Talk:Jack the Ripper/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jack the Ripper. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.met.police.uk/history/ripper.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Protection

Why is this article protected #bodyContent a[title="User:Nector deorum et virorum"] (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nector42: This article is very prone to vandalism, as you can see by the history of the article. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 23:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead

The lead was extensively reviewed during the peer review, good article nomination and featured article candidate processes. Major changes are best discussed on talk before they are made. DrKay (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

led to proposals that their killer had some anatomical or surgical knowledge

What? This reads like very bad English.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it. DrKay (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Not very bad English, it is mediocre English composition. Especially if "the lead shouldn't definitively imply that there was one killer", an example of good phrasing is spawned suspicions of anatomical or surgical knowledge. — Occurring (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Rumours that the murders were connected intensified in September and October 1888

As this was the period of the murders the rumours started (they did not intensify) in September.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

They started after the murder of Nichols in August, so this should probably read "Rumours that the murders were connected intensified through September and October 1888". DrKay (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

On the 31st of august, so it is hard to see how there could have been any romours before September.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You can read The Star of 31 August at Casebook: "All this leads to the conclusion, that the police have now formed, that there there is a maniac haunting Whitechapel, and that the three woman were all victims of his murderous frenzy". DrKay (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Unless the date range is the sentence's main revelation, the phrasing ought to be reversed: first time period, and then the happening. — Occurring (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The lead's poor English composition

Undoing my third and latest lead, DrKay alleges that I used "extra commas and parenthetical clauses and syntax that puts dependent clauses before the sentence subject" [diff]. This alleges merely that I wrote beyond elementary level. Here's an example of how I excised the lead's wordiness and redundancy, and fixed the lead's grammar, punctuation, and syntax:

- The popular, restored lead says, "The name 'Jack the Ripper' originated in a letter written by someone claiming to be the murderer that was disseminated in the media. The letter is widely believed to have been a hoax and may have been written by journalists in an attempt to heighten interest in the story and increase their newspapers' circulation".

- My third and latest lead says, "The name 'Jack the Ripper' originated in a letter written by someone claiming to be the murderer. Disseminated in the media, the letter is widely believed a hoax, possibly written by journalists to heighten interest and increase newspaper circulation".

The popular leads says that the murderer was disseminated in the media. The lightest fix would require alleged "extra commas", and would say, "The name 'Jack the Ripper' originated in a letter, written by someone claiming to be the murderer, that was disseminated in the media". Take your pick, but don't say that the media disseminated the murderer. Here are the example's other amendments (and explanations):

- "widely believed to have been a hoax" (okay phrasing) becomes "widely believed a hoax" (concise phrasing)

- "may have been written" (unsure and wishy-washy) becomes "possibly written" (uncertain yet authoritative)

- "in an attempt to" (wordy for nothing) becomes "to" (already implying "in an attempt")

- "to heighten interest in the story and increase their newspapers' circulation" (sounding like one merely recording one's own thoughts, or writing a first draft, or writing a children's book) becomes "to heighten interest and increase newspaper circulation" (since we already know the story of interest, obviously the newspapers are theirs, and the noun newspaper makes a fine adjective)

Who but the author or the avid favors reading for 60 minutes to glean 45 minutes of reading? Not a ripperologist, just seeking an encyclopedic summary, I was discouraged upon spotting the lead's bloated paragraphs, and then repelled by the juvenile composition. Hardly making major changes, my lead initially drew only two complaints from DrKay: "the lead shouldn't definitively imply that there was one killer or that the victims were all treated the same" [diff].

As to the first initial complaint, my first lead altered no indication or suggestion about the number of killers. The popular lead's first sentence says "an unidentified serial killer", and its later sentences say "the killer" and "their killer". To prevent confusion, my second lead, immediately after saying "an unidentified serial killer", clarified "or perhaps multiple killers". By restoring the popular version, DrKay has deleted this clarification [diff].

As to the second initial complaint, I acknowledge that my first lead had indirectly indicated, as DrKay alleged, "that all the victims were treated the same". Yet I had merely translated what information the popular lead communicates to me, why this allegation eluded me until Slatersteven, reverting a whole paragraph of my second lead, explained, "Not all had abdominal mutalations and al lthe canical 5 were prostitudes" [diff]. That complaint impugns only one sentence, though:

- The popular lead's sentence says, "Attacks ascribed to Jack the Ripper typically involved female prostitutes who lived and worked in the slums of the East End of London whose throats were cut prior to abdominal mutilations".

- My second lead's sentence says, "The victims, whose throats were cut before abdominal mutilations, were typically female prostitutes in the slums of the East End of London".

A simple problem with one sentence calls for pointedly rephrasing that sentence, not completely undoing a whole paragraph much longer. Further, the popular lead's sentence that Slatersteven restored says nothing about the canonical five all being prostitutes, but suggests otherwise: it says the attacks "typically involved female prostitutes". How does that differ from my response—my third and latest lead—saying the victims "were typically female prostitutes"?

- My third lead's full sentence says, "The victims were typically female prostitutes, in the slums of the East End of London, whose throats were cut before abdominal mutilations" [diff].

- Again, the popular lead's sentence says, "Attacks ascribed to Jack the Ripper typically involved female prostitutes who lived and worked in the slums of the East End of London whose throats were cut prior to abdominal mutilations".

So the popular lead's sentence itself is unclear that this modus operandi—throat slashing and abdominal mutilation—did not befall all the victims. Rather, since the word typically is placed close to prostitutes but far from the M. O., it suggests that not all victims were prostitutes, but allows that all did sustain that M. O. Further, the popular lead's sentence opens with Attacks and Jack the Ripper, and closes with a sole M. O. that sounds characteristic of a Ripper, which M. O. thus becomes the sentence's takeaway.

Not enough of a ripperologist to decipher multiplicity of M. O.'s, I at least decoded the run-on sentence's unwittingly artistic imagery. Since whose is possessive for any noun, not only for nouns that are persons, the sentence strictly says that the East End of London had its throats slashed and abdomens mutilated. So at the very least, we must either revise the sentence's syntax, punctuate it properly, or conjugate it. Possible fixes:

- "Attacks ascribed to Jack the Ripper typically involved female prostitutes, living and working in the slums of the East End of London, whose throats were cut prior to abdominal mutilations"

- "Attacks ascribed to Jack the Ripper typically involved female prostitutes who lived and worked in the slums of the East End of London and whose throats were cut prior to abdominal mutilations"

- "Targeting female prostitutes in London's East End, the attacks attributed to Jack the Ripper typically involved throat slashing and then abdominal mutilations".

The third possible fix goes farther by improving the sum composition:

- Sounding inflated even within excellent composition, the term prior to, fitting the most formal writing, such as legal writing, sounds merely pompous in most writing, where the word before fits the tone.

- Usually, something that we ascribe to someone is merely a quality or outcome. When it's highly specific crimes, we usually trace or attribute them to assailants.

- "living and working in the slums of the East End of London" (sing-songy and, like a children's book, overly specific) becomes "in the slums of London's East End" (while adult and adolescent readers assume, correctly, that these 19th-century prostitutes both lived and worked there.) — Occurring (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• I believe that the edits by Occurring do actually improve the English in the lead without upsetting the facts and should be allowed to stand. It may provide a better point from which we can always move on to better still. Ex nihil ^(talk) 00:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Please rephrase all of the above to avoid referring to another editor. The restored lead is not the result of one editor's work. It is a joint work forged through three separate review processes, and as such is fine grammatically and correct factually. DrKay (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Since the paired complaints and reversions against my edits are selfcontradictory, my recounting of them will stand. Nor will I gratuitously say "editor # 1" and "editor # 2". Wikipedia policy explains, "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:". One listed item says, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki". The policy adds, "When there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says 'Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y', or 'The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research', is not a personal attack". Let us all assume good faith, then.

My discussion of what I called "the popular lead" harbors no such premise, let alone allegation, as you now impute to me, that it is "the result of one editor's work". As to article content, rather, I question whether it is, as you now indirectly assert, "fine grammatically and correct factually" to phrase that the media disseminated the murderer and that the East End of London had its throats slashed and abdomens mutilated. Merely, I concede that these written absurdities are artifacts not of poor grammar as such: they emerge, rather, from poor punctuation and poor syntax. Yet that you meanwhile omit even a single example of my allegedly worse composition, and that you equate fine grammatically and correct factually with a joint work forged through three separate review processes reinforces my concern that your reversion was misguided, and keeps the lead's quality at bloggish. — Occurring (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten that you were reverted by three editors.

On the grammar, for example, "widely believed a hoax" means something different, indeed the opposite, of "widely believed to have been a hoax". The hoax isn't widely believed. It's widely disbelieved. The extra three words add clarity. This is a typical example from the abridged lead: too many words have been cut leading to a loss of clarity and it uses an idiom that takes greater effort to parse.

On the facts, the shortened version said that the five canonical murders "are most likely linked" but the sources sometimes link them, sometimes link others, and sometimes dispute the link, and so "are often considered the most likely to be linked" is fairer, representative of all the sources and doesn't push one particular POV to the exclusion of others. The shortened lead said Jack the Ripper was perhaps the name of multiple killers, but it is the name for the serial killer. It is truer to say that "many deaths are attributed to Jack the Ripper though he was probably not responsible for all of them", not "Jack the Ripper was several killers all active in Whitechapel". DrKay (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, "widely believed a hoax" does not mean "a widely believed hoax" and seems quite clear to me, although the "to have been" certainly reinforces it. Barnabypage (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• DrKay, as to this talkpage section—about the English composition and historical accuracy of this article's lead—only two editors reverted my edits. The putative third editor, Sagaciousphil, wholly commented, "revert addition of paragraph break in Background section as it splits info from ref" [diff]. Yet that "info" already lacked a reference, which I then placed for Sagaciousphil [diff]. Soon, partly to purify the dispute over the lead, I retracted my changes to the § "Background" [diff]. Before any of that, you had reverted my entire version of the lead and, editing again, conceded two small changes, but did not revert in the § "Background" [diff].

Besides you, only Slatersteven reverted any of my edits to this article's lead. Whereas you reverted all three of the lead's paragraphs—albeit soon to accept my version of paragraph one's last sentence [diff]—Slatersteven reverted my version of only the lead's second paragraph. Slatersteven commented only toward its first sentence, though. Here is its original, and then my first revision of it:

- "Attacks ascribed to Jack the Ripper typically involved female prostitutes who lived and worked in the slums of the East End of London whose throats were cut prior to abdominal mutilations"

- "The victims, whose throats were cut before abdominal mutilations, were typically female prostitutes in the slums of the East End of London"

Wholly reverting that, Slatersteven wholly explained, "Not all had abdominal mutalations and al lthe canical 5 were prostitudes" [diff]. I had unwittingly switched the modus operandi's uniformity from a suggestion to an indication—the original phrasing itself suggesting uniformity—but had not meaningfully altered phrasing about prostitution. Editing the sentence conservatively, then, I commented, "Why restore a wordy paragraph just to say that with an ungrammatical sentence that actually says only half of that?", and just closely rephrased [diff]:

- "The victims were typically female prostitutes, in the slums of the East End of London, whose throats were cut before abdominal mutilations"

Slatersteven wholly reverted that, too, while wholly commenting, "Because it is more factualy coorect. And you are edit warring", thus restoring the original sentence [diff]:

- "Attacks ascribed to Jack the Ripper typically involved female prostitutes who lived and worked in the slums of the East End of London whose throats were cut prior to abdominal mutilations"

Still evading me, any factual difference there is so subtle that perhaps no nonripperologist can detect it, except that the original, read literally, is factually absurd, saying that the East End's throats were cut prior to abdominal mutilations. The sentence requires either two commas or a conjugation. Meanwhile, Slatersteven left unexplained the simultaneous reversion of the rest of the paragraph—four sentences absolutely untouched by Slatersteven's comments. All other reversions of my edits to this article's lead were by only you, DrKay.

As to alleged flaws in my latest version of the lead, your first example is my use of a standard and common English form. Ironically, your misreading—rearranging my phrase widely believed a hoax into either the phrase a widely believed hoax or the phrase a hoax widely believed—could argue for some redundant wording. Here, it would restore three words—to have been—restoring widely believed to have been a hoax.

Your second example alleges that my phrase are most likely linked pushes a single view about the canonical five. Yet what is experts' majority view? The lead should not hem and haw in deference to minority views unless they are significant and collectively approach the majority view. A consensus would be phrased are linked, a phrase that I did not use. My phrasing indicates uncertainty, amply revealed by surrounding sentences. If they're not most likely linked, though, how did they become canonical? To add more uncertainty, anyway, restore the word the, imparting relative likelihood: are the most likely linked. If even that is view pushing, then so is your choice, weaselworded—are often considered the most likely to be linked—whose effect amid the lead's wordiness and timidity is are the most likely linked. Add the word canonical, and the takeaway is are most likely linked. For great uncertainty, rather, a proper phrase is may be linked. For a common view, a phrase is are often thought linked. For a common view amid great rivals, a phrase is are often thought linked, despite ongoing debate: two words fewer than your preferred phrase, yet clear enough to obviate a supplemental explanation on the talkpage.

For your third example, you fully say, "The shortened lead said Jack the Ripper was perhaps the name of multiple killers, but it is the name for the serial killer. It is truer to say that 'many deaths are attributed to Jack the Ripper though he was probably not responsible for all of them', not 'Jack the Ripper was several killers all active in Whitechapel' ". Yet, besides that a comma between Ripper and though is not, as you might allege, extra, but is required, it is gratuitous and misleading to place in quotation marks and correct a phrase that I never whatsoever wrote. Like so, you allude to one clause in my later version but absent from my first version, which you reverted. I then inserted the clause—or perhaps multiple killers—to address your own complaint. Now your tangential argument against the clause shows that your complaint was misguided. Let us see how.

First, I make clear that my first version of the lead had changed no indication or suggestion about the number of killers, except to delete the singular term their killer from paragraph two's second sentence [diff] Here is the original, and then my revision:

- "The removal of internal organs from at least three of the victims led to proposals that their killer had some anatomical or surgical knowledge"

- "As at least three bodies had internal organs removed, some suspected anatomical or surgical knowledge"

Completely reverting the whole lead, you ironically commented that "the lead shouldn't definitively imply that there was one killer" [diff]. Since your reversion incidentally restored the singular term their killer, how did my edit "definitively imply" this possible misinformation? Let's trail your subsequent edits.

You soon conceded two of my changes, both in paragraph one: its last sentence, irrelevant in this dispute, and one of my two changes in its first sentence. There, you conceded my replacement of given to with for, but you rejected my other change: my deleting generally believed to have been. Here, I underline the changing areas:

- The original said, "Jack the Ripper is the best-known name given to an unidentified serial killer generally believed to have been active in the largely impoverished areas in and around the Whitechapel district of London in 1888"

- My first version said, "Jack the Ripper is the best-known name for an unidentified serial killer active in the largely impoverished areas in and around the Whitechapel district of London in 1888" [diff]

- Youy reversion plus concession said, "Jack the Ripper is the best-known name for an unidentified serial killer generally believed to have been active in the largely impoverished areas in and around the Whitechapel district of London in 1888" [diff]

Again, I had changed no indication or suggestion about the number of killers except to delete their killer elsewhere, but you restored and kept that singular term elsewhere. So it was my deleting the clause generally believed to have been that you took to "definitively imply" a sole killer. Yet, not revealing a possible multiplicity of killers, the clause hints that maybe there was no Jack the Ripper at all about Whitechapel in 1888. So, while wholly commenting, "Addressing the complaints—although they had nothing to do with my edit", I returned and replaced that ambiguous clause with or perhaps multiple killers [diff]:

- "Jack the Ripper is the best-known name for an unidentified serial killer, or perhaps multiple killers, active in the largely impoverished areas in and around the Whitechapel district of London in 1888"

Not fault-finding there, Slatersteven soon reverted, as I discuss above, only paragraph two [diff]. And now, at last, you declare that Jack the Ripper, indeed, "is the name for the serial killer". Although formally accurate, the clause generally believed to have been adds no factual accuracy, and instead opens the door to doubt that there was any such serial killer in Whitechapel in 1888. Altogether, Ex nihil's earlier response on this talkpage sums up my stance about this article's lead. And I agree with Barnabypage about your first example.

Inadvertently, your first example cogently endorses select wordiness to enhance clarity for some readers. Yet your second example helps unmask how the lead's great wordiness and timidity, not rendering the lead both readable and accurate, allows broadly subjective interpretation. I had merely rephrased the lead to clearly state what it communicated to me. Meanwhile, your own argument about your second example suggests that concise, assertive phrasing focuses readers' interpretations. Similarly yet further, your third example reveals that in reading the present lead's first sentence at two different times, you yourself culled two incompatible meanings: the name Jack the Ripper could refer to multiple killers, but refers to only one serial killer among them. Altogether, the tactic of phrasing to merely hint unstated information is misguided. — Occurring (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2017

Change "The parish of Whitechapel in London's East End became increasingly overcrowded. Work and housing conditions worsened, and a significant economic underclass developed.[2] Robbery, violence, and alcohol dependency were commonplace, and the endemic poverty drove many women to prostitution. In October 1888, London's Metropolitan Police Service estimated that there were 62 brothels and 1,200 women working as prostitutes in Whitechapel.[3]"

to

"The parish of Whitechapel in London's East End became increasingly overcrowded. Work and housing conditions worsened, and a significant economic underclass developed.[2] This endemic poverty was in stark contrast to the wealth that the upper-class held, and this vast divide played a major role in the setup to the murders. The poor were mainly cast away to the East End, and robbery, violence, alcohol dependency were commonplace and it even drove many women to prostitution. This gave rise to many philanthropic missions devoted to better the lives of the inhabitants, including religious missions, social surveys, housing reforms and more. These had no real effect as such, and tensions continued to rise. They peaked in November 1887, when police forcefully kicked out many middle-class workers from Trafalgar square, a wealthy locality. This showed a clear bias towards the rich and led to many riots. One of the results of this was that in October 1888, London's Metropolitan Police Service estimated that there were 62 brothels and 1,200 women working as prostitutes in Whitechapel.[3]" Aadirao7 (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Not done. I see no consensus that the upper class were responsible for the murders nor any connection between evictions from Trafalgar Square and the number of brothels in Whitechapel. DrKay (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2017

"change The cattle boats were examined but the dates of the murders did not coincide with a single boat's movements and the transfer of a crewman between boats was also ruled out.[75]

to

The cattle boats were examined but the dates of the murders did not coincide with a single boat's movements and the transfer of a crewman between boats was also ruled out.[75] One of the other possible factors contributing to the fact that the killer was never caught could be the nature of the photography of the crime scenes. A majority of photographs of victims in this investigation were mere mug shots of the faces, and placed little focus to the other aspects of the body or other aspects of the crime scene. This spotlight placed on the victim’s face could suggest that there was something in their appearances’ that led to their victimization. They resemble a lot with the mug shots one would usually see in a police line-up, and this further cements the suggestion that they were not the victims of this crime, but the provocation. All of the victims belonged to lower strata’s of society, so this mindset reflects that of the wealthy classes towards the poor, and indicates that even the police shared a similar mindset. Aadirao7 (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you make this shorter?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

 Note: Pinging Aadirao7 for response. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Closing: it's too verbose and repetitive. DrKay (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

"A majority of photographs of victims in this investigation were mere mug shots of the faces"

In some cases, that is the area of the victim which was injured/damaged. Elizabeth Stride had her throat cut, but had few other bruises and no other visible injury. Catherine Eddowes had her throat cut, and large areas of her face were disfigured post-mortem: "the murderer had cut Eddowes' face: across the bridge of the nose, on both cheeks, and through the eyelids of both eyes. The tip of her nose and part of one ear had been cut off."

Several discussions of the case I have come across, wonder why the killer devoted so much time on Eddowes' face, when most of the other victims have no particular facial injury. See for example this article on "The Marking of Catherine Eddowes": http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-marking.html

On another note, we have no mug shot of Mary Jane Kelly, and little to no idea what she looked like when alive. Her killer mutilated the body so much that her facial features were gone. There were no previous photos of her and the reports by various acquaintances of hers were contradictory. The description of her hair color suggests that she was blonde, redhead, and dark brunette! I am guessing she could not have had three natural hair colors. Dimadick (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Buckled

This request is nothing to do with improving the article
The following discussion has been closed by [[User:Richerman (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)|Richerman (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)]]. Please do not modify it.
While closely examining this image of Whitechapel, I noticed there is a Buckle Street under the "A" in WHITECHAPEL. Is anyone aware of a person connected with the Ripper case who lived in Buckle Street? A long shot, but maybe the Ripper was giving a clue when he wrote "till I do get buckled". Akld guy (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC) If RS have not picked up ion this it is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC) That's what I was asking. Do any sources mention an individual who lived in Buckle Street? Akld guy (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC) You seem to have forgotten that the letter was not written by the Ripper. It was a hoax probably written by a journalist. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Not proven either way. In fact, Dear Boss letter says the letter is "one of three named most frequently as potentially having been written by the killer." This letter threatened "clip the lady's ear off" and Catherine Eddowes' body was subsequently found with part of one ear cut off. Akld guy (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC) I had hoped you had forgotten that the letter was a fake, but I am disappointed to discover that you are just another deluded Ripper fantasist misusing this page to post your own absurd theories. This is not an appropriate venue for original research. DrKay (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC) I beg your pardon, what? I'm asking whether any editor is aware of anyone living in Buckle Street or of sources mentioning the same. Your accusation of misusing this page to post an absurd theory is an unwarranted personal attack. So far as I'm aware, I have not interacted with you before, and certainly not in an unfriendly tone, so where your attitude is coming from I do not know. Please desist from making further comments if you cannot answer my query. Akld guy (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC) This page is not for answering queries. It is for discussing improvements to the article. DrKay (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Anyone else? Akld guy (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Concern about the photo of Mary Kelly's murder scene

I'm not into censorship. I don't know how to bring up the issue without sounding like I am, so I'll just state my concern, which is about the police photograph of Mary Kelly's murder scene. I don't think people should have to see an extremely gory picture stuck in the middle of an article without knowing they might see something of that nature. Couldn't it be placed under External Links with a description of the picture? Maybe the article could include a link saying that crime scene shots can be viewed at the link below.

Removing it would not make the story incomplete. It's easy to say that nobody has to look at it, but when someone reads the article, it's just there, in your face, with no warning about the graphic nature of images in the article. Jack the Ripper is someone children might look up if they never heard of him. The picture made me jump & I'm no kid anymore. I would have seen the picture even with a warning because I scrolled through the pics in the media viewer.

Showing bodies can be an important part of history articles... pictures of the Jonestown suicides, Civil War battlefields, the Mỹ Lai Massacre, etc should all be shown & they are. I can't explain the difference but an example would be an action shot of someone's head being cut off. Another is the crime scene shot here. The latter 2 examples are graphic in gory details. People should be given the choice of whether to click a link to view them.

Aimzzz (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Aimzzz. The image has been on Wikipedia (in the Commons) since 2006. If people wish to read articles of this nature, they know what to expect. Plus the subject of the article is arguably the most infamous serial killer of all time. The image isn't difficult to find on the Internet, or in publications.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Kieronoldham. It was because the image is readily available that I thought a link to the picture might be better in this case. The availability would mean it's there, so users would have a choice about clicking the link to view it. Just to be clear, my feelings are ~50:50 mixed about what I wrote. After posting it, my mind kept changing back & forth, for & against the idea. If nothing else, there's no way to determine which images would be acceptable-- in that way, gore is like porn. Then again, porn is somehow kept out of WP articles. Anyway, I decided not to remove my comment because of my immediate reaction when I saw the pic. It seemed worth discussing whether anybody agreed or not-- in fact, whether or not I agree, at any given time :p -- Aimzzz (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Pls review Wikipedia:Advice for parents#Wikipedia content--Moxy (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Options to hide an image

Thanks Moxie-- Aimzzz (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Postcard received at Ealing Police Station on 29 October 1888

File:Jack-the-Ripper-postcard.jpg

The above was recently sold at auction ([1],[2]); worth including? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. The article already discusses the hundreds of letters and postcards received by the police from writers claiming to be the Ripper. This is one of many such items. DrKay (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Infobox

Is there a reason that the infobox says the date as "(1888: 5 canonical)" and the location as "Whitechapel: 5 canonical"? I feel like there was a copy-paste error here. Or am I misinterpreting something? Willt125 (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The 5 canonical murders occurred in 1888 in or near Whitechapel, but there were other murders occasionally associated with the Ripper that occurred later and elsewhere. DrKay (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2018

Joe Isungu (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing it, what is your requested edit?Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I've marked this as answered as it's an empty request. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

We seem to be getting a lot of these from SPA's lately.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the proof that all murders attributed to jack the ripper were done by a single human?

Because if there isn't much proof, the page shouldn't be in the category for serial killers, because if the murders were done by animals, or many people, then they would not be serial killer(s). 82.17.164.224 (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

None of the murders could be performed by animals. In Catherine Eddowes' case, the murdered revealed some knowledge of anatomy and actual skill in removing the kidney. The coroner commented: "The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. ... I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose. It required a great deal of knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed."

As to whether all the murders were performed by the same person, that is one of the key questions of the case. Over the decades, there has been a lot of debate which of the murders were "canonical" and which not. The idea that we are looking at the work of two or more killers has repeatedly been proposed. Dimadick (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no onus on Wikipedia to show proof that all the murders were done by a single perpetrator. We need only show that five of the murders were linked by Sir Melville Macnaghten in his memorandum. See that article for explanation. Akld guy (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Excellent explanation! Indeed, I just had this question myself and was about to ask it here but then I saw this post here. Futurist110 (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Identity Confirmed

Hi everyone. Just wanted to flag this very recent article for you which has used DNA evidence to confirm the identity of Jack the Ripper. Here is a news article as well. I'd include this in the article myself if I had time, but I also don't want to be stepping on the toes of any established editors on this article! Thanks! --SlipknotRlZZ (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• The March 2019 DNA paper, if that is what your are referring to, is already noted in Jack the Ripper suspects#Aaron_Kosminski and in Aaron_Kosminski and found to be inconclusive. I would just wait for those articles to mull over the reliability of the new evidence and the results will naturally gravitate up to the Jack the Ripper article in the fullness of time. There have been many false starts on this subject and this one, although it looks promising, needs to settle. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Not confirmed, they say it is probable. Also there may be some "issue" (pun intended) with the evidence [[3]].Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I read it was backed up and finally confirmed in a more reliable sense. I mean they found kosminski on the shaw. Correct me if I'm wrong I haven't studied it as much as most have. Doormat229 (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem is, nobody knows whether the shawl belonged to Catherine Eddowes. Let's assume it did. If she was wearing it on the night of her death, it is therefore an important piece of evidence that unbelievably was not recorded by police, who meticulously recorded every other item on her body. Was it found among her belongings after her death, perhaps at the house of a relative? If so, was Kosminski's (alleged) DNA found on it simply because he happened to have been one of her customers prior to her death. Too many ifs. Akld guy (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say we cannot say (in Wikipedias voice) that this has been proven, we can say that a contested claim has been made.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Feel free to join the discussion at Template_talk:Jack_the_Ripper#Merge? regarding the propriety of the split of {{Jack the Ripper}} and {{Jack the Ripper media}}.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Location of the Crime Scenes

Did anyone realize that if you link all the crime scenes locations it will make a (W) my crazy theory is that the killer wanted to leave a mark on his/her land because i have read white chapel's history a little and that place wasn't the same as it used to be as many irish immigrants migrated and started living over there and crime rose to a new level and almost 1500 women became prostitutes I think someone with an emotional attachment with this place tried to do something about it on his/her own twisted way and the letter to the authorities with kidney i believe was a warning to all those people who were destroying the place that he/she was still out there but still can't explain even with my crazy theory why would the killer rip out the prostitutes organs. Anyone else care to comment?

This is not a forum, do you have a suggested edit?Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I like this edit

I like this edit [4] because it helps to clarify that the name 'Jack the Ripper' has no proven connection to any actual particular person or persons in the historical record. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hallie Rubenhold

For a discussion on Hallie Rubenhold's The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper see Talk:Whitechapel murders#Prostitutes? --John B123 (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

what edit do you suggest?Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest the whole section is read by anyone who is interested. --John B123 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am still not sure what edit you want to make.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven John B123 is likely making these insertions on this article and the Wiki. articles relating to the canonical five Ripper victims due to edits over the last 24 hours by a new user called "Year1" who seems to take great exception to the voluminous data which has existed relating to this case since the 1880s and the fact the endemic poverty sadly drove so many women to prostitution to survive. Year1 seems to believe a book by Hallie Rubenhold suddenly holds sufficient weight to negate all the evidence and research garnered over 130+ years that they were selling sex to survive.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Rubenhold is a reputable historian, published by a significant (albeit not specialist) publisher, I've not come across any reviews significant rebutting her work. The academic consensus can be summed up by the roundtable review

Kate Lister, Amy Milne-Smith, Manon Van Der Heijden & Eve Colpus (2020) The five: the untold lives of the women killed by Jack the Ripper, Women's History Review, DOI: 10.1080/09612025.2020.1720092

"Maybe these women did sell sex, although as Rubenhold demonstrates the evidence for this is far from certain." In a field as small as this, due weight would be to acknowledge that equally we cannot say for certain the women were victims of sexual exploitation, and maybe move to a position of stating they were seen as "prostitutes" (and include the scare quotes).Red Deathy (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Lets leave it till the DR is over.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

Wiki leaks may be a bit too kind, since Assange is now in jail perhaps. The "Ripper" was long reputed to be a member of the Royal family and in fact was.The fact that you are too obsequious to post that fact, nothing new and long suspected,makes me wonder if you are going soft. Otherwise, you missed it. He was in line to be the King, but had some VD medical problems and may have(or obviously did) gone mad because of it. No more clue's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:DAD0:D4D0:D120:390:E823:4225 (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

We do mention it, here Jack the Ripper suspects. But its not been proven and so cannot say it is a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the issue with unsolved mysteries in history. In this case, there are theories on who Jack the Ripper was, but it has not been proven and unfortunately, the best one can do is present a theory and supporting documentation. I agree with Slatersteven, this theory is based placed in in the Jack the Ripper suspects. Jurisdicta (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2020

Jack the ripper was known to be born between 1820 and 1850 92.7.231.202 (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Is he, source?Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

“Prostitutes”

As only one of the victims ever turned to sex work at any point, can we change out the term “prostitutes” to women. Then we can explain how the victims were wrongly assumed to be ‘sex workers.’ Haminmyteeth (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I seem to recall only one source (out of many) claimed they were not prostitutes. We can say that one source says they were not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

See related discussion at Talk:Whitechapel murders#Prostitutes? (and sections below). This is a fringe viewpoint being presented as fact. FDW777 (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

The women were not all prostitutes, in fact, only one was identified as such in her death certificate. To label them so is careless and demeaning. See “The Five”, written by Hallie Rubenhold, 2019. LawyerLiz2021 (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you LawyerLiz2021 (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in the article where it actually says they were all prostitutes. Only Frances Coles and Elizabeth Jackson are identified as prostitutes explicitly, and these sentences are sourced. Elsewhere phrases like 'typically' are used not 'all'. Edit requests should provide reliable sources and request explicit changes in the format 'Please change X to Y.' DrKay (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Also this has been discussed at length, this is one person trying to overturn in one book over 100 years of scholarship. Now there might be an argument for adding "often described" or some such, if we say they all were, do we?Slatersteven (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

On the Jack the Ripper page there is no mention of the book "The Five" by Hallie Rubenhold published in 2019 which details the lives of the five canonical victims and shows that they were not "prostitutes" as is still maintained on the Jack the Ripper page. The word "prostitutes" needs to be removed from that first paragraph leaving just the word "females" and the book citation needs adding to the Further Reading. 77.102.116.223 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

PLease see all the talk pages threads about this in the talk page archive.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Image of one of the victims.

In this article there is an image of one of Jack the Rippers mutilated victims and the image id very disturbing and grotesque so please remove it. Jdietr601 (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:notcensored.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand that but in this case I think it should be censored because of how grotesque the nature of the image is there might be younger people who read it and will see that image. Jdietr601 (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Its not worse than they would see in most (if not all) books on the subject. It illustrates the nature of the injuries.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I must say I agree. It's gruesome and wholly unnecessary. We can't control what's in books, but a mutilated and butchered corpse presented without warning like this is upsetting. We should remove it; it will still be accessible to those who'd like to view it. FishAndCrisps (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand many can find the image nauseous (even though nobody has clarified whether the offending image in question is that of Eddowes or Kelly). It is a historically significant image pertaining to the article and is not placed here for gratuitous purposes.

When people choose to research a well-researched, sterile article of this nature, they know what to expect. Just looking at some WW2-related articles, you can find Commons images like the one I have attached (and worse). No complaints on the talk page there because they are contextually significant.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point, but I think those illustrate the horrors of systemic war and persecution. The Jack the Ripper murders lack that context. Besides, it's an unusually gruesome image. Is having a small gallery with thumbnails that people can enlarge out of the question? FishAndCrisps (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper is, obv., known ultimately for "certain reasons" that the epithet conjures to mind, FishAndCrisps. The Holocaust (for example) is known for calculated industrial scale extermination, bigotry, cruelty, statistics etc. and in a similar context, images you will see (or for that matter text you will read) are hardly palatable to many. Last I checked, this article has over 1,020 active watchers. Consensus would need to be reached. I have actually thought about this issue re: naive minds reading articles, but as Slatersteven has pointed out, wp:notcensored. --Kieronoldham (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, and see I'm a minority here. I just hope nobody too young to see such images but morbidly curious isn't upset. FishAndCrisps (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

this might be of some help, but it won't prevent casual visitors of the page to see said image(s), of course. Lectonar (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

In both the criminal case files and contemporary journalistic accounts, the killer was called the Whitechapel Murderer and Leather Apron.

In both the criminal case files and contemporaneous journalistic accounts, the killer was called the Whitechapel Murderer and Leather Apron. Gentropy (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Canonical five

Historically, the belief these five canonical murders were committed by the same perpetrator is derived from contemporary documents which link them together to the exclusion of others.[67]

Should be:

Historically, the belief these five canonical murders were committed by the same perpetrator is derived from contemporaneous documents which link them together to the exclusion of others.[67]

The word "contemporary" is used a few times in this article, but the author(s) presumably mean "contemporaneous." "Contemporary" refers to the present day; "contemporaneous" means something was current ("contemporary") during the time period being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentropy (talk • contribs) 14:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Investigation

Some contemporary figures, including Queen Victoria, thought the pattern of the murders indicated that the culprit was a butcher or cattle drover on one of the cattle boats that plied between London and mainland Europe.

Some contemporaneous figures, including Queen Victoria, thought the pattern of the murders indicated that the culprit was a butcher or cattle drover on one of the cattle boats that plied between London and mainland Europe.

Gentropy (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Criminal profiling

In addition to the contradictions and unreliability of contemporary accounts, attempts to identify the murderer are hampered by the lack of any surviving forensic evidence.[138]

In addition to the contradictions and unreliability of contemporaneous accounts, attempts to identify the murderer are hampered by the lack of any surviving forensic evidence.[138]

Gentropy (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspects

Suspects proposed years after the murders include virtually anyone remotely connected to the case by contemporary documents, as well as many famous names who were never considered in the police investigation, including a member of the British royal family,[145] an artist, and a physician.[146] Everyone alive at the time is now long dead, and modern authors are free to accuse anyone "without any need for any supporting historical evidence".[147] Suspects named in contemporary police documents include three in Sir Melville Macnaghten's 1894 memorandum, but the evidence against these individuals is, at best, circumstantial.[148]

Suspects proposed years after the murders include virtually anyone remotely connected to the case by contemporaneous documents, as well as many famous names who were never considered in the police investigation, including a member of the British royal family,[145] an artist, and a physician.[146] Everyone alive at the time is now long dead, and modern authors are free to accuse anyone "without any need for any supporting historical evidence".[147] Suspects named in contemporaneous police documents include three in Sir Melville Macnaghten's 1894 memorandum, but the evidence against these individuals is, at best, circumstantial.[148]

Gentropy (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

External links

Contemporary news article pertaining to the murders committed by Jack the Ripper

Contemporaneous news article pertaining to the murders committed by Jack the Ripper

Gentropy (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Ahh I see, I am not sure they do not really man the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2021

Change "Attacks ascribed to Jack the Ripper typically involved female prostitutes who lived and worked in the slums of the East End of London."

To "Attacks ascribed to Jack the Ripper typically involved poor, often homeless females who lived and worked in the slums of the East End of London. Despite popular press coverage at the time, it is unlikely his victims were prostitutes."

Citing "The Five" by Hallie Rubenhold. Including p68. "The press...was certain, without so much as a shred of actual evidence to reinforce their convictions, that Polly Nichols was a prostitute." 2601:602:8E00:ED6D:FCDA:8272:337:E1ED (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I modified 'female prostitutes' to 'women' in that line, what the suggested edit describes needs elaboration in the text. The word prostitute is used around five times in the article, a designation with little context excepting one line that states they were driven it. ~ cygnis insignis 06:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll mark this as answered, and open a new section. ~ cygnis insignis 06:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The Five by Hallie Rubenhold

I see there is no reference to Hallie Rubenhold and the prize winning book she wrote on The Five - there are wiki pages on Hallie and her book - but no cross links on this page. Can cross links be added? JuliaBracewell (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Quite rightly so there is not. Rubenhold is a fringe theorist with an agenda to push, negating 130+ years of research. This has been discussed here and upon the Whitechapel murders article (Talk:Whitechapel murders#Prostitutes?).--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Although Rubenhold is described by Wikipedia as 'British', she's actually American, having grown up and taken her first degree in the United States. And 'prostitution' is a crime or misdemeanour across almost all of that puritanical and institutionally strange country. It has never been a crime in England. There is no need to absolve the Whitechapel murderer's innocent victims of a crime they never committed, nor any need to pretend that they weren't making ends meet in the obvious way that would lead to them being alone on the streets that late at night, and therefore having the ill luck to meet the obviously insane and sexually deranged murderer. Rubenhold's apparent suggestion that the women were killed in their sleep while kipping down rough on the streets, when they mostly had known lodgings, is a bit odd. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Where’s the evidence that these women WERE actually prostitutes? Many women in Victorian England were “deemed to be prostitutes” simply because they were out late at night without a husband or male family member. This doesn’t make them prostitutes and there’s lots of evidence that they were not. Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Ellymoo (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Who decides who is and who is not a "fringe theorist"? She is discussing the women and it's important that we learn more about them as individuals rather than just victims. Surely anyone researching this subject should have access to as much information as possible regardless of what individuals think of their ideas? Wikipedia isn't about pushing a specific agenda, I thought.

Description of victims

Following on from the request above: the presentation of the victims as prostitutes does seem unbalanced, echoes of the sensationalist victorian press coverage. ~ cygnis insignis 06:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: has a explanation to a revert, "As far as I now he never killed any man, so that change made no sense." ~ cygnis insignis 14:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as we are saying they were typically prostitutes, saying they were typically women makes no sense, they all were.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Note this had been discussed at length here, and one book can't be used to overt turn 150 years of scholarship.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm at a loss where to get a second opinion, the replies are so confounding. ~ cygnis insignis 15:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You could get a 3rd opinon here. Just reverting back and forth will not solve the disagreement, though. Lectonar (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Problem is more than two people have discussed this in the past.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hardly compelling mate. what previous threads were you referring to at Talk:Jack_the_Ripper/Archive_7#“Prostitutes”, this 'consensus'? ~ cygnis insignis 15:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Its what they will say if you ask for a third opinion, you have already had them. Also here [[5]] here [[6]], I see at least two other users (that is other than me) giving responses.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Lectonar: no doubt, but what was meant in the justification for reverting in what I quoted above? ~ cygnis insignis 15:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, the version you altered was the consensus version arrived at by multiple talk page discussions, thus the WP:ONUS is on you to get that changed. Until you (therefore) get wp:consensus to change the text you should not have changed it when reverted.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I only see your reply to a previous request, not the answer to mine. ~ cygnis insignis 16:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I replied to your request at 15:23, 14 December 2021.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Worth repeating, "Yes, as we are saying they were typically prostitutes, saying they were typically women makes no sense, they all were." with emphasis added. Your militant knownothingism is a staple of responses from 'needs to read books more than talk pages' ghouls. ~ cygnis insignis 16:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

And you need to read our policies such as wp:fringe and wp:npa. We go with what the bulk of wp:rs say, and as you have chosen to make this personal, I will not be responding anymore.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• I changed 'female prostitues' to 'women' here ~ cygnis insignis 14:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • And (again) no one has ever sugested he ever killed a man, so to say he typically killed women is not true.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Which was reverted here. I propose that 'typically' is removed, thus to clarify every known target—without the Victorian notions of poverty and morality ascribed at the time or modernized 'they was prozzies'—as women in the East End. ~ cygnis insignis 14:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes it was reverted as you had not addressed the concerns I raised back in December. And the bulk of modern RS say most of the victims were prostitutes, so we are not reflecting some Victorian notions of poverty and morality. These are not valid reasons to change this. But women is at least better than typically women.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    • @Slatersteven: Apologies, you had correctly identified how the sentence was not working. ~ cygnis insignis 15:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

John Gill wasn't a woman. He wasn't a prostitute either, like many of the other supposed victims, which is why 'typical' is necessary. Typically, the Ripper's victims were women. Typically, the ascribed victims were, or are described as, prostitutes. DrKay (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Ahh I think I see the issue, the sentence is about alleged victims, all of them, not just the canicale five.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Missing suspect from article

Does this suspect belong in the article? "A forensic investigation published in Journal of Forensic Sciences has identified the killer as Aaron Kosminski, a 23-year-old Polish barber and prime suspect at the time." 18 Mar 2019 From USA Today [7]

There is a link to the Jack the Ripper suspects article within the article itself.--Kieronoldham (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Halle Rubenhold - The Five

Please add a link to Halle Rubenhold's book about The Five as it is an invaluable resource for more information about the victims of the murderer https://www.amazon.co.uk/Five-Untold-Lives-Killed-Ripper-ebook/dp/B07GJJ4TXN/ref=sr_1_1?crid=16MS98QE11X01&keywords=hallie+rubenhold+the+five&qid=1643716024&sprefix=hallie+rubenhold+the+fiv%2Caps%2C86&sr=8-1

Ellymoo (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Simple, if it is one person Vs many they are fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This was discussed in detail at Talk:Whitechapel murders#Prostitutes? a few years ago. Rubenhold is negating 130+ years of research with her fringe theories, based upon zero concrete evidence and conjecture.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Ellymoo (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Whether you agree with it or not, her work should still be included in this article. To not do so suggests that the 'standard theories' feel threatened - which I am sure is not the case...

In what way do we do this without violating wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Ellymoo (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Isn't it up to Wikipedia to decide whether it's a fringe theory or a - erm, whatever the opposite is? Hearing some of the self-titled "Ripperologists" speaking about the women, those 130 years of research could at least do with a fresh overview. I would need to do a lot of reading to find out if Wiki pages are so frequently edited due to 'vandalism' but as a regular donor to Wikipedia I am surprised and concerned that even a mention of the book or a suggestion of it as further reading - for background to the women if nothing else - is refused.

As an aside, I see this was sent up the chain to Wiki and the response was "The DRN case has been closed as "failed", refer to the RFC section that will come up in a few moments. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 23:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer" Can anyone shed light on what this is about?

Exactly, 1 book can't be given the same weight as 130 years of research but multiple researchers. Now you may have a valid argument to include it as a further reading like, as we have a lot of works there and this does not give her theories over much weight. But I am unsure your reason is valid, as we have lots of books discussing the women's backgrounds, 130 years of research had access to the same records she did. This is why we are warry about this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Ellymoo (talk) Thank you for your continued replies as it is hard to get an answer on this beyond what I've read on 'ripperologist' boards and they aren't allowing new users (or weren't when I looked) so I couldn't ask about it. Could you let me know what the 'closed' thing for the DRN case is about as I don't understand that. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellymoo (talk • contribs) 16:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It means that it is closed, as in the conversation is over and a decision has been made on behalf of the community. In this case here [[8]], which was closed on the grounds the initiator failed to respond to the moderator request for "Will each editor please state, concisely, what they think the issues are?".Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

A discussion was closed, that does not necessarily entail a source being excluded. A glance at reception indicates it is a useful reference, has it been established some time in the last couple of years that it ought to be ignored? The contentious view [here, at least] that disputes the classification of victims as "prostitutes" is not new, just at odds with the ripperology industry and its mythologies. From Hell ~ cygnis insignis 05:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Whitechapel murders

I rewrote and reverted to a leading sentence that provided a link to the fork, perhaps legitimate, at Whitechapel murders. ~ cygnis insignis 14:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Respecting the victims

Just wanted to make a suggestion to refer to the victims as "sex workers" and not prostitutes as that term is disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.140.71 (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper may be H.H. Holmes?

There’s a documentary referencing this theory, maybe we can consider? The evidence is overwhelming. 2600:1702:4070:ABE0:1599:8716:4CC8:B993 (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Covered at Jack the Ripper suspects#Further theories. DrKay (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2022

User Anonymoz (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

i fixed it User Anonymoz (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2022

From October 2022 Jack the Ripper’s figure at Tussauds will take the form of Aaron Kosminski, a barber originally from Poland who emigrated to England in the 1880s 94.71.169.239 (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Your edit request did not specify the edit to be made or a source, but I've removed the contradictory content because it is trivial and the use of Kosminski's image has been reported. DrKay (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Pics

You don't need pics/drawing of the mutilations and dead people. It's disgusting and disrespectful. This is an encyclopedia, not a criminology investigation. 104.247.246.187 (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

And we are not censored. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is totally censored. Duh. However, there's no fight for free speech here. This gore is too obscene and excessive. The pictures themselves are not of any cultural or historical significance. They should be omitted from the article. 104.247.246.187 (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

No, but we do get to decide what content is appropriate, and the consensus was this is. Yes (by the way) they are of cultural or historical significance as they are among the first widely circulated in the media (for example). Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Consensus of who? You? A small cabal? Or was it a site-wide vote? Either way, someone visiting that page for the first time does not have the chance to consent to see that. There's no warning or anything. Again, it's gross and obscene. No one in their right mind wants to see that.

This makes no sense, "they are among the first widely circulated in the media." The first pictures widely circulated in the media? Nope. The first media widely circulated? Nope. The first picture of a serial killer victim? Nope. So no historical significance. Jack the Ripper and gore is not culture, so that's not why those pictures were included in the article. You're still feeding into the same sensationalism as when those pictures were produced.

So, no censorship, no historical/cultural significance, and no consent means no basis for keeping the pictures. They are gross, gorey, and disrespectful, so they shouldn't stay. Please remove them. 104.247.246.187 (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Time for others to chip in then. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Consensus governs on here. These images are not used gratuitously; rather in a historical, encyclopaedic context. They have been extensively published elsewhere for a considerable period of time in books, magazines, and latterly on the internet. If people search for Jack the Ripper on here (or elsewhere), it is quite obvious what they are going to read, and what imagery they will see. Why should Wikipedia be the pariah? If you have an issue with this, you are more than welcome to propose removal, because consensus governs, but I very much doubt you will be successful.--Kieronoldham (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The consensus is hardly a democratic representation of the user base. The publication of those images in other sources does not validate their encyclopedic merit. Indeed, I don't think any respectable encyclopedia publishes such gore. No, the content is not obvious. It is shocking and unfit for public display. Let's not conflate this issue to Wikipedia as a whole and stay on point. I proposed removal in my first comment. You didn't read that? 104.247.246.187 (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I stand by my observations. All are in the Wiki. Commons. Yes I did read it. Usually achieved via a formal poll, and not lost in a myriad of comments. Also, the article has close to 1,200 watchers, and regularly attracts over 10,000 viewers daily. Only you seem to have an issue with this.-Kieronoldham (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The consensus is hardly a democratic representation of the user base, and removing the images based on a single editors view is more democratic? I agree with the comments of other users above, the inclusion of the images is appropriate. --John B123 (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Last I checked the definition of democracy on wikipedia was that anyone can edit anything. Obviously that is not the case here, so no, it's not a democratic representation. Just because I'm the only one raising the issue now in this conversation doesn't mean I'm the only one who disagrees about their inclusion. So yes, actually removing the pictures to gauge the public's reaction actually WOULD be the democratic thing to do. I wonder how many of those "viewers" are actually real people and not bots, and how many of them actually scroll far enough to see those pictures. Are we going to find out or are you going to continue to be authoritarian about it? 104.247.246.187 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Fell free to start a WP:RfC to see if your view is widely supported. --John B123 (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Note WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Tweak to lead

Here to discuss with Slatersteven and anyone else interested. I made a change to the lead designed to improve the neutrality of the article. I think it is relevant to include in the lead that a) all of the ascribed attacks were on women and b) many of the attacked women may have been sex workers. However, I don't think it's useful to privilege the description of these women as prostitutes, so I moved that to the second part of the sentence. Some of the victims may well have been sex workers, but it wasn't their only attribute and it's not necessary to use that as the primary term in the lead to describe them. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that (apart from one or two recentish books) all experts on the subject say most of the victims were prostitutes (please also check to archive for the many many times we have already discussed this). It is also why they were easily targeted, in fact it is a vital part of the story, why the attacks were initially ignored, etc etc. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's a relevant part of the story, which is why I said that it should be included in the lead and have not removed it at any point. I saw the prior discussions in the archives - I was trying to implement a compromise that could reach agreement from all, since this keeps coming up. However, as DrKay stated, just two of the canonical five were almost certainly sex workers, and while most of the other victims may have been sex workers, it's not certain in all cases. Again, there's no need to privilege describing them as "prostitutes" rather than simply "women" when the information can be easily conveyed in the subsequent phrase. I suggest we change my phrasing from "some of whom" to "many of whom" or "most of whom" to address your concerns, giving us: "Attacks typically ascribed to Jack the Ripper involved women who lived and worked in the slums of the East End of London, many of whom may have been sex workers." —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

As Kay points out "Some of whom were Sex workers". Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

That works. Want to implement it? —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I will wait to see what others say, as I said this has been hashed out and what we have was reached by consensus, it needs consensus to overturn it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the need to change the lead for the sake of 'neutrality', it doesn't seem biased to me as it is. Nor do I see the need to change 'prostitute' to 'sex worker'. Whilst the later is seen as less offensive to some, others object to the term 'sex worker'. --John B123 (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this has been discussed several times over recent years, and the consensus is that Rubenhold is a fringe theorist, seemingly with a predefined mindset from the outset. Prostitute is a neutral, sterile term and anyone who reads enough about the area at that time and the women's backgrounds knows no disrespect is intended. All the contemporary documents and numerous books by reputable authors state the Ripper's victims were (to again use the non-euphemistic term) prostitutes who had no choice but to take to the streets for a living. This particular article is about the offender, and his choice of victim. The proposal "Attacks typically ascribed to Jack the Ripper involved women who lived and worked in the slums of the East End of London, many of whom may have been sex workers" leads to uncertainty. Personally, I disagree with the proposal of superseding the term and conclusions, which negate 100+ years of research and consensus--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking over the archives, I do not see any consensus established that Rubenhold is a fringe theorist - I see 3-4 editors repeatedly saying so, and a greater number number of editors, perhaps less persistently, disagreeing over the course of years. I noted a DRN effort 2 years ago which did not have much success at establishing consensus - has there ever been an RFC on Rubenhold to formally establish a position? I didn't see one, but I may have missed one. If there has not been an RFC, now might be the time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The archives speak their own volumes. Obviously consensus governs, but one author arriving on the scene over a century later with conjecture as to why a woman was alone in a desolate area with a strange male in the early hours isn't more "outweighing" to the scores of other authors and documentary makers before her - all while apparently slapping her own forehead in disbelief she has to be the the first "historian to challenge the myth" that these "unfortunates" were doing something (eyewitness testimony incl from females aside) other than selling four penny knee-tremblers - as to the weight of truth from reputable sources.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not think we found here a fringe theorist, we did find her opinions represented a small minority whose inclusion would be wp:undue. ANd yes, we do say her views are fringe, which they are. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Reading over that linked section again, it is obvious to me that no consensus was reached! The issue keeps on being discussed, but no progress is being made. If you want to claim Rubenhold is a fringe theorist whose work should be entirely disregarded, then start a clear RfC to say so. I don't understand the strong reaction to my proposed change. I am not suggesting that we remove mention of prostitution in the article, or even the lead - I am not suggesting that we even remove it from the sentence! I am simply saying that it is more neutral, and frankly, more encyclopedic and accurate, to refer to the victims of Ripper attacks as women first, and then subsequently mention that some of them were prostitutes/sex workers. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is clear, it is down to those wanting to change text that need to get consensus, the point was there was never a consensus to change what was already said. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand that, but I am responding specifically to Kieronoldham's statement that "consensus is that Rubenhold is a fringe theorist." —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Slatersteven. At least one editor, possibly more, described Rubenhold as a fringe theorist in the discussions a few years back, from what I recall (and on more than one article related to the Ripper). My error, I suppose, to make the claim of general consensus.--Kieronoldham (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2022

Can we change the sentence that says Jack the Ripper killed five female prostitutes? Why can’t we say ‘women’ or even ‘sex workers’? Prostitute is a dated and derogatory term. 49.2.255.253 (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done There is no such sentence in the article. DrKay (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

In the lede: "Attacks ascribed to Jack the Ripper typically involved female prostitutes who lived and worked in the slums of the East End of London."}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

They should not be called prostitutes. Apart from the newspapers at the time who called them prostitutes, there is no evidence that any off them accept for one had been working as a prostitute. One of them had been a sex worker previously but not at the time she was murdered, according to what her partner told the police. At the time the police called them 'unfortunates' and presumably the press took this to mean prostitutes. Paul M. La Forge 05:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmlaforge (talk • contribs)

The motive section in the infobox is ambiguous. Rage against whom?

Against prostitutes? Women? The people who lived in that area? People in general? There are more reasons why people might be violent towards prostitutes (I.e. they think they are improving an area, they have psychosis and are paranoid, and so forth with severe personality disorders and a lot of other psychiatric/developmental problems). See the Wikipedia entry on Peter Sutcliffe, better known as the Yorkshire Ripper, for an example of those kinds of motives. Phil of rel (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It is mentioned in references. The perpetrator is unknown. Nature of offenses suggests rage borne through source/reasoning known only to perpetrator. Sutcliffe's motive was rooted in sexual sadism. At least one survivor reported him masturbating after he'd attacked her. He was wearing a v-neck jumper with his legs through the sleeves to facilitate such acts when arrested.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Addition of reference book and family story

I am the grand daughter of Robert Emmons, best friend to Walter Sickert and author of "The Life and Opinions of Walter Sickert. There is only one passage in the book regarding frightening two young ladies at a bar (to the effect that they ran from the bar terrified of what ever it is Walter Sickert said to them), but the family story is my Grandmorther, Anita Emmons forbid Walter Sickert from coming to the house (in Hamble England) after my grandfather brought him to meet her, and as she put it "He looked right through me" and "those eyes" (shuddering). Anyway, the biography of the man should be in the list of references... 98.97.18.86 (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

See wp:or, his biography has to mention his connection to be relevant, does it? Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

BBC Documentary

An expert-led cold case review (as now shown and referenced in the article) has updated the list of victims. It cannot be removed without discussion here first Billsmith60 (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

No, the previous version has consensus. It's the change that needs to be agreed on talk, not the revert to the previous version. The claim that Kosminski is the Ripper is a minority view for which the evidence is exceedingly slim. There are over a hundred competing theories and this one does not deserve special mention in a summary style article at the expense of all the others. DrKay (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Jack The Ripper

Jack The Ripper was an unidentified serial killer in Whitechapel, London in 188. The five victims were each believed to be linked. The victims' throats were each cut prior to abdominal mutilations.

83.100.161.198 (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Not whooley true. Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2024

Please remove the image titled "Official police photograph of the body of Mary Jane Kelly as discovered in 13 Miller's Court, Spitalfields, 9 November 1888" from the page. Although the photograph does indeed depict the body of a woman distorted beyond recognition, it nonetheless violates Wikipedia's own Image Use Policy because it (a) depicts graphic nudity, and (b) does so in a private setting (that of a private residence), both of which have naturally been obtained without the victim's consent and render the image's appearance as highly objectifying. This image is also far too easily accessible to minors. Mister Birdcrumbs (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Historic photographs are not covered under the portions of the Image Use Policy you cite. That's meant to prevent the upload of paparazzi shots through people's windows and the like. What is relevant is WP:NOTCENSORED - Wikipedia does not censor itself because minors might find something. MrOllie (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Image use policy states that the "only reason for including any image in any article is to increase readers' understanding of the subject matter." Given the extremely detailed accompanying description for how Mary Jane Kelly's body was found, particularly on the victim's own Wikipedia page, an illustrating image should not be necessary. Lord abacus (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be (given your reaction to it) it has achieved that goal. You are horrified by this in a way a mere description would not do. Thus the image is serving the same purpose as it did when it was first published (in 1888). Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove the photo of Mary Jane Kelly’s body

This is a bit too gruesome for a page regularly visited by school kids, especially considering that the description of how her body appeared is so graphic and detailed one surely does not need a visual to accompany it. If you MUST display the photo somewhere then do it on Mary Jane Kelly's own page, but I think it appears particularly deplorable on a star-marked page such as this one that is visited by so many. Lord abacus (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

As this is in every book (as far as I know) ever published on this topic, this seems too much like censorship. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether school kids might visit a page or not isn't relevant, see WP:NOTCENSORED. MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe it's time for them to learn the reality. When world war 3 starts, they will see dead body everywhere. Let them have a glimpse of it now so that they don't freak out later. Bir Das (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Also see Help:Options to hide an image. Lectonar (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Understandable Bir Das (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2024

Translate and add the Literature section from the Dutch version of this page. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_the_Ripper NzzA (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done It's unsourced, so the media section here is better. DrKay (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

More info on victims?

Brittanica includes an interesting passage near the top of its article questioning whether all of the victims were actually prostitutes:

>In The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper (2019), the British social historian Hallie Rubenhold argued that Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes were not prostitutes; that Stride had resorted to soliciting only occasionally, during periods of desperate poverty and emotional suffering (but there is no evidence to show that she had been soliciting when she was murdered); and that the only verifiable prostitute among the five was Kelly. In Rubenhold’s view, the notion that Jack the Ripper was a murderer of prostitutes was a consequence of the misogynistic and class-based prejudices characteristic of the Victorian era.

The Wiki page doesn't appear to address this perspective or indeed include any information about the victims at all. Seems like a significant topic that merits further examination. 2601:602:480:3600:31A3:7AE8:3A65:C2A0 (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The canonical Five victims have their own articles. Mary Ann Nichols had several arrests for prostitution since her separation from her husband in 1880. Her estranged husband stopped paying her allowance in 1882, stating to the parish authorities that she was "earning money through prostitution". Annie Chapman was using prostitution to supplement her income from "crochet work, making antimacassars and selling flowers". Catherine Eddowes is thought to have used prostitution to get money for her rent. She worked regularly in performing "domestic work such as cleaning and sewing", and worked in seasonal hop-picking work in Kent each summer". Her earnings were at times insufficient to rent a bed for the night. Elizabeth Stride reportedly used prostitution to supplement her regular income from "sewing and housecleaning". It is not clear what she was doing doing at the night of her murder. She was seen speaking to various men, but she apparently turned down a prospective client: (quote) "No. Not tonight. Some other night." She was standing for quite a while at a position close to a "Jewish social club". Given that she often worked for Jewish families and had learned to speak Yiddish, Stride may have been expecting to meet an acquaintance from the club. Dimadick (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes we have discussed this before, this is one person's opinion that goes against 100 years of scholarship (and police records). And "prostitution" does not mean " a person's primary work" it means they have sex for money, even if only occasionally. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)