner's Sourcebook ought to be, quite self-evidentially, a primary source for anyone with a truly serious interest in this murder case, as it makes a significant part of these sources available to any interested reader. Sugden's work provides some additional information and an overview. The book you're referring to here would surely be a specialist work that might paint a more thorough picture of the social backdrop to this case. I don't see why one should be preferred to the other. In fact, I'll say any serious study of these murders ought to take general pre WWI history and culture into account and vice versa: That is, the most thorough understanding of the early Modern / late Victorian period should take these murders into account. ΑΩ (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A book to provide a backdrop is all fine and good, but it's clearly not a major source to be used for writing this article. Not to mention the JTR in the East End has many errors, such as not being able to get the locations of the murders correct. DreamGuy (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C, I am not attacking you, I'm quoting you to tell yourself not to attack others. The phrase "...just another of your personal opinions masquerading as 'a concensus'..." could well be construed as a personal attack. And I wasn't avoiding you, I had to go home to my wife and kids. I'm used to people on WP giving me more than an hour to respond. I am beginning to see why no one wants to edit this article. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

On GA, explaining the process

GA is a process whereby an independent reviewer - who is supposed to be familiar with the standards required - reviews an article. They may, or more likely, will not be familiar with the subject area - but should provide useful comments on improving the standard of the article. Peer review should do much the same thing, but in my experience attracts few, if any, comments (It's a fine idea, but in practice, few seem to participate). Making improvements and resubmitting the article to the GA, is likely to get a new reviewer. The initial GA will give you the comments of one independent reviewer; a second GA is likely to be done by 'the GA task force' who try to enforce the standards - particularly with such a potentially high profile article. If this article made it to GA it is a good candidate for inclusion on the CD-rom version of wikipedia, that would probably attract further quality review. The intention of getting it to GA is ultimately to put the article forward for FA. That is a process that tends to attract extensive review from a large number of editors who love to enforce wikipedia standards.

It's not just about content, but providing a suitable structure that will explain the main 'idea of Jack the Ripper' to someone who has no experience of the subject, and providing them with pointers to extend their knowledge beyond the basics. Hopefully, we're now moving in that direction. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the goal, but the editor who did the assessment lacked familiarity with the standards of the encyclopedia on top of completely failing to understand the topic, either in specifics or in a broad brush of related topics. Of course he can't be expected to know the topic before reading any article he might assess, but his understanding of the purpose of explaining the main idea of Jack the Ripper was to insist that all the information about the history and crimes and etc. get cut out to discuss the person of JAck the Ripper... that's not only not what encyclopedia articles like this are for, but it's clearly an exercise in futility considering that the Ripper was never officially identified. DreamGuy (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The process is far from perfect; it's the luck of the draw as to who carries out the assessment, but if these issues aren't clear from the article - then perhaps we're missing something anyway. The GA review can always be appealed to another reviewer. Although there is a lot of argument about it, many of the content issues are essentially settled. The wiki quality process is a target for moving the article forward, no more, no less. Frankly, the tougher the review on wiki quality issues, the better. It produces a better article to go forward to FA, which is the big target. It would be really nice if there was some input from all those task forces and projects that clutter up the top of the talk page! cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

From my reading of that person's assessment, it wasn't that the topic as written about in the article wasn't clear, it's that the person for some reason thought it should be about a different topic and was upset when it wasn't. Any individual points of course should be looked at as a way to improve, but any attempt to completely change course and focus on the specific person instead of the crimes, history and effects (which is how the person is defined anyway) would be a major step in the wrong direction. DreamGuy (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could just sit here and bitch about it, or seek out a Peer Review and get some independent thought on where the article needs improvement. I am inclined to think that Kbthompson's suggestions as to format are pretty much on target, and we Should aim for that. I would like to see the article make it to GA, but I think everyone here knows that the article ain't going anywhere until the contentious editing stops. The squeaky wheel does not get the grease here, unless it is squeaking about an improvement to the article that everyone can agree to. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Says the guy who just reverted the article to remove cites proving something that he refuses to believe to continue his own edit war over a minor point that is completely indisputable. Any claims that the contentious editing needs to stop should be backed up with an honest good faith effort to stop them instead of trying to continue a petty disagreement through reverts instead of accepting policy. DreamGuy (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, address the edits, and not the editor; it is uncivil to act otherwise. Good faith doesn't mean overlooking bad or contentious behavior. Find a consensus for your edits, and they can be included. If you do not have a consensus, and are unwilling to try and create a new one, then you cannot reasonably expect your edits to remain. And no, edit summaries are not at all an ideal place to sustain a rim-shot argument. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Again, address the edits, and not the editor; it is uncivil to act otherwise. Good faith doesn't mean overlooking bad or contentious behavior." LOL -- you just seem to be parroting stock phrases you picked up to try to wikilawyer through things and do not even realize that you've contradicted yourself. Yes, good faith in fact does not mean overlooking bad behavior, so I am focusing on your highly disruptive behavior, and demanding that you stop instead of playing this insane little game of yours. You pretend that you get to set consensus without any discussion, say that I need to discuss things (even the most obvious and uncontroversial things) while you just ignore the discussion, delete it if necessary so people have to go to the archive page to find it, pretend no discussion ever happened and continue merrily pushing your views onto the article and posting rants about how you think the experts in the field are all hack that you want to ignore so you can put your own thoughts there in place of them. You've got the strategy down to rote now, saying the same thing over and over while not following any of them yourself. DreamGuy (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, try a bit of discussion. Both of you are edit warring and it needs to stop before the article is protected. Kbthompson (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you and others have allowed Arcayne to act like he owns this article by obstructive editing over the past year and have never called him on it.As a general principle, if he always gets to say what goes in or not and declares what consensus supposedly is or isn't, he's held the article hostage. I even pointed out that that's exactly what he was doing last year and said that the only way the controversy would ever go away was insist that Arcayne follow the rules, yet you for some reason refused. How difficult is it to tell him point blank that he doesn't own the article and can't act as a gatekeeper for anything I want to put into the article? If you are unwilling to say that, then you are just as culpable as he is in holding the article hostage. DreamGuy (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are just so full of bull! You've been slinging accusations at everybody. Truth is, I have yet to see you participate in a proper concensus. Shut up with your bellyaching..nobody here believes you. Kb was bending over backwards to avoid conflict. How many troll lines did you set today? You're the disruptive one attempting to hold things hostage. Padillah was trying to communicate logically with you but you had to pull out that pointy stick and start jabbing. I think in another time and place, friendly fire would be the end of you. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this guy not banned for over the top personal attacks, a huge violation of WP:AGF and major uncivility yet? "Friendly fire" -- delightful. Honestly, I don't know how this article attracts so many people who just want to try character assassination instead of following policies. I follow the policies, I expect others to do so as well. If you can't be bothered to, that's your problem, and all the name calling isn't going to make you any more correct. DreamGuy (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'm no fan of DG, as he can attest to, but you have just crossed a line, BH. I just removed your last two edits here from the history. Please visit WP:OUTING. This is your one and only warning on the subject. I have no idea if the information you posted about DG is right or wrong, nor do I really care at this point. Outing the real-life identities of people like you just tried to do is grounds for swift blocks. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a clear history of his trolling...from many people on the web.. According to WP:Outing, if someone publishes their identity and ties it in with their user handle it is ok..well, (How-to redacted)) ..And I'm sorry but it is like a criminal record and follows him. No good faith for him anymore! Period. It is proof that he is a chronic troller. Whole chapters worth of writing dedicated to his trolling ass. Too much energy loss has been due to this fool. Spare me the old "pay attention to the edits and not the editor", we have surpassed that it no longer applies! He just hides behind that and we get no where...for months and months and months! We should show him the door now. He isn't redeemable and I don't care to try. With him, I now assume bad faith based on a LONG standing history and WP:DUCK. Outing him was the right thing to do (I don't give a damn if harm befalls him or not, that is what you get when pick fights on the web, Just deserves.). The fact that he is still here is a testament to a piss-poor policy process. I JUST PROVED HE IS A DAMN TROLL. (as well as a crackpot author). There is also WP:COI issues with him. Drum him out! NOW! ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering the completely unapologetic tone here, I think he could use a good block so maybe he could learn from his mistakes. He obviously isn't going to understand otherwise. Troll accusations are just attempts to attack people personally, especially when they come from people with such obvious calculated intent in making the accusations. BH hasn't proven anything about me, he's proven that he has no business editing an encyclopedia. (Crackpot author? Hmm... Not sure who he thought I was, but that's certainly not accurate. But then he doesn't care about accuracy, just name calling.) DreamGuy (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"According to WP:Outing, if someone publishes their identity and ties it in with their user handle it is ok..well, google Dreamguy and you will see that he published it."

I'm sorry, but I don't see how being able to use Google to find DG can possibly be interpreted as conforming to WP's "outing" guidelines. Did DG publish his personal info on WP? No. Has DG posted a link to that information on WP? No. I think the WP policy is pretty straightforward--if the individual choses not to make their personal information known on WP, then no-one else can do it for them. Where the information came from is irrelevant, as is the accuracy Revmagpie (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't publish ANY of these things directly on Wikipedia. I posted two links. The policy is explicit about what not to publish and I didn't. DG himself put his name out there along with his handle. ...and also for the record, WP policy is ONLY about the publishing of what is found on Wikipedia. Looking it up has nothing to do with it. Moreover the the User privacy policy states "The Wikimedia Foundation makes no guarantee against unauthorized access to any information you provide. This information may be available to anyone with access to the servers." Now, if the average joe can come along and do it, why is it any different for a Wikipedian. I've been using search methods long before being a Wikipedian. Exactly how do people roll out and expose Conflict of Interests? I don't believe policies that are designed to protect the innocent apply when someone is intentionally disruptive, vandalizing, etc. The spirit of Wiki policies has been clearly consistent with that. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You know what? No. Several admins have told you that you DID in fact violate policies, and of course you DID put the info on several pages here (or in such a way that trying to claim you didn't is just wikilawyering nonsense). The fact that you don't get it and refuse to acknowledge it is disturbing. Your edits are the problem here. Your actions are the ones that constitute trolling. You are assuming bad faith and making up false accusations instead of providing any evidence of it. Simply put, your entire concept of how Wikipedia works, what it is for, and what is acceptable here is completely out of whack with reality. You dodged the bullet of getting banned by a mere hair on two separate occasions related to this incident now, so you'd think you'd maybe get a clue by now that you can't do this. DreamGuy (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I did NOT put your name, address, or any other personal piece of info into Wikipedia consistent with WP:OUTING...I thought you were allowed to look at it? If so, then you'd know that is true. I provided two links. I was responding to Revmagpie but you just went and declared on TexasAndroid's page that I'm making personal attacks...where??? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

DG cannot see the deleted edits. At this point only admins can see them. Someone in the AN/I thread said they requested oversight, which would even more drastically limit who could see them. If DG wants me to do so, I can Email him the offending edits so that he would know exactly what was posted. Assuming that they have not been oversighted by the time he makes the request.

As for you, BH, you are really pushing things, so consider yourself warned. Coming into a talk page and laying out accusations that he is only a troll like you have been doing is crossing another line. Consider yourself warned, particularly about this talk page. If you must pursue your WP:COI concerns about DG, there are places to do so. WP:COIN and WP:RFC are two such avenues. But you need to stop with the accusations against DG here on this talk page, at a *minimum*. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy, I'm forced to ask - do you understand who is supposed to be giving the consensus? The consensus Arcayne is talking about is to be gained from us, the WP editors. Not from the JTR community. The trick is getting several editors to weigh in on the issue here on the talk page and see how many editors will agree with you. This leads to discussion and compromise. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course I do. Do you? There are two issues here. The first is that the article is supposed to represent the consensus of experts, not a consensus of amateurs who feel like they want to edit an article. That's what WP:ENC, WP:RS, WP:OS explains. The second is what to do with certain editing concerns, and that's where editor consensus comes in. Arcayne doesn't use that, either. HE just states something as consensus because he believes it before ever discussing it. He's got a permanent assumption (or at least editing strategy to label it this way) that any edits I make automatically must be against consensus because he didn't make them. That doesn't fly. On questions of fact and presentation of the topic, experts on JTR are what the article is there to present. You understand that, right? DreamGuy (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are incorrect on at least two points. Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't represent a consensus of our opinion (whether you consider yourself an expert is a matter of uncited opinion at this point), but rather a cited form of third party opinions. What I think or youy think doesn't matter at all. If you think that many or most authors call it one thing, you need to cite that, as you are evaluating that assessment, and you aren't citable. In the absence of that reference, we cannot say most or many (or few if any); your inclusion of those authors that do call it such are always going to bne in the minority - it wouldn't matter if you listed a dozen citations of authors that say such. Theere are going to be books that don't say that. For that reason, we stay objectively neutral and say some.

Secondly, you feel that any edit you add has to be refuted before it can be removed. This is untrue. If your edit is contentious (and we had previously arrived at a consensus that we weren't going to use it at all as a section lead), it will be reverted. When reverted, your next task is not to revert the revert, but to demonstrate good faith and discuss the matter in the article discussion page. If you were to even once approach the discussion page with an edit that you were reasonably sure was going to be disputed, you might find people's reactions far more positive than after having accused them of being part of some massive plot to "get" you.

I am an enormous believer in group consensus. It isn't always correct, but it does allow for continued discussion and continual improvement. By acting like the article sheriff, come to clean up the article after all us varmints done shat upon it, you are isolating yourself. That you haven't found yourself blocked far more often is a testament more of how ruiled up you can make your fellow editor rather than to the defensibleness of your own behavior. When you ignore requests to discuss your edits (instead using the abrupt 2-line edit summary), you are effectively telling us that you don't care what we think, and you are going to do whatever you want, the rest of us be damned. This is why you tend to face a unified opposition - you aren't seeking to work with others, but rather in spite of them. As WP is a community-based encyclopedia and not a private JTR site or fan forum, you may have forgotten that.

Lastly, there is no strategy on my part to block you. I don't consider you a factor in my decision-making process at all. When you make edits after having achieved recent (and not some dim past) consensus for them, they have been left alone. When you add them in, and call us all blind for daring to question them, you put yourself into position for a civility block. Its easy: if you don't want someone to "trap" you into breaking your civility parole, work extra hard to stay polite, and if they are rude, report them. Don't attack them in article discussion space. Again, you are not on my radar; I consider you less than a bump in the road, so there isn't any Grand Scheme to get you. I promise you that.

That will be my last word on the subject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Time to take yet another arbitrary break

There's still way too much discussion of editorial behaviour over article content. As I continually bash on about, the way forward is to concentrate on content and moving the article forward - not to dwell on issues of who did what to whom and when - and with what - and sometimes with whom. Those are side issues that really have no place here and do not go anywhere. If I'm bending over backwards, it is to give everybody a chance to have their say on the article content; and to accommodate quite different viewpoints.

You all need to put the snippiness aside and concentrate on the article. That includes all the sarcastic edit summaries - just because they don't appear in the talk page, they still appear in the history and remain a clear attempt to provoke a response. Can I also remind editors on multiple blocks that eventually the community's patience will be exhausted and they become indefinite blocks, rather than time outs.

Do take a deep breath and do try to move forward in a spirit of co-operation rather than expressing a rhetoric of assuming good faith - but actually demonstrating the worse kind of obstructionism. Do try to apply a little bit of patience and not immediately rise to the constant baiting - just ignore it and get on with the article. Do try to apply a little of that not inconsiderable brain power to the article, rather than sniping at each other. Thank you, here endeth the sermon. Kbthompson (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

KB, of course everyone would agree that the way forward is to avoid personal conflict. Unfortunately Arcayne and others have made it clear that they have no interest in moving forward if moving forward means they can't just dismiss everything I say. Arcayne's had a clear strategy for at least a year, and it includes tagteaming with firneds he makes who obviously have no interest in the actual article itself but in gaming the system. Saying over and over that people need to move beyond that doesn't help when the article is held hostage by people gaming the system. When i focus on the article itself, they don't care, they just revert the edits, say I need to discuss first (although they never feel the need to discuss their edits first), and if it had been previously discussed they even delete the talk page contents and pretend they never saw it. OF COURSE we should move forward. But even with all the intent in the world on my part to do that (I have over and over just given up on thins in the article I know to be wrong but which Arcayne was entrenched over) it can't happen when Arcayne et al are pulling the POV warrior/"civil" POV-pushing (though even there their edits are much more uncivil than the ones they complain about in others) gameplan.

Saying we should get over it is pointless. We need something else. Something that can't be gamed. Something that might involve getting some people who clearly are not here to edit an encyclopedia removed so they can't keep this nonsense up. Something that involves a clear concentration on what the reliable sources say and not whatever weird bit of amateur nonsense Arcayne and others insist has to be in the article. Sermons don't help in situations like this. Brainstorm something else up, because we have 18+ months of what DOESN'T work under our belts already. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this intriguing article, I'm going to put in my two cents worth. I'm probably crazy to do so.

Reading the above discussion about the value of various books about JTR was an extremely depressing experience. If a book does not cover the topics you are interested in, find another book (there must be a fair number). Don't waste your time and that of others by complaining about the books and denigrating the editors who suggested them.

Without some level of "assuming good faith", editing this article is going to be a painful experience for all editors. If it is "too much" to AGF, then as a rock-bottom minimum, be civil to each other. If you don't agree with an edit or a note in talk, say what you think is wrong with it IN FACTUAL TERMS. Do not talk about the ancestry, motives, character, etc of the other editor.

Wanderer57 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Osborn Street - red link

I read somewhere that in the past the postal address of the red linked Osborn Street was Osborn Street, Brick Lane, so maybe it should be subsumed under Brick Lane. This is what I originally did - by the way - until some pedant changed it...Colin4C (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Osborn Street is the short lower part of Brick Lane, where it meets Whitechapel HS - what you propose actually makes sense. Today, it consists of a few small warehouses and walk up machinist premises (tailoring). There may be one, or two, small electronics shops. Somehow, I doubt if it would ever be notable enough for its own article. Kbthompson (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This advert for a trendy cafe where I never hang out seems to indicate that the postal address of Osborn Street is still subsumed under Brick Lane: http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/pubsandbars/cafe-suki-info-15048.html Colin4C (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've created Osborn Street as a redirect to Brick Lane. The ripper cat tags are on the redirect page. Kbthompson (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Colin4C (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

An attempt to talk about the "Goulston Street Graffito"

I'm gonna give this a shot. DG, I'd like to offer that the problem Arcayne has is not with calling it by that phrase, but with the ambiguous qualifier "many". This is one of those qualifier words that people have used to shore up an argument when they don't have an exact number and want to look important. The issue comes when you ask, "How many"? Colloquially many implies more than half (otherwise we would use "few"). But how can we demonstrate that more than half of the people that have written about Jack the Ripper have used said phrase? The phrase is used in the study of JTR, and should be refereed to in the article, but the many qualifier does not appear to be appropriate in this instance. By extension, the article doesn't need so many citations to support it. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I can't believe the amount of wikilawyering going on here. No, "many" implies "lots," not necessarily more than half. The line does not say "most". Arcayne's preference for "some," on the other hand, suggests anywhere from hardly any to only a few, which is clearly not at all accurate. The bottom line is that we look at the sources that are reliable, see the broad range of them (well respected Ripper experts, historians, general criminologists, academics, etc.), also see that the leading website on the topic has a forum category by that name, and keep in mind that I could provide some 20 more sources bu Arcayne would just try to claim adding sources is bad. "Many" is clearly cited, and it's only a couple of editor's WP:OR-style personal concerns with the name that makes them want to ignore the experts and try to minimize it. Wikipedia is a reference on expert opinions, not a place for people off the street who may have read something on a website once who think their opinions are more important than the experts. DreamGuy (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is more objectively neutral to specify the number as "some." "Many" or "most" is evaluative, and isn't supported by the sorts of citations necessary to make that evaluation. Despite CoI concerns on DG's part, I submit that he is actually in amongst the trees,and might not be aware of the forest he is within. He cannot speak neutrally to the number because he is too close to the subject.

Additionally, adding five different citations to argue a point better carried out in the discussion page is in fact the very definition of disruptive editing. We don't need more than two to define thaty the term is used by some editors. I have chosen the first two (assuming that common sense would allow for the citation in descending order of applicability and reliability, etc). I deleted the last three, retaining the last two.

If DG wishes to build a consensus for adding it in, he should pursue that, as per WP:BRD. In fact, BRD was created to specifically address what to do when reverted, ot avoid edit-warring, When reverted, the time to discuss is then, not revert back then discuss. Preventing the introduction of edits that are not part of an existing or emerging consensus is to be expected. Find a con sensus first - edit-warring out the pre-existing consensus is not a very intelligent way to address dissent. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You're going around in circles. Flimsy, incorrect arguments you made the first time around are still wrong, and already proven to be so by Wikipedia policy, no matter how many times you repeat them. DreamGuy (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I've stated my points, which are in fact accurate. One can make a bold edit. When reverted, one goes to the discussion page to build a consensus. One doesn't refer to one that went the way of the dodo long ago. I am done feeding this particular user. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There are (at least) two problems here. One is that this section in Talk does not make it clear what the discussion/argument is about so it is difficult for someone else to provide informed input.

The second is that, based on the article history, the discussion is about whether to say:

• The writing is referred to by many authors as the "Goulston Street Graffito". OR
• The writing is referred to by some authors as the "Goulston Street Graffito".

I won't say this decision is totally unimportant, but it is certainly not worth the amount of agonized attention it is getting.

When the main actors in this little discussion have both made their arguments in favour of the word they prefer, it is time for them to step back, be reticent, and let some other editors review the matter.

Wanderer57 (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem with dropping the qualifier altogether?

• The writing is referred to by authors as the "Goulston Street Graffito". or even
• The writing has been referred to by authors as the "Goulston Street Graffito".

It shouldn't be that hard to find a phrase that is acceptable to everyone. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I just tried a rephrase without "many" or "some" on the article. I don't know if Arcayne reverted it already, but it wouldn't surprise me. You can check the history there. I would go for a rephrase that doesn't suggest that it's a tiny minority viewpoint, as Arcayne seems to be trying to do. Your suggestions make perfect sense to me as an alternate to "many". In fact the way it is now is in fact already a compromise over the past, when the whole section used to be titled with that phrase and Arcayne and A-O tried to remove it entirely so it wasn;t mentioned at all.

I would agree with the comments above that it's not worth the attention it's been getting, but then I think it's important to stand up to an editor who is trying to bully his way into owning the article. He's gamed his way into winning every conflict over the past year and a half, and it needs to stop, especially when his explicit stated goal is to ignore the experts in the field, while making highly uncivil comments on the field in general. DreamGuy (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, okay. I will sidestep the barbs of the above post, as I said I would stop feeding the user's need for attention. We do not need more than two citations, and I think that even two is stretching the importance. That said, "a number of authors" is an acceptable substitution. A pity that couldn't have been discussed earlier here in the discussion page, as was suggested a half dozen times.

Just so we are all clear here, there is no such thing as an "expert" on Jack the Ripper. There are informed folk, which is not quite the same thing. When folk start graduating from the very liberal U of C system with a degree in "Ripperology", we can start referring to Ripper enthusiasts as experts (the U of C system has graduated folk in thaumaturgy, so "Ripperology", shouldn't pose too much of a hurdle). Until then, they aren't experts. Period. Let's all try to remember that, and keep things in perspective, shall we? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)True, but (and not to belabor the point) actual, practicing historians do represent a particular case for us. They are historical experts in that they understand, academically, how to process historical evidence and what weight to give what leavings. This may not make them expert "Ripperologists" but could a case be made for one being an expert on Jack the Ripper? Much as you have Egyptologists that are experts on Amenhotep. (Hmm, FF has Amenhotep in the dictionary but not Imhotep, weird) padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement that "there is no such thing as an "expert" on Jack the Ripper." is just complete and utter nonsense from someone who simply refuses to accept reliable sources. There are plenty of experts on all sorts of topics that do not have a specific degree by that name at any university. To suggest otherwise is just completely out of the realms of even reasonable argument. Otherwise there'd be no experts on, say, the Nixon resignation, or marsupial breeding habits, or schizophrenia because those people were too busy actually studying the specific topic and having a background in the broad topics instead of getting some meaningless extremely specific degree cooked up. Ripperologists include historians, psychologists, criminologists, police, forensics experts and other people with similar backgrounds. They aren't suddenly not experts even though everyone treats them as such because Arcayne decides he hates everybody in the field and thinks his own amateur thoughts should be treated more seriously than the people who do it as part of their professions. DreamGuy (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

First, no one said there are no experts in Jack the Ripper. It was put forth that there is no such thing as an "expert Ripperologist". Seeing as a Ripperologist can describe anyone that has a significant interest in the Jack the Ripper story, I don't know that I support what is essentially "expert hobbyists". Second, the gist of your argument was exactly what I was putting forth, only with much less vitriol. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that line I put there was an exact quote of what Arcayne said, so he did in fact say that. Nobody is saying any old person who calls himself a Ripperologist is automatically an expert (and certainly not a WP:RS for this article), but Arcayne is saying that no Ripperologists are experts. I know this because he has said those exact sentiments in the past several times, and he says so in clear, indisputable words above, which I quoted word for word. So if you agree with me, then you agree that Arcayne is just plain wrong, which of course should be obvious but for some reason has been seemingly controversial on this talk page for a year or more. DreamGuy (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. You are correct, he does state that there is "no such thing as an 'expert' on Jack the Ripper". Then I must disagree with that Arcayne. There is every bit as likely (in fact more given it's "celebrity" status) an expert on Jack the Ripper as there is on Amenhotep or Cleopatra or any number of historical figures. You mean to tell me that a British historian, no matter how well accredited, could not be an expert in Jack the Ripper? I have to agree with DG, that's ridiculous. Why can't historians and forensic scientists study Jack the Ripper? Are you trying to codify the inherent lack of information on the subject? That no one can be an "expert" because there just isn't enough information about the subject? Again, in light of the fact that there are expert in historical figures that are several thousand years old, I can't support that. But what say you, other than the "there's no degree so there's no expert" (which I hope you see is false logic), what are your feelings on Ripper experts? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Admins! Can I ask you a question? Under what circumstances is it acceptible on a wikipedia Talk page to accuse another editor of being:

• A bully?
• Gaming his way into winning conflicts?
• Aiming to ignore the experts in the field? Colin4C (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel the need, Wikipedia has a robust conflict resolution system. Please use that instead of posting comments to the talk page that could be misconstrued. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I second that recommendation. Personality issues can be resolved elsewhere, be it mediation, DR, ANI or ArbCom Enforcement. If it doesn't specifically deal with JTR, it doesn't need to be here. Keep the comments on point, and off the editors. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not in dispute with anybody and I have not mentioned any personalities. I was just asking whether any editor on the wikipedia calling any other editor on the wikipedia a bully, a gamer, or aiming to ignore experts is perfectly entitled to do so in certain circumstances. If it is perfectly okay so be it, if its not its not. Or does it depend on whether the other editor 'deserves it'. I.e. has had his name so blackened that the other editors think he is 'fair game' for any slander and abuse? I personally have been subject to sustained campaigns of personal abuse on this page and rather than being supported by other editors they have cowardly refused to get involved. Colin4C (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is a bit rich coming from you considering your edit history. DreamGuy (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of blood?

QUOTING the article:

"Theories suggest the victims were first strangled in order to silence them, which also explained the reported lack of blood at the crime scenes. How would strangulation result in a lack of blood? Wanderer57 (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that would seem misleading, and perhaps we need to rephrase that. If someone is strangled to death, their heart stops pumping blood throughout the body. When the cutting happens, the blood would apparently ooze, and not spurt - not as much blood all over the pavement.

Of course, it could also mean that JTR is a vampire. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How morbid am I that I instinctively understood that? (shudder) I creep myself out. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be too hard on yourself, Padillah - "a number" of ripperologists have mused over that very possibility, too. Depending on who you ask, you are either in august or sad company. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Outing

Just to remind everybody that "I am not the person who won't be blamed for nuffin". Hope that is clear...Also I am in no way related to Jack the Ripper nor do I represent his interests. As for being seen 'groping a melon' in a Shoreditch strip-club, that was my twin brother. Honest. Colin4C (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, what you talkin' about, Willis? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Rumbelow" :
  • Donald Rumbelow (2004) ''The Complete Jack the Ripper'' ISBN 0140173951
  • Donald Rumbelow (2004) ''The Complete Jack the Ripper'': 12. Penguin
• "Vanderlinden" :
  • Wolf Vanderlinden, "The New York Affair" ''Ripper Notes'' part one issue 16 (July 2003); part two #17 (January 2004), part three #19 (July 2004 ISBN 0975912909)
  • Wolf Vanderlinden, [http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html "'Considerable Doubt' and the Death of Annie Chapman"], ''Ripper Notes'' #22, ISBN 0975912933

DumZiBoT (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The burning, itching need for multiple references?

Why do we need more than a single reference to note that some writers refer to the writing as the GSG? Seriously, the multiple references continually being added don't even support the statement that "a number" do use it. I think its okay to note that it is used by some, indicated by noting one that does, but as it is such a minior point, why is there a burning need to include all of the extras, especially when they fair to support the statement more specifically? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is a result of the previous discussion regarding "most" vs. "some". It was an attempt to demonstrate the numerous authors that use the phrase. Since that issue has been resolved I'm not sure we need to maintain the multiple references. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 16:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when is that issue resolved? No, it isn't. DreamGuy (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a reasonable compromise would be to combine all the sources into a single reference (that which is tagged by < ref > tag.) There still seems a dispute as to whether multiple sources are needed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, I have put the second one back in, just because it seems ridiculous to me that people would think that one reference somewhere is better than having two. It doesn't seem to be cluttering the page unusually, and it doesn't damage the article, so why not just leave it there? Brilliantine (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental argument seems to be between 'many' and 'some'; so DG was trying to make a point by adding multiple references. Ultimately, it's about how many ripperologists can dance on the end of a dagger, so, I really don't think it's (a) worth the argument between them and (b) worth blocking either of them over. Kbthompson (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not tyring to make a point, it's using the reliable sources to back up and prove wwhat this article needs to present to the world. The term is overwhelmingly used by authors in the field. Arcayne has not found any evidence to the contrary and wants it removed because HE HIMSELF opposes the term. We need to follow WP:RS policy. DreamGuy (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, 'many' and 'some' are both weasel words anyway. Just to clarify - I have no point of view on all these ripper theories at all. All this senseless to-and-froing is clogging up my watchlist and probably a lot of other people as well, so if the both of them could stop edit warring, that'd be great. Brilliantine (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a point. Two is a good compromise between the one that is standard for a contentious addition and the 5-7 that were there at one time. Let's leave it at two. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Two are ample enough to make the point. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Just thought it bears pointing out that none of the proffered citations actually refer to the statement that "a number" (or many or even some) authors refer to GSG. As the citation doesn't say what the statement says it does, its synthesis to use a lot of citations to bolster the argument that a number of authors use the term seems a clear definition of synthesis, using published material to advance a position, and its presence is - as noted before - was a vestigial remainder of a WP:POINT argument regarding the term's usage. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the most transparently ridiculous claim I've ever seen. The cites (all nine of them that were previously provided and you removed in various combinations) show that many authors in the field use the term, by virtue of them including it. It's 100% spot on proof of what it claims, no synthesis involved in any shape or form. Anyway, before you go talking about WP:POINT violations and what sources are for, you may want to go actually read the policies, because they don't say what you are claiming. DreamGuy (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to replace the sentence in question in the section above

"The writing has been referred to by authors such as Curtis(ref) and Douglas(ref) as the Goulson Street graffito."

For me, the main positive is that it avoids WP:WEASEL. Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? Brilliantine (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that. It avoids all the problems previously noted. Would that such a solution had been thought of earlier. Thanks, B. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Much better than my suggestion above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: we would be using the authors' full names, unless they have already been noted previously, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so - it was mainly the structure I was thinking of. Brilliantine (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As I had presumed, Brilliantine. Should we await the yea or nay of others, or be bold and swap it out now? - Arcayne (^{cast a}

spell) 19:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to be sure that all parties involved above have a chance to comment (to avoid any more edit warring on the article). Brilliantine (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Clean, unambiguous, direct... Very nice job Brilliantine! padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Padillah solicited DG's opinion, as he is unable to respond here currently. I presume he will respond on his talk page regarding the proposal. Is this okay with others? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just re-read the talk page here and read DG's user talk - I had no ideas that things had got this dramatic here. I am watching his user talk for his opinion on this. Is there any more information (ANI stuff, etc) that I should read before getting too involved with this topic, as it looks to me at first sight that everybody involved is in need of light trouting and a cup of tea. Brilliantine (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really. You pretty much have the gist of it; the drama is done for the time being. Intransigence and failure to discuss is usually at the center of it; proposals like yours are nice ways to avoid the friction. Again, thanks for the assist. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Very well done Brilliantine. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This "solution" offered above is nothing of the sort. The point of that whole section is that the term is used by MOST authors in the field. Citing only a couple of authors by name gives an entirely false impression of how widespread it is... it makes it sound like just those two or three use it. If we are going to name names, then we should name ALL of them, or default to "most authors" or even "many authors". I had added multiple sources to prove that it's THE term used in the field, but Arcayne refused to accept it and kept removing the valid, reliable sources. Trying to remove all of them, or put misleading wording, is a clear attempt to confuse the reader into having a distorted view about what the experts actually say, and it's simply unacceptable. The term as used in the field is Goulston Steet Graffito, period, and as such it needs to be used in the article in that way. Reducing the mention to only "many authors" was an attempt at compromise, but it's clear that compromise is not something Arcayne wants, because after he "compromised" he then went in and removed all the sources. DreamGuy (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is actually addressed below in more detail, but the gist of it is that if it is a term used by "most" authors, then surely, there exists a citation that specifically says so. As it hasn't been added in over six years, I think the alternative, suggested above, is a better solution. It addresses that some authors use the term, and some don't. The term itself isn't immediately accessible to the casual reader, which is why we don't use it as a section header. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)