Talk:Jack the Ripper/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Whitechapel Murders

Should we put all the murders that the contempory police force listed as 'The Whitechapel Murders' in one list? At the moment they are all mixed up with some very dubious and even imaginary (Fairy Fay) victims. Colin4C 12:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. Your desire to completely rewrite the section to not fous on the canonical five was attempted before and rejected. Please get approval here before doing something you know goes against long-standing consensus. 71.203.223.65 15:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus, just you and Dreamguy blindly reverting valid material. Dreamguy has now been disciplined by the admins for his abusive edits here and elsewhere: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2. What I have written is valid and referenced. Colin4C 16:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There was plenty of consensus, and still is. You just ignored it and demanded you have your way, and then ran off when you couldn't get it. 71.203.223.65 21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I've supplied some references as per wikipedia guidelines. More to come. Colin4C 10:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Reasoned revert

An editor recently blind reverted my changes with no comment other than that they were not discussed... to the contrary, they have been discussed on these pages time and time again:

• restoring "or killers," which has been long supported, because we do not know how many killers there are and of all the alleged Rippe victims listed all authorities say that at least some of them were by a second killer
• removing a link to Ripperologists, which was an article that was not even named correctly and was only a dicdef, against Wikipedia policies
• putting the WVC info ahead of modern research so that the whole section followed proper chronology
• removing a trivial and nonencyclopedic minor stupid fictional reference that is already covered on the Ripper fiction article

I have restored my edits to remove the recent edits that had no place here and to return those sections to the long standing consensus-approved wording. Other recent changes that were valuable and encyclopedic remained untouched. By blind reverting me and saying I needed to discuss the changes, the editor in question missed completely that the changes I undid were not discussed in the first place. New changes that are contentious should be discussed and approved before they are put in, not the other way around. 71.203.223.65 15:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, I've responded to the issue here, hoping that my reply will suit you, if not, oh well; its going to be a bumpy ride from here on out. (I was the editor he was referring to.)

To begin with, I removed the 'or killers' bit, because it could easily be misconstrued that killers were acting in concert, or that there were more than one killer. As the article says that no conclusive proof exists either way, we aren't going to take that leap, either.

When you remove citations, you need to discuss them first, and not after. Period.

The other bits actually need discussion. While you may think certain parts are "valuable and encyclopedic" others might consider them "trivial and nonencyclopedic, minor and stupid". You either know - or are about to get a crash course in - how language is everything here. Calling edits stupid is going to get you ignored most of the time and flamed pretty much all of the time. Be polite, even when reverted. Discuss your edits. That bears repeating because it appears from your own talk page that you have had some apparent difficulty working with others. Quite simply, you aren't the smartest person in Wikipedia - you aren't even the smartest person currently working in this article. Acting like you are is simply serving to marginalize what I am sure can be solid, reasonable edits.

I could go on, but as I said, a lot of it has already been said on your discussion page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The "or killers" bit has been long supported as absolutely necessary, especially because no sources claims one killer was responsible for all the victims listed in the victims section. Some people DO think that killers were working in concert, or that there was more than one killer. Removing that line is adding your very extremely one sided opinion that it's not true. Go take a look at the NPOV policy, not to mention standard encyclopedic standards here, for why your way is completely wrong.

No, when bad citations are added, they can be removed at will. You can;t just demand we discuss it first, as you didn;t discuss putting there in the first place. Peopple can edit here freely, especially the ones who have more knowledge of the topic at hand. Period.

It's been long standard here that the fiction goes in the fiction article. Plus we also have policies on trivia here, and the Sweetheart nonsense is an EXTREMELY minor fiction reference, so by our policies it does not belong here, even if there weren't already a fiction article for this stuff. YOU are the one who needs a crash course. We discussed all these topics time and time again on these pages. Too bad you either weren't here or didn't pay attention. Fact of the matter is I remember you and Colin here in the past trying to push your nonsense and getting nowhere. You only went ahead with this because you thought other more experienced and knowledgeable editors were no longer paying attention. Give it a rest. You can't lecture me, because you do not come from a position to do so by any respect. 71.203.223.65 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations Needed

I find it somewhat distressing that the entire article draws its citations from two books and one website reference. It would be more proper to note the original sources of the statements in the article, and then noting the book from which they came. As it is, the article is a bit weak. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the article most certainly does not draw its citations from two books and one websites. There are a ton of books listed as reference, and there were citations that were removed in the blind reverts you and Colin were doing. Please take the time to look at the article before making such claims. 71.203.223.65 21:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly

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

Frankly, if you think no clear provenance for the term has been provided, or all the other citation tags you threw on here, you just haven't been paying attention. 71.203.223.65 21:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The 'Canonical Five'

I have supplied a reference for the 'canonical five' victims of Jack the Ripper. Note however that my ref refers to the existence of the canonical five as a notion of Ripperological investigations, not to the unproven assertion that were as a matter of fact five victims of Jack the Ripper. My source (Evans and Rumbelow's 2006 book Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates) states (on page 260) that the probable victims of 'Jack the Ripper' range between three (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes) and six (the previously mentioned victims plus Stride, Kelly and Tabram). However at the time of the original investigation eleven victims were explicitly documented by the police as the 'Whitechapel Murders' and ascribed at one time or another to Jack the Ripper. Maybe the readers of the wikipedia can look at the evidence and make their own minds up about the case rather than having wikipedia editors telling them what to think? Colin4C 20:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree completely, were it not for one small fact: the official police count is how many? That's the number that is canonical, not five, three or one hundred and thirty-seven. Anything else is reasoned commentary. I am not dismissing the commentary, but I think that, as an encyclopedic source, the legal records hold precedence. The number that the police ascribe to the Ripper trump any other speculation, "ripperology" aside. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I think a reasonable way to deal with it would be to state the canonical five, and deal with the other murders in an 'apocrypha' section. As long as the official version is made clear, and the status of the other murders is noted, with full references to reliable sources, I don't see any problem with detailing them. The current layout goes some way to addressing that issue, but I would like to see conclusions drawn from more than one source, on such a contentious issue (although that's possibly a higher standard than editors might normally be held to). Is there a source for the 'legal' records?

An early conclusion of just about everyone has been the state of referencing in this page, and that is a priority to address throughout the article. Cheers. Kbthompson 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The primary data are the eleven Whitechapel murders. These were numbered and listed by the police at the time of the original police investigation in 1888-91. They are listed there in black and white in the records if anyone cares to consult. These records have been published in book form quite recently by the way (in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner, (2002)), so need to rummage in the archives! (But if you do want to rummage in archives see [1] for details of the case and where the primary documents are to be found). Evans and Rumbelow state the facts about the contemporary police investigation and the Whitechapel Murders file and list the eleven murders in their Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates (2006). 'The 'canonical five' are only canonical for the church of 'Ripperology'. There is nothing in the police files which prioritises them and Evan and Rumbelow call the 'canonical five' a 'myth'. So maybe its the 'canon' which is apocryphal rather than the other way around. As for other murders of the time not listed as amongst the official Whitechapel Murders, anybody could produce an unending list of people who died in mysterious circumstances at the time and then ascribe it to the Ripper. Some of these others such as 'Fairy Fay' seem to be completely fictional entities. Mixing these dubious entries up with the others does not seem very useful or scientific. Some of them here are not listed in any Ripper book I own (and I own several) but seem to derive from internet speculation. What is the main subject here, Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel Murders, which did actually happen in real time and real space or the devotions of self-styled 'Ripperologists'? Colin4C 09:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As for references I have made a start. If anybody has what they consider better refs from a greater range of sources feel free to add. Colin4C 09:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Per comments above it's clear the consensus remains that the canonical five must remain as is and not in Colin's version. So that's what we are going to do. Colin should try to get a clear consensus to ake such a radical change before attempting to do so. Won't happen though. 71.203.223.65 21:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on there, hoss. Apparently, someone was a little lax when they told you about how discussion works. You comment, and then you wait a while for other people to comment back. Its supposed to be a dialogue...you know, a discussion (probably why they named the page such). That kinda means you don't post your comment as some sort of fiat from on high,and go ahead and revert to an edit (yours, undoubtedly) for which consensus no longer exists. That you have two different editors suggesting a different approach is proof positive of this lack of current consensus.

Colin's edits are supported by documentation outside of the manky pseudo-science of "Ripperology". Therefore, I am opting towards the inclusion of the official murders as listed by the Metropolitan Police Department at the time, and not just some arbitrary "canonical five." If you wish to support your edit, please do so here, where it can be discussed, specifically because the large edit you advocate covers a lot of ground.

Please note that I would appreciate you not simply reverting back to your edit again. As I have noted in messages sent to your User Talk page here and here, that particular method of voicing your displeasure is disruptive to the article. If you have difficulty understanding how consensus forms and reforms, you are welcome to visit (or revisit) the guidelines on consensus or to consult an administrator on how to navigate what may seem to be the treacherous waters of article editing. Simply reverting back to an edit and version that you feelis 'better' is disruptive.

I certainly hope you find yourself capable of participating inthe editorial process, as the alternative will have unpleasant consequences for yourself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We have a longstanding consensus here that the Canonical Five is the most important section. A couple of editors throwing personal attacks and threats of unpleasant consequences and so forth doesn't hide that fact. Adding new, controversial sections without consensus is against Wikipedia standards... Going back to the accepted version is a completely valid approach until such time as the people who want to make drastic changes can convince others that to do so is in the article's best interest. The extremely aggressive comments above and sheer stubborn blind reverts to the new, controversial version with no attempt to come to a consensus (and in fact ignoring the one that was set) are not done in the spirit of Wikipedia standards. DreamGuy 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a small question, if I may: is "71.203.223.65" your anon user ID, DG? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Editorial issues

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2. Colin4C 19:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are being the problem editor here. If you'd bother to read that, they just asked me to be more polite. You, on the other hand, are trying to use that to justify removing any edit I make, despite the fact that they add more references (except so far in the victims section, which I will get to after I get it stable to the consensus version instead of you changing it back to the same one you tried and failed with months back against all other editors' opinions), fix spelling errors on author names, removing fictional trivia already covered in the Ripper fiction article, etc. My edits here are solid, fit in with lonstanding consensus and Wikipedia policies. You are just making personal attacks and blind reverting for no reason. That won't fly. DreamGuy 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on contributions, not the contributors. Past history of a user doesn't matter when discussing the content they've added is meritable or not. And both of you are edit warring. Gscshoyru 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Colin4C is indeed mis-representing the results of the arbitration. I read through the entire thing, and while I think it raises some serious issues regarding DreamGuy's adherence to WP:CIVIL, it never even remotely suggests that his contribs are generally bad (in fact, even the person who brought the case acknowledged that DG was sometimes on the right side of debates).

I frankly don't see a strong consensus on this talk page for either of your positions, and so like Gscshoyru suggests, it would be a good time to stop edit-warring. And Colin, please do not call people "problem editors" and misrepresent arbitrations when it is not supported by facts. That is exactly the kind of uncivil behavior that got DG in trouble! heh...- --Jaysweet 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dreamguy has done three reverts not me! Colin4C 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Both of you have done at least three -- but neither of you were warned so it doesn't matter yet, and it takes 4 to violate the policy, not three. Gscshoyru 19:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I state again that I have only made two reverts. I invite everybody to look at the edit history to confirm this point. Not a matter of great importance to the wikipedia project I grant you, but it is a fact that I have only made two reverts! On matters of substance Dreamguy has deleted the whole 'Whitechapel Murders' section and has mixed up probable victims of the Ripper like Tabram with the likes of 'Fairy Fay' who never existed. Can we discuss these matters of substance? Colin4C 20:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the material that Dreamguy has deleted:

Victims

{{Ripper victims}}

The number and names of the Ripper's victims are the subject of much debate. The so-called canonical five are a subset of the eleven victims listed in the police file documenting what were called "the Whitechapel murders"

The first murders

1. Emma Elizabeth Smith, born c 1843, was attacked in Osborn Street, Whitechapel April 3, 1888, and a blunt object was inserted into her vagina, rupturing her perineum. She survived the attack and managed to walk back to her lodging house with the injuries. Friends brought her to a hospital where she told police that she was attacked by two or three men, one of whom was a teenager. She fell into a coma and died on April 5, 1888. This was the first 'Whitechapel Murder', according to the book Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates by Stewart Evans and David Rumbelow.

2. Martha Tabram (name sometimes misspelled as Tabran; used the alias Emma Turner; maiden name Martha White), born on May 10, 1849, and killed on August 7, 1888. She had a total of 39 stab wounds. Of the non-canonical Whitechapel murders, Tabram is named most often as another possible Ripper victim, owing to the evident lack of obvious motive, the geographical and periodic proximity to the canonical attacks, and the remarkable savagery of the attack. The main difficulty with including Tabram is that the killer used a somewhat different modus operandi (stabbing, rather than slashing the throat and then cutting), but it is now accepted that a killer's modus operandi can change, sometimes quite dramatically. Her body was found at George Yard Buildings, George Yard, Whitechapel .

The canonical five

3. Mary Ann Nichols (maiden name Mary Ann Walker, nicknamed "Polly"), born on August 26, 1845, and killed on Friday, August 31, 1888. Nichols' body was discovered at about 3:40 in the early morning on the ground in front of a gated stable entrance in Buck's Row (since renamed Durward Street), a back street in Whitechapel two hundred yards from the London Hospital. Mary Ann Nichols was the first of the canonical five victims of Jack the Ripper .

4. Annie Chapman (maiden name Eliza Ann Smith, nicknamed "Dark Annie"), born in September 1841 and killed on Saturday, September 8, 1888. Chapman's body was discovered about 6:00 in the morning lying on the ground near a doorway in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, Spitalfields. The second of the 'canonical five' .

5. Elizabeth Stride (maiden name Elisabeth Gustafsdotter, nicknamed "Long Liz"), born in Sweden on November 27, 1843, and killed on Sunday, September 30, 1888. Stride's body was discovered close to 01:00 in the early morning, lying on the ground in Dutfield's Yard, off Berner Street (since renamed Henriques Street) in Whitechapel. The third of the canonical five.

6. Catherine Eddowes (used the aliases "Kate Conway" and "Mary Ann Kelly," from the surnames of her two common-law husbands Thomas Conway and John Kelly), born on April 14, 1842, and killed on Sunday, September 30, 1888, on the same day as the previous victim, Elizabeth Stride. Ripperologists refer to this circumstance as the "double event". Her body was found in Mitre Square, in the City of London. The fourth of the canonical five victims.

7. Mary Jane Kelly (called herself "Marie Jeanette Kelly" after a trip to Paris, nicknamed "Ginger"), reportedly born in either the city of Limerick or County Limerick, Munster, Ireland ca. 1863 and killed on Friday, November 9, 1888. Kelly's gruesomely mutilated body was discovered shortly after 10:45 am lying on the bed in the single room where she lived at 13 Miller's Court, off Dorset Street, Spitalfields. The fifth and last of the canonical five victims of Jack the Ripper.

Later murders

8. Rose Mylett (true name probably Catherine Mylett, but was also known as Catherine Millett, Elizabeth "Drunken Lizzie" Davis, "Fair" Alice Downey or simply "Fair Clara"), born in 1862 and died on December 20, 1888. She was reportedly strangled "by a cord drawn tightly round the neck", though some investigators believed that she had accidentally suffocated herself on the collar of her dress while in a drunken stupor. Her body was found in Clarke's Yard, High Street, Poplar.

9. Alice McKenzie (nicknamed "Clay Pipe" Alice and used the alias Alice Bryant), born circa 1849 and killed on July 17, 1889. She died reportedly from the "severance of the left carotid artery" but several minor bruises and cuts were found on the body. Her body was found in Castle Alley, Whitechapel.

10. "The Pinchin Street Murder", a term coined after a torso was found in similar condition to the body which constituted "The Whitehall Mystery", though the hands were not severed, on September 10, 1889. The body was found under a railway arch in Pinchin Street, Whitechapel. An unconfirmed speculation of the time was that the body belonged to Lydia Hart, a prostitute who had disappeared. "The Whitehall Mystery" and "The Pinchin Street Murder" have often been suggested to be the works 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 by Ripperologists .

11. Frances Coles (also known as Frances Coleman, Frances Hawkins and nicknamed "Carrotty Nell"), born in 1865 and killed on February 13, 1891. Minor wounds on the back of the head suggest that she was thrown violently to the ground before her throat was cut. Otherwise there were no mutilations to the body. Her body was found under a railway arch, Swallow Gardens, Whitechapel. After this eleventh and last 'Whitechapel Murder' the case was closed.

What do you think? Was it right to trash this section? Colin4C 20:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not without discussion. I think unusually for this article, it's referenced material. Kbthompson 08:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Colin's claim that this section was deleted is simply outright false. All of that content is still there, but structured more in line with how all the major books handle it: Focusing on the canonical five first and foremost, with minor later mention given to other possible victims.

And, also, the blind reverts of my edits were actually the ones that removed referenced material, as I added many references to the leading books in the field. Colin seems to want to source everything all to one book for some odd reason. It's a good book, but it's certainly not the only POV in the field.

Furthermore, these radical changes that Colin wanted were the ones that were made without discussion. My edits returned the page to the longstanding consensus-approved version. We have dealt with Colin's attempts to minimalize the canonical five in the past, and he never got any approval for it. Until he does, he should not and cannot keep blind reverting to his version. DreamGuy 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Perversely, and really quite against the odds, the Metropolitan Police museum (below) list the 11, so while I too am enamoured of the 'canonical five' (we must read the same books), I think he should be allowed to make his case. Kbthompson 23:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

He certainly should be allowed to try to make his case, but considering how controversial it is and his knowing it is so it is quite against Wikipedia standards to force his version in while it is still being discussed and to ignore other editors, the longstanding consensus on this article, and all the major Ripper authors. If he ever convinces a strong majority that his version is better, then the change can be made, but considering the state of the field of Ripperology I don't think his personal vision for the article outweighs everything else. DreamGuy 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The 'canonical five' are highlighted at three parts in the article. They have their own sub-section of the Whitechapel Murders section, they have their own info box in that section, and they have another main section all to themselves entitled 'The Canonical Five'. The info hasn't been hidden. Its all out there completely obvious to anyone who gives article even a cursory glance. The Whitechapel murder list explains some of the odder things the case, e.g. that the police already thought they had a serial killer on their hands when they found Nichols, the first canonical murder, because of the two non-canonical murders which preceded it in the same area. Maybe mention it in the intro as well so readers will completely get the point? Colin4C 08:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, once again you are ignoring expert opinion and how the published authors handle the case. All of them highliht the canonical five first and foremost as the main topic, typically only giving cursory information about the others. Encyclopedias need to reflect that. Considering that one of the complaints earlier was that too much time was being given to rather fringe possibilities, goin ahead and highlihting these fringes is not the way to move foreward, and clumsily tacking a paragraph onto the lead does not solve the problem.

I also do not think you've made a case for the idea that those things you find "odd" actually are. But certainly the old version of the article more than adequately listed the Whitechapel murders and explained their significance, it just did not unnecessarily focus on them to such an extent that you wish to. DreamGuy 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Au contra almost all books on the Ripper start off mentioning the Smith and Tabram murders first, before going on to the 'canonical five'. Many also believe that Tabram was a victim of Jack the Ripper. The jury is still out on her. Mixing her up in a list with the fictitious Fairy Fay, the woman who cut herself and with the transatlantic 1891 Carrie Shakespeare death etc is not helpful. Also the suspected killer of Coles (the last Whitechapel murder victim in police files): James Sadler was strongly suspected for a while by the police to be the Ripper himself. Another post-canonical murder: that of Alice McKenzie was regarded as a Ripper murder by one of the pathologists who examined her. These things are not lightly to be dismissed. As I said before, maybe the readers of the wikipedia can be allowed to make their own assessment of the case and decide who did what to whom rather than being told what to think by us. Colin4C 19:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think perhaps that you could refrain from making the exact same arguments in the exact same ways in multiple sections of this talk page? Repeating ourselves is a waste, and I'd hate to think anyone would glance at this and assume I did not reply point by point when I already did so below. DreamGuy 14:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suggest we move on now. Yes, there have been mistakes and toes have been stepped on. Let's move on to re-constructing the article now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you suggested, I moved on to reconstructing the article, which consisted of getting rid of all of Colin's edits for which he has not gained consensus and restoring tons of references he deleted for no reason. I also went through and fact checked a number of sections, added even more references, varied them by author and for ones that are more appropriate for specific kinds of information. I also restored the mention of original sources as necessary instead of just saying that it was on Casebook (Casebook reprints lots of information from other sources, it's important to credit the actual source and not just Casebook). Considering the many and varied very important changes I would hope that nobody goes through and once again blind reverts the article, as it would be extremely difficult to continue to suggest that the edits were made in good faith in such a case. DreamGuy 14:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I am somewhat disappointed that you took the opportunity to reinstate virtually the same edit that has been removed before - with the caveat of defending the edits you wished in. Perhaps you misunderstood my request, which is why I am not immediately reverting it as a bad faith edit. I cannot stress enough that you discussing the changes to the article - and waiting for reply - are vital to the editorial process. I must insist that you avail yourself of the opportunity to do so. Just as you feel some of Colin's edits are unacceptable, the same argument could be applied to your 'blind' reverting to a previous version, and could easily be seen as dismissive and uncivil. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have completely mischaracterized the situation. The problem here is that Colin is the one who did not discuss the changes to the article, did not await the reply, and so forth. Much of the thrust of the change I made was returning the article to the consensus version that had existed for a long, long time before he tried to force his rather radical ideas onto the article despite knowing that they had not been approved in the past and that they were still opposed. If you want to talk good faith and discussing things before doing them, then the edits where you and Colin reinstated his version of the article over all objections would be the ones in bad faith. It seems to me that you either have to abandon your argument that making controversial changes without discussion is bad or admit that it was Colin who had done so in the first place (and you yourself whenever you reverted to his version). I also think your labeling of my changes as a "blind" revert is simply false, as I went through and specifically changed those things that I believed needed to be changed, and to do so it was often easier to revert to an older version and then restore any valid edits made since then by hand. In fact it was you and Colin whose edits were "blind" by that definition, in that you didn't restore or modify individual sections but wiped the whole thing out to Colin's last version without any care if that restored incorrect information, erased references (and often restored tags asking for references) and so forth. If you are correct that these types of actions are dismissive and uncivil, then you should agree that you were wrong to do so and agree to not do so again. DreamGuy 16:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I don't want to argue about who did what, where and when. I should like to see this article improved so it can attain a better status in wiki. References are beginning to improve, and I'm glad about that. If, as you say, some are excessively drawn from one, or particularly flakey sources, then they should be backed up with other sources.

I'm disappointed that there is an appeal to some former 'concensus'; there is a note on the corresponding policy that Consensus can change. The purpose of editing is to improve the article, and I think all these edits (apart from the occasional passing through yahoo) are good faith attempts to improve the article. The article has not been able to progress through the A -> GA -> FA process, at all for three years. By all means talk about the article and provide substantive reasons why the edits are not a reasonable addition. Without a fresh set of eyes, discussion and substantive change, this article is not going anywhere. I think the subject deserves better. Kbthompson 17:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I have mischaracterized the situation, then I do indeed apologize. Btw, I had asked a question aboive that I think you have missed: Have you also posted here as User: 71.203.223.65? I ask because they both seem to be you. If you have neglected to sign in before posting here, it would be good to know, and avoid any unpleasant suspicions.

As I sad before, if I did indeed mischaracterized your edits, I think it would have been based upon the tone of the reverts (under both your ID and that of your anon ID) edit summary, which was rather combative. It would have also been based on what appeared to be a signularly dismissive attitude regarding another editor's comributions - right or wrong, unless the person was some nutty vandal, it was - and is - uncivil to respond to your fellow editors in such a way. As the edits seemed to remove solid information and verifiable citations with no attempt to integrate them into the older edit, it was eminently reasonable to consider your edit to be pov-pushing and a blind revert. That you have since taken the time to integrate the subsequent changes that other editors have made is a Good Thing, and not at all a blind revert. I appreciate you making that effort. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Thompson is right. Let's let it go and move on. Mistakes were made and will probably be again, but at least we are on a good, clear path now. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're going around in circles here. I would argue that it has, in fact, been Colin and you who have been dismissive and uncivil, and that your labeling my edits to be a blind revert or POV-pushing is completely bad faith. In fact, it was your edits that removed solid information and verifiable citations with no attempt to integrate them into the article, while I went out of my way to integrate anything of value in your edits. From the very beginning I have calmly and rationally explained every step I was doing and it was you and Colin who have repeatedly ignored it, with you talking about "suspicions" and asking about IP addresses and Colin calling me a "problem editor" who should not be listened to. DreamGuy 17:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Might I trouble you to point out where I have specifically been uncivil to you, DG? If anyting, I have been unfailingly polite in my discussions with you here, in the article and on your User Talk page. If you are interpreting my asking you if you are also posting as User: 71.203.223.65. If you are not, please say so, and if you are, I don't think it is too much to ask that you verify that as well. I am led to believe that you have posted using the anonymous IP (maybe you just forgot to sign in), and I don't think it is bad faith to ask you to clarify this one way or the other. I have asked you thios specific question three separate times, and I would like to have an answer, please.

Lastly, as you are continuing to insist that Colin and I are somehow working in cahoots to remove your edits, I should point out that I was the editor who changed the title of the section and proveided leavening remarks that you not be attacked based solely upon your past. I have not attacked you at all, and have - as I have mentioned before - been unfailingly polite and solicitous to you, going to far as to contacting the blocking admin to recommend that your recent block be alleviated.

However, if you are determined to view me in a more adversarial light, then there is little I can do to prevent that, except to ensure that your comments do not become unnecessarily uncivil where they address me. I think neither of us wants to pursue that path, so I ask that you deal with me in that whay which you yourself wish to be treated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not determined to see you in an adversarial light, I am just noting that the things you have accused me of are not accurate and not infrequenlty more accurately describe actions you yourself have taken. You have acted like not blind reverting my edits was some sort of favor to me instead of being the standard of acceptable behavior, and you have misrepresented the nature of my edits and so forth. I would thin it's fair to say that arguing that I have blind reverted when there is no evidence of it having happened could be considered to be uncivil and of bad faith... or at any rate moreso than anything you claim I have done. But in the end I judge people by their edits. If Colin shows up later and blind reverts the article and you undo it pending more discussion, that, for example, will be good evidence of fair dealings and representative of the things you claimed to be important to avoid bad feelings. DreamGuy 19:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's start over, shall we?

I've read trhough all the stuff about DreamGuy's prior problems, and while I am aware that there are caveats placed on his behavior by the last RfC recently concluded, I am not of the opinion that we should hold this against him. As admins and editors more experienced than myself have seen fit to offer him the opportunity to improve himself and contribute in a healthy, positive way, I am not going to question that wisdom. I welcome DreamGuy to the article and hope he will see that, due to the relatively controversial nature of the article, discussion is going to be a vital part of the process of improving this article.

From his recent edits, it is clear that he has some interest in these matters, so I suggest we listen to his discussions on why something should be in the article, and why something shouldn't be. Of course, this needs to be handled here, in the discussion page, and not just in the anemically small edit summary, where practically no wisdom or info can be imparted on more complex subjects than process.

I don't think we should be reverting to previous versions, as most of them were pretty shambolic, and not qorth the bits and bytes used to put them together. The source information hasn't substantially changed in recent years, so it isn't going anywhere. I have a couple of questions that I think could help us find the path to improving the article to GA and eventually FA status (which should be the penultimate goal of any article in WP). I admit that some of these questions might just be for my own edification, but some I feel are important to set as 'touchstones' so we become aware of the edges of that which is supported and that which is supposition. They are as follows:

"Ripperology"

• 1. Where did the term "Ripperology" first originate? Is there a citation for that?

First originate? not necessarily relevant, as the citation tag that keeps getting added there acts like the term doesn't exist at all, when it's clear that it does. Odell's Ripperology book is proof enough of that. I added that citation, but that keeps getting wiped out when people blind revert the article to Colin's rather odd reinterpretation.

If you insist upon the first origination, that was Colin Wilson. Author Stewart Evans has an online article stating that, for those of you who don't have hardly any of the Ripper books but still insist upon undoing the work of others, so you can Google it if you must. DreamGuy 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that info, DG. Would you happen to have the citation for that original usage? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, I told you where it came from and who had a citation and how to find it. I cited its usage in the article until someone removed it for no reason.

The original usage seems pretty irrelevant, but I also gave a way to get the reference to the usage. If for whatever reason yo want a link to an article discussing its origin, there is this online reprint from a Ripper journal written by a leading author specifically on this point. I could certainly add it myself, but there seems to be a number of people blind reverting any and all edits I make to the article, including solid references, fixing spellings of names, etc. DreamGuy 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a link to that. DG. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Official victims?

• 2. Who did the London Metropolitan PD consider to be the "official" murder victims of the Ripper?

Smith and Tabram were the first two murders put on the 'Whitechapel Murders File' by contemporary police. Later research indicates that Smith was virtually certainly not a victim of 'Jack the Ripper', though the jury is still out on Tabram. The third Whitechapel murder (Nichols), however, is almost certainly a victim of 'Jack the Ripper'. She is thus the first of the 'canonical five' victims of Ripperologists. However, as I said before, the jury is still out on Tabram, so mixing her up with dubious 'Other Victims', some of whom were fictitious (Fairy Fay) and some who seem to have cut themselves accidently in the kitchen (Annie Farmer) and some (Carrie Shakespeare) who lived in America two years after the 'autumn of terror' in 1888, and were never suspected by the police, seems ludicrous. Just to add that nobody was ever convicted for ANY of the eleven Whitechapel Murders. The killer or killers were never brought to justice for any of these crimes. 'Jack the Ripper' was a soubriquet invented by a journalist. How it relates to the personality and actions of the actual killer(s) is a mystery. Almost everything about 'Jack' is mysterious. What is not mysterious is the dead bodies of the murder victims. They were (mostly) named individuals killed on certain dates, their bodies found and reported to the police and press. On the top of this positive data the whole heap of later (sometimes crazy) speculation has been erected.Colin4C 08:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't know for a fact that the Ripper name was invented by a journalist, only that police speculated it was. Annie Farmer absolutely did not cut herself accidentally in the kitchen, and I've never heard of anyone suggesting such a thing, ever. "Carrie Shakespeare" was not the name of the American victim, and she was in fact suspected by police both in New York and London at one time of having been a Ripper victim, with Abberline himself suggesting so when he thought that George Chapman might have been the killer. The jury is also still out on whether Smith was a Ripper victim or not... police officer Walter Dew in his memoirs claimed she was, for example. DreamGuy 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that only partially answers my question. I am not talking about the contemporary police of this time, but who did the police of that time (under Warren) consider to be the victims of the Ripper (by name and date, please). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

When I say 'contemporary' I mean at the same time as the 'Whitechapel murders'. I.e. 1888-91. The details are listed in Evans and Skinner's 2006 book which I have cited in references and here: Met Police History: Ripper. Skinner (an ex-policeman himself) spent five years in the archives transcribing the old police records for his 2002 Jack the Ripper Sourcebook (listed in the 'References' section in the article ). Colin4C 11:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, the link didn't show itself, but the interface was friendly enough that simply searching for jack and ripper yielded a fairly tight result. And wow, that is the best possible source of info for the article. Unvarnished fact. This is the sort of stuff that serves as the building blocks for everything else in the article. Thanks, Colin. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That website isn't exactly unvarnished fact, as it contains errors. It's a one off small page put together by the London police by people largely unfamiliar with the case more than century after it was over. Best possible sources should probably be the books by the authors who have spent their lives investigating the case and the police files they reference. DreamGuy 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If I may correct you again: Keith Skinner was not a police officer. Evans and Skinner do not have a 2006 book together. Evans and Rumbelow had a 2006 book together and both of them were former police in London (Evans with the Met, Rumbelow with City of London). Neither the 2006 book nor the 2002 of Evans and Skinner support the notion that the eleven murders in the Whitechapel Murders file are synonymous with Jack the Ripper. DreamGuy 18:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Canonical Five, as even mentioned in the article for those who haven't bothered to read it, comes from the Macnaghten Memorandum. His opinion was also echoed by others, including journalist and crime collector George R. Sims and especially later Ripper authors writing after the memorandum's discovery. It has also become the default framing device of virtually ever book on the topic. Removing it as the prime section of the victims section therefore is an act of POV-pushing against the stated beliefs of the majority of writers on the topic, and even those who do not believe those were all of the Ripper's victims still use it as a point of reference to begin arguments from. It needs to stay the focus of the section. DreamGuy 20:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The 'canonical five' are highlighted at four parts in the article. They are mentioned in the intro. They have their own sub-section of the Whitechapel Murders section, they have their own info box in that section, and they have another main section all to themselves entitled 'The Canonical Five'. The info hasn't been hidden. Its all out there completely obvious to anyone who gives article even a cursory glance. Also the Whitechapel murder list explains some of the odder things the case, e.g. that the police already thought they had a serial killer on their hands when they found Nichols, the first canonical murder, because of the two non-canonical murders which preceded it in the same area (Whitechapel). Colin4C 09:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the info should have been obvious to anyone looking at it and that it wasn't hidden based upon an edit made AFTER I made the complaint. That seems to be more than a little curious, as you are chastising me for not appreciating the content of the article when it wasn't there at the time. It certainly is true that the police originally thought they had a serial offender already by the Nichols murder because of earlier murders, but that does not mean that these killings, which did not fall within later police opinion nor the vast majority of later expert opinion, need to be highlighted by mere chronology instead of importance. The victims section needs to be in line with what all books on the topic have to say, and that's to give precedence to the canonical five, unless you think your POV is more important than all the scholars who frame the murders in this way. Wikipedia is here to reflect expert opinion in the field, not to promote original research and slant things so they are looked at in the way you wish them to be looked at instead of the way the authors present them. DreamGuy 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, almost all books on the Ripper start off mentioning the Smith and Tabram murders first, before going on to the 'canonical five'. Many also believe that Tabram was a victim of Jack the Ripper. The jury is still out on her. Mixing her up in a list with the fictitious Fairy Fay, the woman who cut herself and with the transatlantic 1891 Carrie Shakespeare death etc is not helpful. Also the suspected killer of Coles (the last Whitechapel murder victim in police files) - James Sadler - was strongly suspected for a while by the police to be the Ripper himself. Another post-canonical murder: that of Alice McKenzie was regarded as a Ripper murder by one of the pathologists who examined her. These things are not lightly to be dismissed. As I said before, maybe the readers of the wikipedia, having had the canonical five repeatedly blazoned in their eyes (four times), can be allowed to make their own assessment of the case and decide who did what to whom rather than being told what to think by us. Colin4C 19:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not up to you to determine what is "lightly to be dismissed". We take our lead from how all the authors handle it. Your not finding the Carrie Brown murder credible to be mentioned in the same breath as other possible victims of the Ripper is your POV, and one against quite a few author's views. As far as letting the readers decide, the can't fairly decide unless the material is presented as the experts do, and that's to focus primarily and overwhelmingly on the canonical five, not to list them as an afterthought in the midst of a long list of names, most of which nobody in the police or writings books today think have anything to do with the Ripper murders. DreamGuy 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to ask more specifically (as the answer seems to tangent off somewhat): does the London Metropolitan Police Department of the late 19th century consider there to be five victims (as per the 'canonical five') or eleven, as has been suggested? I think it is important to start fromt he source fo the info before branching out and weigh what the subsequent theorists have discussed/determined/accepted/rejected. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The eleven murders in the file where just filed that way as unsolved murders in the Whitechapel Murders file. No official ever thought all 11 were by the same hand.

There is no official count of victims, as no police source has the authority to set that. The closest thing we have, though, is Macnaghten writing to the Home Office about the murders to specifically name "5 victims -- and 5 victims only" of Jack the Ripper that he and perhaps others in the department thought were by the same hand. Macnaghten was fairly high ranking and was one of the ones who oversaw the still open investigations at that time (even though he joined the force after the last of the murders he thought the Ripper wa responsible for). Other officials in varying capacities have said other things, but typically only adding or removing one victim from the count, never incorporating anywhere near all 11 in the file. DreamGuy 18:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding; that is the info I was looking for. So - if I am to understand you correctly - the eleven in the file were just the eleven murders that occured in in Whitechapel at the same time as the five murders that Macnaghten specifically feels were committed by the Ripper. Furthermore, no official at the time of the murders or since has been of one mind as to exactly how many murders could be specifically attributed to the individual known as Jack the Ripper. Is that a correct evaluation of your statements? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Same rough time. Some before, some after. A period of a few years.

I don't know what no what no official has been of one mind even means. One official could be of one mind with himself. Some agreed with each other. The main five seems to have been popular but not really a full consensus. And some officials said things at different times that seemed to contradict what they had said earlier. There are no easy answers here, but what's important is that the canonical five got an official mention and have been featured in virtually every book on the topic as the assumed starting place, even when the author in question wants to add or remove some. DreamGuy 19:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Macnaughton was not in charge of the investigation and not speaking in an official capacity. Other police officers directly involved in the case at the time had different views. For instance the 'non-canonical' Tabram was considered a Ripper victim by Frederick Abberline, Sir Robert Anderson, Edmund Reid and Walter Dew, who were all involved in the investigation into the Whitechapel murders. Colin4C 19:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, again, more corrections: His name was Macnaghten. He was, in fact, one of the people in charge of the investigation, and he was, in fact, writing in an official capacity. The document in question was official police business sent to the Home Office briefing them on the then current status of the case because of political repercussions of a newspaper having accused them of incompetence in trying to find the murderer. In fact it is the only document written in official police capacity to make a claim as to number of victims. Others were made unofficially in personal commentary here and there. Macnaghten also clearly was not alone in his belief. I do not dispute that some others had differing views, but that is certainly already noted in the article and is not a justification for minimalizing the canonical five and focusing on the entire Whitechapel Murders file, which no official has ever thought was truly representative of the killer's work. DreamGuy 19:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting, for Great Justice!) I am starting to see what you mean, DG, and I thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. I agree that there exists enough verifiability to support the usage of the C5 in the article. I had been concerned that it had been solely artistic license on the part of "Ripperology" crime writers to make themselves sound more authentic. Even if the latter is true, the fact that is has been coined is both noteworthy and verifiable.

I am still ofthe opinion that the terms "canonical Five" and "Ripperology" be noted as to their first coinage, as that in itself is noteworthy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to the mention of the canonical five. They are mentioned several times in the article. I in fact added a mention of them to the intro. But the eleven 'Whitechapel Murders', as recorded by the police at the time are an equally valid historical datum and should not be trashed. Colin4C 09:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Equally valid"? That seems to be your own personal view on the matter and not at all the opinion of the many books on the topic. Most of the non-canonical five victims in the Whitechapel murders list have overwhelmingly been treated as not at all valid as Ripper victims by the police at the time and later authors. Your insistence that all their views should be ignored for your own is a little peculiar and not how Wikipedia works. Your claim that they were "trashed" is also not accurate, as we have for a long time now specifically mentioned in the Other possible victims section which ones were in the Whitechapel Murders file, so it's there, just given the amount of space it deserves instead of elevating it above what the police and experts on the topic think. DreamGuy 16:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The initial eleven will be mentioned, as well as the subsequent studies by various authors both wacky and wise, which appear to remove all but the canonical five from the list. Out of all the data, the official police reports carry the most reliability. Any subsequent data - and I am referring to any book or website - is secondary in reliability. the article isn't to showcase the various crackpot theories wherein the only final answer is either an unlikely suspect or a ineffectual shrugging of the shoulders. that some of these books provide valuable citations about the actual case is helpful - the various nutty theories are not. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The initial eleven will be mentioned (and currently already are), but they will not be the primary focus of the section and not be listed first. The only official on the record police view we have on who was killed by the Ripper is the five names mentioned by Macnaghten. The 11 names are in a file of unsolved murders and not a Jack the Ripper murder file. From yor comments about books it sounds like you are trying to label all of them as being written by nuts, which is a rather extreme POV that has no place in an encyclopedia. For example, an "ineffectual shrugging of the shoulders" is not a nutty stance to take based upon the lack of solid evidence in this case. The statement that you won't showcase that and the disdain in your description is really quite troubling. I hope that you merely misspoke, because from your tone and words it sounds like you want to ignore all of the experts both then and now to report what some file that was never meant to be a file of all the Jack the Ripper murders contained as if it were some official notice of one murderer's work. DreamGuy 19:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You might wish to avoid statements about what 'will' or 'will not' be included in the article, DG, as you yourself have counseled me that those sorts of statements might lead others to presume OWNish behavior on the part of the editor issuing in the absolute. We will all work together to decide collectively what will and will not be included in the article.

And please forgive my characterization as nutty those folk who obsess about a crime over a century old wherein the major contributors of the feeding frenzy continue to write books when no new information is available - it just seems that way to me. As well, perhaps I have misjudged those in ""ripperology" who you are terming as experts those who have multiple and advanced degrees in medical forensics, Psychiatry, Cultural Anthropology, Criminology and the like - my upbringing rails at those without these degrees to not be considered experts. That there are some involved in the study of the Ripper murders is an almost certainty. That someone who has read all the books or maintains a website on the subject can hardly call themselves an expert. i trust you would agree. Now, the former folk (the ones with degrees) have a lot to lose by risking their credibility in a ripper theory. Therefore, when they do offer an observation based on their skills, it's notable. When bobby over at Ripperlove.com offers it, what with his associate's degree in history, it deserves proportionally less consideration. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Canonical five term

• 3. Who coined the term "canonical five", and does a citation exist for the first instance of this, or is it a term created within the field of "Ripperology"?

It was created in the mid-to-late 20th century by a Ripper author who was also into Sherlock Holmes and parrots the usage of Canon to mean approved stories. I don't think we need to document first usage, as that's quite a bit of trivia. More important is that virtually every book on the topic by all the experts uses the term as a point of reference to the importance of these five victims over the full list in the Whitechapel Murders file. DreamGuy 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I rather disagree with your contention that the initial usage is too trivial to be cited. Not everyone coming to the article are going to be "Ripperologists" or interested amateurs. I would want to have the knowledge of the first usage in pulbished form of the term. It is actually noteworthy precisely because it has been used by subsequent theorist books. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are all sorts of various ideas, terms, files, etc. that could be listed by first usage, and we don't go through and list all of them simply because they aren't all that interesting. Man of them would be more interesting and certainly more relevant to the Ripper case than this. But, hey, the link given above and already added to the article has that info for anyone who cares enough to look. DreamGuy 18:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As I feel it adds value to know when and by who the term was coined, I will add it into the text, not preferring to leave it just a link. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And if you do add it and it seems rather unrelated to the topic or otherwise pointless, I will remove it. Your preference is just one preference, and we also need to follow Wikipedia style. But I will reserve judgment until I see exactly what you want to add. DreamGuy 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As well you should, for while you think that its unrelated or pointless, others may feel differently. I am pretty well-versed in Wikipedia style, so perhaps a little more AGF from you regarding my capabilities would serve both our interests, :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you either confused or trying to come up with something to complain about when you have nothing to work with. I will go with confused.

AGF is for assessing intentions and motives. I do not have to have any faith in your capabilities beyond what I see you demonstrate. I do, however, have a responsibility to inform you of potential conflict before it happens so that it might be avoided, especially when your stated actions are outside the standard rules of conduct here... and that is exactly what I did. DreamGuy 21:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Official suspects

• 4. Who were their official suspects, and why were they never formally charged?

One of the first official suspects was a man named John Pizer (or Piser) aka 'Leather Apron'. He was a prime popular suspect for a while and was formally arrested on Monday 10 Sept 1888, but appeared to have an alibi so was never formally charged. He was suspected before the (presumably hoax) letter purporting to come from 'Jack the Ripper' arrived at a news agency's desk (on 27th Sept). By noon of 10 Sept seven suspects were in detention, all of whom were eventually released. Colin4C 11:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The official suspects are all handled on the article here about the suspects. If you need more info you can go read that. If you want a brief summary of that here, that other article would be a good pace to start. No need to reinvent the wheel. I do think, per previous discussion on this, that most of that should be handled separately, as the suspect section has an unfortunate history of exploding with information when it is included here. DreamGuy 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my question, DG. I think that if there weren't any official suspects, then none shoudl be int he article, leaving them to the sub-page you have noted. If any were to be included, it would have to be those who were formally arrested and/or charged with the crimes, as that can easily be documented/cited. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the ones who were arrested and then released later are generally considered among the least interesting of the suspects. Also, documenting here is not as easy as you would think, as almost none of the files relating to any suspect still exist. The kinds of things we do have are a lot less reliable than one would think. DreamGuy 18:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I am aware of the sketchiness of the information involved, DG - there couldn't be as many books written on the topic had all the files been perfect. Whether they are interesting or not, the burden for Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. As the ones actually arrested for the crime, they are notable even though they were released. Someone not charged is less notable than these individuals. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, verifiability isn't as importance as relevance and interest. The experts in the field who write the book overwhelmingly do not consider the vast majority of these individuals noteworthy. Most of them aren't even mentioned by the officials at the time when they discussed the case later. The mere fact that some are verifiable (most are not) doesn't mean anything. The ones that are notable, as singled out by police and authors (and clearly labeled which are which), are on the Ripper suspects article. I think your confusion here stems from not understanding that hundreds of people were arrested. The police were grasping at straws and took in all sorts of people for little or no reason. There has to be more to it than that to get a mention. DreamGuy 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on that, DG. If it isn't verifiable, then it doesn't matter whether its relevant or interesting; ergo, verifiability trumps here. And you are correct in your assumption that I am not as familiar with the "Ripperology" as you clearly are. I think that offers you a relatively good opportunity, as I have the same level of interest in the topic as the casual reader, but am a fairly good and experienced editor in Wikipedia. I ask the questions I do because I do not know, and don't want to make factual assumptions not in evidence.

That said, I did know that they were sweeping up a lot of people (was it really hundreds? What source are you asing that number on?) whilst looking for the Ripper, but those folk weren't mentioned. I think we need to identify the ones they did identify and name, even though they were later released. Then we are free to discuss the numerous theories presented by subsequent books as to other suspects. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If I can verify that there were 120 cobblestones in the ground in front of Mary Kelly's room in Miller's Court that doesn't mean anyone cares. Noteworthiness and relevance ALWAYS trumps mere verifiability on what should be in an article.

Yes, they really did arrest hundreds. It's in the newspaper accounts and several books. Every couple of days they arrested a huge assortment of people who stood out in some minor way... blood on hand (turned out to be a butcher), wore a hat like one of the alleged witnesses claim the person they saw wore (very common style of hat), acting suspiciously (drunk, senile, etc.), dressed up in stange clothes (a number of people did so to try to catch the killer themselves to get the reward), had said something that somebody interpreted as knowing too much about the case (all the details were in the papers). People were pointing fingers back and forth, and they exhausted every possible avenue, probably hoping that if they managed to somehow sweep the right guy up that he'd slip and accidentally reveal himself somehow.

At any rate, I have to say again that the Jack the Ripper suspects article goes through and identifies the major ones, as well as all sorts of minor ones. People who keep track of these things have lists of about 300 people now who were named as suspects by the police, press or (most frequently these days) later authors. We can only really take the most important ones, and I really don't know if much of any of that even needs to be on the main article as compared to the suspects article. DreamGuy 16:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) As I said, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. The number of cobblestones outside Mary Kelly's room didn't kill her, whereas anyone of the people scarfed up in the sweeps was capable of the crimes. I think we place a different value on what is noteworthy and what is not. As someone who apparently maintains a Jack the Ripper website (what was the name of that?), you might be so close to the subject that you are unable to spproach it as a casual reader would. I am not suggesting a dumbing down of the article, but instead an entreé into the subject. It isn't for you alone to determin which suspects were of value and which were not. We will note those who were most often considered, not just the most likely culprits. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "anyone of the people scarfed up in the sweeps was capable of the crimes" is an extreme POV that was not shared by the police at the time who let them all go. It isn't up to me to decide what is and is not important, but it is certainly not up to you either. It is up to what the police at the time thought and the modern experts have to say. This is a fundamental foundation of how this encyclopedia works.

As far as "as a casual reader would" -- I think you are missing the boat on what an encyclopedia is about. Casual readers read encyclopedias, they don't write them. The insinuation that people who have knowledge about the case (whether they be website maintainers, editors, authors, recognized experts, etc.) are less capable of writing an encyclopedia seems rather backwards to me. I am not here to try to convince anyone that I have more of a right to edit than anyone else, but certainly someone who has an amateurish knowledge about the case wouldn't have any right to pretend to have more right either.

"We will note" seems like pretty strong terms here... I don't recall there being a consensus of people deciding to put you in charge.

Please be sure not to word things in a way that makes it sound like you think you are in charge, and also please accept that we will follow Wikipedia policies and go with what the scholars in the field say, both as a general opinion and also with some well-sourced notable minority views, and not merely what you or Colin or myself or any individual thinks.DreamGuy 19:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly agree that POV needs to be avoided. After all, we cannot allow one particular book or website's point of view to dominate the article, unles they are considered by consensus to be perhaps more reliable than others. That is part of how an encyclopedia is supposed to work, too. Apparently you pershaps misread my post, for somehow you continually think that I am unaware of Wikipedia policies, or even how an encyclopedia works. Please rest easy knowing that I understand what what Wikipedia is and how it functions just as well as you. I did not say that we discount the commentary of authors, but instead that they are a lens into the original events, and that the original events - sans interpretation - need to be our primary interest and focus of the article. Any interpretation of those facts by authors (and no, I haven't seen any credible proof that "ripperology" deserves even the slightest recognition for "expertise") need to be defined by the fact that they are indeed interpretations of the original facts. An editor or website maintainer or anyone else contributing to the article need to recognize that. Otherwise, they are pushing an agenda incompatible with neutrality. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Actually, if your claim is that you understand Wikipedia policies but think that you can say "no, I haven't seen any credible proof that "ripperology" deserves even the slightest recognition for "expertise" and not be in total contradiction to the entire basis of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and countless other fundamental policies here, you are sadly mistaken. Wikipedia is not a mere collection of facts and figures, and any presentation of information is going to require presenting someone's interpretation, and we have to go with what the reliable sources have to say about it and certainly not merely what you or Colin have to say about it. You've got the entire process completely backwards. Please do go read those policies you claim to understand. DreamGuy 21:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Files sealed?

• 5. I seem to recall that after the investigation, the case files were sealed for 100 years. Was this accurate? If so, when were they unsealed and what did the files reveal?

The police and Home Office files were opened to researchers in the 1970's and revealed a lot of interesting information, but not, unfortunately, the identity of Jack the Ripper! As you suggest, some material was indeed kept secret in the National Archives until 1992, which was the 100th anniversary of Inspector Abberline retiring from the case, but once again there were no startling revelations. Certain Special Branch files of the time are however still secret for reasons of national security. Colin4C 09:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And of course there's little reason to believe that any of the Special Branch files have anything to do with the Whitechapel Murders case, as they were not in charge or engaged in that investigation. None of the material was kept secret until 1992, and it was not because of Abberline's retirement, it was of the closing of the Whitechapel murders file in general, of which other police like Donald Swanson made the decision on. DreamGuy 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So, the case files were not sealed for 100 or so years? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Officially they had been withheld from public viewing, like all police files are in general. They were set to go public 100 years after they were closed. This is different from being sealed in that sealed means actively hidden from view. Many, many people saw them well before the 100 years were up, as authors who were not police could get permission to view them, and some of the more notale authors were policeman and could see them at any time. The claim that they were secret is simply false. DreamGuy 17:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's good to know. So, the files were not kept secret or sealed, but rather just closed to the public for 100 years. Is it your assertion that the only way anyone could have seen the withheld files were policemen (or fomer policemen)? As well, why were the records apparently released ahead of the 100 year date? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Closed to the public" makes it sound like they were actively closed. Police files by their nature are closed. I also clearly did not say that only policeman could see them, as I said "authors who were not police could get permission to view them" -- and many did. It's not that the records were released before the 100 years, per se, but more that enough people had viewed them and written about it that it might as well have been. DreamGuy 18:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see the distinction now. I think this might be helpful to add at some point in the article, as I think that its largely misunderstood by the casual reader. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

added suspects by authors

• 6. What authors added in additional 'likely' victims and suspects?

Please see the Jack the Ripper suspects article. DreamGuy 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Thanks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

discounted suspects and victims

• 6. Are there suspects or victioms who have been utterly discounted? How were they discounted? Again, is there citation for this?

The most controversial ones were Stephen Knight in Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution (1976) in which he alleged that the heir to the throne (the Duke of Clarence), Queen Victoria's doctor and the Masons were involved! This was followed by the somewhat deluded crime writer Patricia Cornwall claiming in a book that she had solved the case and that it was the famous painter Sickert who did it (even though he seems to have been holidaying in Ostend at the time...). Colin4C 09:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I dimly recall these (and it was those books which fairly put me off Ripper conspiracy theories), and Prince Jack was of the same one, pointing out the Prince as the culprit. I imagine these comments are more for that sub-page, I guess. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Prince Jack

• 7. I remember a rather poorly-written book in the 70's called Prince Jack, purporting Prince Albert Victor as the killer. Should we reference the books on the subject ina sub-page?

Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories has the info on this and related theories. It is discussed on the suspects page, much like you would expect, and then has a link to an article that goes into more detail. There's no reason to fill up the main article with this sort of side issue. DreamGuy 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, DG! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Photographs

• 8. Is there issue with including the crime photographs of the murders?

I think there is a graphic images tag that we can use at the top of the article to warn folk.

Issue? No. They are public domain. When small they aren't too graphic. But, once again, we already have separate articles for more detail on each of the major victims, where the images work better. DreamGuy 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And when you refer to the victims, are you referring to the 'canonical five', or another number? Speaking on the images, I don't think it would be unacceptable to include say, an image of the letter supposedly sent to the police as well as the photo of the "last" murder of Mary Kelly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

When I say major victims I mean the C5. We also have at least one separate article on a non-C5 victim in the Whitechapel Murder files. If you say "the letter supposedly sent to the police" you will need to be more specific, as there were hundreds of letters sent to the police written by people claiming to be the killer. I also would prefer that neither photo of the Mary Kelly crime scene be included here, as they are extremely graphic. On her article the photo is there, but runs pretty small so it's difficult to make out the details. Anyone who chooses to see it more clearly can click the image to do so. DreamGuy 18:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Since the graphic photos are fairly well-known and show up in most of the books on the subject, coupled with the fact that WP is not censored, i am not sure why the image's usage here is not encyclopedic. It specifically speaks to the savagery of the crime and serves as an earmark of a Ripper-specific murder. As for the letter, I was referring tothe one that actually contained (I think) part of a human kidney or some such thing. I believe it was one of the ones considered to be genuine. However, if none of the letters are considered genuine, that deserves a mention. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored, but that doesn't mean we post graphic images willy nilly either. There would have to be an encyclopedic reason to do so, and certainly the descriptions of the murders already speak to the savage nature of the crimes. Having them at small sizes on the victim pages seems a fair compromise. None of the letters are considered genuine, as the article itself mentions. The Lusk Letter has historically been considered most likely of a binch of highly unlikely ones to be genuine, but that largely has been based upon inaccurate police reports claiming a match between the kidney and the victim. It's already covered in this article and in the article on the topic. DreamGuy 19:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your info regarding the letters; I had read that, but was seeking some confirmation.

Regarding the images, i think we will have to agree to disagree. It isn't important now, but at some point, I will use one of the pictures, likely the Mary Kelly one, in the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You will, will you? Again, please read WP:OWN and understand that you do not have final say of what the article contains.DreamGuy 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies, DG - I did not mean to imply that I would add the picture without consensus. Perhaps you are somewhat more used to people who aren't familiar with Wikipedia policies; I can assure you that I am well-versed in many of them, and of course wouldn't consider suggesting that another experienced editor must somehow have forgotten to read a key policy of Wikipedia. Perhaps it isn't inappropriate for me to ask you to extend me that same courtesy? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I can only judge you by your actions, and based upon the number of blind reverts you had made to the article and the personal attacks and so forth -- and in this case your overt stated intentions -- it is obvious that you either were unfamiliar with several policies, had forgotten them or just choose to ignore them. I assumed good faith and decided it was more likely that you were simply unfamiliar with them or needed a reminder. DreamGuy 20:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on there, hoss - exactly what personal attack have I made about you? And as many times as you wish to mis-characterize my reverts of your reverts of other people (which I should point out consists of one occasion), I am still pretty sure that my actions were sound and acting to put a halt to the edit-warring that was brewing between you and Colin and others. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? As for Wikpedia policies, I can confidently state that I know them well enough to navigate the Project fairly well, You need not ever remind of them again. Again, this is just basic courtesy; treating others as you would wish to be treated. If someone were to mischaracterize your behavior or suggest that you don't know how Wikipedia works, you might react significantly more negatively than I have here. In short, please be more polite, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You're going in circles. Consistently ignoring things already pointed out to you isn't a sound debating strategy, and neither is demanding people stop doing things they aren't doing but that you yourself could use some work on. DreamGuy 20:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Article structure

I think that one of the major problems with this article, apart from referencing, is its structure. After the introductory paragraph, it jumps straight into victims; there should be a proper introduction, after the contents, that sets the scene, explains 1888 Whitechapel and Spitalfields, the poverty, social conditions, the entertainments and gin palaces that drew people to visit - and hence the demand for prostitutes. In the same section introduce the murders, the media response, the police response and the public response to the murders. That would establish a timeline and then allow for further elucidation in the later sections of the murders, the investigation and the public response to it. There should also be a later section to explain the quite complex history of texts about the ripper - when did they start to appear after the initial media hysteria?

Once there is a certain amount of stability, the article should go forward to GA and peer review to get as much input as possible on ways to improve the article. All the best. Kbthompson 09:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think that an account of the contemporary police investigation of the Whitechapel Murders should be put into a coherent chronological narrative rather than the present somewhat obscure references to various aspects of the investigation scattered at various points through the article. As for 'Jack', I'm reminded of the similar case of the dubious hoaxer 'Wearside Jack' who was for long suspected by the police of being the Yorkshire Ripper. Turned out that he wasn't and everybody had been in a grip of an illusion about who the latter might be and where he came from, his motivations etc etc. Colin4C 09:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Enduring Mystery of Jack the Ripper, and its 11 Whitechapel Murders might be worth a look to determine the difference between them and the accepted Ripper killings. (There's a photo of the letter, if that's a temptation, but can we eh, pinch it ...) Kbthompson 10:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Colin, are you using the word 'contemporary' to refer to the police department of the 1890's, or the one of 2007? I hear contemporary, and I think you are referring to current - and if I can make that mistake, so will other editors and almost certainly our readers. Let's find another term.

I agree that the article needs restructuring, but I am not convinced we can veer that far off-topic to discuss the setting of the murders (the poverty, social conditions and whatnot) within the scope of this article. Perhaps references can be found within other articles, but I think its vital that we order the article to simply the immediate crimes, victims, suspects, the period media, police and public response. After that we can address the continued interest in the killings, the various new theories that have developed (that were not introduced at the time of the original killings) and the current official status of the case. If, after we address those points effectively, there might be room to develop out the conditions which provided the envirnment in which the killer was able to escape notice and capture. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

When I say 'contemporary' I mean at the same time at the original Whitechapel Murders police investigation. I.e. 1888-91. Colin4C 11:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's use 'period' instead, and refer to 20th (and 21st) century developments as contemporary, if that's okay. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Colin4C 11:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Humph, I still think there should be an introductory paragraph to paraphrase the eh, period, scenery and establish a time line for the murders. Each individual aspect that is teased out in the current article deserves a 'full' treatment, but at the moment (to borrow from the Dude), it doesn't have a rug to hold it together. It may be that 'rug' will cause to think again about the placement of the pot plants and lighting - to stretch a metaphor to its breaking point, but I do think its the way to start the article. Its a complex situation that currently is just introduced to the reader as a set of bullet points. Kbthompson 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Need quality citations

I am concerned that not only are solid citations being removed for no encyclopedic reason, but that the other citations being added are less than helpful. Virtually every reference Colin has added has been to the Evans and Rumbelow book (though Colin seems to think Donald's name is David for some reason), which, while one of my favorites, is only one book out of hundreds. I don't think it is balanced to rely so heavily on one source, especially when other sources had been given and removed and when some of the info bein cited is so basic that any book on the topic at all would contain the same info. For some reason the list of ISBNs that I had added were also removed, and a number of alternate, quality sources were allblanked. This seems quite inexplicable. DreamGuy 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made reference to seven books in all so far. The Evans and Rumbelow one does have the advantage of being one of the most up to date books on the subject, having been published just last year (2006). But feel free to add more refs from other authors. As for Rumbelow's real name you are right it is Donald not David. Hmmmmmmm I've even met the guy... Will correct. Colin4C 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is most recent, but it doesn't try to be as comprehensive as other titles, such as The Ultimate Sourcebook. It's still ridiculous to be continuously citing the same book for information that has been in basically every book on the topic as if only this book had it. As far as having met Don, it doesn't add anything to the discussion and, if anything, might suggest a reason why you want to list his book as a reference for nearly every fact in the article and focus on his opinion over that of other authors. DreamGuy 14:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, some of the citations appear to have been removed. Let's move past it. Since we seem to have at least three people who know their way around "Ripperology" and - due to the controversial nature of the article and the past heatedness of the discussion here, that info be brought to Discussion here first. Since some sources are apparently good whilst others aren't worth the paper they are printed on, someone list sources here that should be article, and which ones should not. We can find a fairly quick consensus on that, and can work together to keep the crap sources out. Agreed? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there would be wide agreement here that almost all of the books listed in the 'References' section are worthwhile accounts of the case, the only exception being Cornwall's somewhat mad volume. As for internet sources, I reserve my judgement, except to say that I think the official Met Police website is pretty authoritative. Our differences here, I feel, are more to do with questions of perspective, interpretation and form than disagreements about the facts of the matter. Colin4C 12:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cornwell's book is in no way a reference for this article, and is widely regarded as highly inaccurate on details of the case (though she has apparently hired a Ripper researcher to fix these for her for the next release, so maybe someday). As it was not used as a reference there is no reason for it to be here. It was removed as part of my edit restoring the article to the version that did not have all the references removed for no reason. DreamGuy 14:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So you are evaluating Cornwell's book as non-notable, correct? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to the Suspects section

This was added to the Suspects section recently:

Many theories about the identity of Jack the Ripper have been advanced. None have been entirely persuasive. But a few of these are:

Richard Mansfield the actor who was performing in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and visited brothels often.

Dr Llewelyn a police docter.

Robert Lees a psycic who had visions of the killings

Sir William Gull a mind expert who was believed to have been mad

Dr. Theo Ackland, Gull's son-in-law

Robert Lusk who wanted a revoulution and so could have believed that murders led to revolutions.

There was also believed to be two people, one drives a coach and the other does the murders. The coach was believed to have had a fake royal crest on it so that it wouldn't have been stopped and searched by the police.

I have removed it entirely, as it is perhaps the most inaccurate list of information I have ever seen on any web page discssing Ripper suspects, which is saying a lot. Mansfield was not taken seriously as a suspect (as a later section already mentions) and no cite for him visiting brothels. Llewelyn was not a real suspect (in fact I don;t recall anyone ever naming him). Lees was never a suspect, and the visions claim is more from fiction than fact, Gull was not believed to be mad and is only a modern suspect (not named by any official ever or anyone for that matter until the late 20th century) in books that are not considered reliable in the slightest by the vast majority of expets, Gull's son in law is also not a real suspect, Lusk is not typically named as a suspect and isn't known for wanting revolution. The fake royal crest idea is also complete nonsense.

The content seemed almost like someone was purposefully trying to come up with content that was as incorrect as possible. If someone was seriously offering that as if it were factual, I suggest that person go read the Jack the Ripper suspects article for more reliable information. DreamGuy 14:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like that edit was by someone using an anonymous IP who was not an active editor. That's a relief. DreamGuy 14:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Image sizes

I don't see any reason at all to remove the pixel sizes from the image tags. All that does is make them the default size, which is invariable extremely tiny even on a smallish monitor. It's standard here to go through and add sizes for relative importance, and so forth. DreamGuy 16:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Images: "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended". Trouble is, setting a size which works for you on your monitor will not likely work for other users with bigger or smaller monitors. It is better to let users set their own thumbnail preference, and compliance to this MoS section allows for that. --John 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You failed to quote the relevant sections of that page:

Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:

* On images with extreme aspect ratios

* When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts

* When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region

* On a lead image that captures the essence of the article.

It is therefore clear that the lead image here, at the very least, needs to have a width set. Any of the later images which have details that become difficult to view when small should also. DreamGuy 17:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the main one. Perhaps it's a little too big, I don't know, but it's certainly more in line with what the MOS says now than when it was the size of a postage stamp. DreamGuy 19:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Bottomline on the reverting

I see both Colin and Arcayne trying to justify blind reverting my edits with the argument that discussion needs to happen before major changes are made, etc. I would agree that discussion needs to be made before major changes are made, and that's exactly why Colin's edits were improper.

Colin's version of this article (the one he and another editor had reverted to after) was only made October 20th... not even a week ago. Here is the edit where he first started this radical change, with the edits immediately after being more of the same. These were reverted very soon after they were made. There was never even a hint that anything resembling a consensus had been made, and, in fact, both when he tried to do so in the past and immediately after he tried to do so this time he knew he did not have approval to do and that it was opposed.

If, as the argument was made, major changes need to be approved beforehand, it's clear that Colin did not have that. Restoring the section to the way it was before -- very similar to how it has been for years due to the active discussion and consensus-building of scores of editors -- cannot possibly be construed as bad faith or uncivil. It is in fact exactly what should be done in cases like this. If Colin can discuss the matter here and get wide approval, then he can go ahead and make those changes. If he does not then he should not be at all surprised when someone else edits the article. This is how Wikipedia works, and the aggressive tone of some people to try to characterize this as uncivil or bad faith or whatever simply is not at all in line with Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy 17:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You are revert-warring again and doing the exact opposite of concensus building. Colin4C 18:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is noteworthy that while you address Colin's edits in all three paragraphs, you paint me with the same brush. I have stated on no less than two occasions that your edit was not reverted blindly by me, but specifically because the version you kept reverting to removed other contributor's edits. Your characterization of them aside, they were removed every time you reinstated your edit. I saw that as disruptive edit-warring, and I wasn't about to let it go unchallenged. I did not choose to deal with the substance of your edits quite simply because you were so readily willing to discount the edits of others. Had you addressed the issue in the Discussion page - as I repeatedly asked you (or the anon user 71... who seemd to make the same edits and present the same defenses), or addressed the edits politely when you did make an appearance, you might have avoided all the resulting confusion/frustration/whatnot.

Now, we can continue this discussion as long as you wish, DG. You can continue to argue this point ad nauseum, calling people names and attributing bad faith to them, or you can let the matter go and proceed from here. I sincerely hope you are able opt for the latter, and allow for the foibles and mistakes of others, as you yourself have been forgiven yours by others. There are no experts here, and first time users as well as experienced editors deserve the same polite treatment, and those who do not know as much about the subject but who are willing to ask clarifying questions shouldn't be dismissed as people who shouldn't be editing here. I have little tolerance for that sort of elitist attitude, as it smacks of and OWNish behavior which is unacceptable in Wikipedia.

Colin, I must ask the same thing of you as well. Please leave your personal problems with another editor at the door, or do not bother to come through the door at all. DG is working to explain his edits. If they are not good enough, they will be phased out, as will yours, or mine, or anyone else's. I must insist that you be polite and non-accusatory. Edit- and flame-warring won't be tolerated here. If you and DG have unresolvable issues, I strongly suggest you take them to an admin and mediate through there; this Discussion page will not be used to facilitate that process. I certainly hope I am making myself clear. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, you oddly wrote: "Now, we can continue this discussion as long as you wish, DG. You can continue to argue this point ad nauseum, calling people names and attributing bad faith to them, or you can let the matter go and proceed from here." -- Funny, I didn't call anyone names or attribute bad faith to anyone... Why do you insist upon claiming otherwise? I am merely editing the article to add references people said they wanted, and to undo major radical changes that were added without prior discussion or consensus, as you claim to have wanted. You were the one who said that blind reverting the article without discussion to a personal version against consensus was bad faith. DreamGuy 19:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to abide by the consensus or majority descision and hope to discuss matters of substance in a reasonable fashion. I hope my general record of constructive edits on the wikipedia in my edit history is a testimony of my good intentions. Colin4C 19:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Me, I'll judge you by your actions. Please stop edit-warring; it's rude. Thank you. --John 19:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you are honestly willing to then you should wait to have it, as you very clearly do not. As far as your edit history to this article goes, I wouldn't characterize them as constructive, and your edit comments to your recent revert certainly are not indicative of good intentions when make personal attacks on me instead of giving any real reason for a revert. But if you are willing to play by the expected standards of behavior here at Wikipedia I will certainly welcome it. DreamGuy 19:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Are we finished beating this particular dead horse?

Everyone gets the the assumption of good faith - from the first-time user to the vandal-weary veteran - period. It doesn't have be "waited for", it doesn't have to be built, and it most certainly isn't to be awarded grudgingly. It is given freely and absolutely expected of every contributor to Wikipedia, until someone proves themself to be a POV-pusher without citations, someone who cannot learn how to play well with others, a vandal, or some whackjob thinking the whole thing was connected to the Bavarian Illuminati or the Freemasons. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone does got the assume good faith, yes... but when someone demonstrates clear bad faith and continues to make the same actions showing that clear bad faith they have to start showing good faith again. Colin has continued to wipe out extremely important references in the article and forced his version of the article over all objections without having discussed or established any sort of consensus. If he claims he will respect consensus then he needs to start by getting approval to put his changes in BEFORE making them, and certainly he must immediately stop removing a whole long line of references, spelling corrections, etc. for no reason whatsoever other than that he didn't make them. DreamGuy 16:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please no blind reverts

I'd really appreciate it if all parties would stop blindly reverting the article. I've gone through a number of times and cleaned up minor grammar and punctuation things in the article (because I'm kind of OCD like that) and I hate seeing it all erased because the article got reverted to "the last good version." At any rate, I suppose I could settle with people reading through punctuation and reference rules. Just remember, punctuation goes inside quotation marks and references go after punctuation. And serial commas are nice, too. --clpo13_(talk) 08:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your grammar etc fixes are now attached to both versions under dispute here: the 'Canonical Dreamguy' edit and the 'Whitechapel Colin' edit. Maybe we could have a vote on which one people prefer? Worth a try at least. Colin4C 09:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My changes on the other hand have now been made and reverted out twice. I vote that reverting is rude. Don't do it. Seriously, we don't vote in a situation like this, we compromise. --John 14:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never made a blind revert without going through and readding edits made in the meantime that I thought were helfpul. I originally disagreed with many of John's so only restored some of those, but he convinced me on some others. As far as Clpo13's comments go, actually, no, punctuation does not go inside the quotation marks in British English punctuation rules. This article is about a topic based in England and thus we need to follow the rules used there, not American English. This time I restored the article to your version over Colin's blind and rude revert, but I think that it probably has errors in it now that need to be corrected. DreamGuy 16:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I realized it's Wikipedia policy to use logical quotation as opposed to typesetter's quotation (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks), so I'm wrong on that point (funny how everything I learned in English class turned out to be wrong). But the bit about references still stands. Anyways, the main point is just to go through and remove things (or add them) manually instead of rolling back or undoing wholesale. As long as everyone agrees to do that, I'm good. --clpo13_(talk) 18:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and that's what I was trying to do. Based upon the severe nature of Colin's edits I did have to start by a wholesale revert and then readding manually. Both ways require manual editing, but I just picking the one that required less. Colin certainly was not doing any manual editing and certainly did not give any rationale for removing the large number of things that got wiped out in the process. DreamGuy 19:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what about references going after punctuation? Do you just mean that if there is punctuation and a ref there the ref goies second? If so I definitely agree. If you mean however that refs can never go in a sentence except after a punctuation mark that seem to be a rather odd way of doing things. If we have a sentence in which the reference proves a certain part of it and not the whole thing, and if that reference doesn't happen to have conveneient punctuation there, I think we need to have the ref with the statement being referenced instead of at the end. Perhaps that'd be an argument to edit the sentence so that the individual thoghts are broken into separate parts instead of having a longer sentence, I don't know, but we need to be very clear about what reference backs up what point. DreamGuy 19:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Having it in the middle of a sentence isn't a problem so long as the reference specifically backs up the part preceding it, so that's not what I was referring to. My original intent was just that refs at the end of a sentence (or a clause) go after the periods (or commas, semicolons, or colons). But yes, keep references with the relevant parts of a sentences. Sorry for the confusion. --clpo13_(talk) 02:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Works for me. DreamGuy 22:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I was the one who requested the page protection over at WP:RFPP. I requested it there instead of doing it myself because of past edit conflicts between myself and DreamGuy. The protection was thus placed by a neutral admin. The protection was requested because of the continued reverts back and forth by multiple editors. I am still an admin, however, and if all three of the involved editors here reach a point where they agree that the reverting will not resume, and all three (especially DreamGuy) have no problem with my using my admin powers in the following way, I would be willing to lift the protection. Absent that, you all will either need to find your own neutral admin to lift it, or request it be lifted at WP:RFPP. But again, WP:RFPP is unlikely to lift it until the core issues that were resulting in the continual reverts are dealt with. - TexasAndroid 19:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless of past edit conflicts, based upon your very recent comments on my talk page and the inaccuracies you added to the ANI thread that got me temporarily blocked for a reason that even the admin who did so later admitted was completely baseless, I think you would agree it would be unreasonable at this time for you to be considered a neutral party.

Based upon Colin's blind reverts here and his continuing to do so even after he claimed he was going to respect consensus I don't anticipate that we would be able to unlock the page anytime soon. We need to have a discussion and have the outcome be clear and unambiguous. We had that in the past when his first attempt to make these changes was rejected, but since consensus can change we need to spell it out again. In the meantime it is correct to lock the page on the version with more references, the spelling errors corrected, and the victims section set to the last acknowledged consensus version. DreamGuy 19:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Whitechapel Murders

I have restored trashed info on The Whitechapel Murders because they are are a discrete police file of what the police in 1888-91 thought were linked murders. See info on the police file here from the Met Police website: Met Police UK - Ripper, . How many of them were killed by Jack the Ripper is subject to debate then as now. The 'canonical five' first appeared in an unofficial note by a police-officer (McNaughton) who was not the leader of the investigation. Other leading officers such as Frederick Abberline had different ideas about how many were killed by the Ripper. For instance the non-canonicals such as Tabram were thought by many of the police (including Abberline) then and many investigators now as victims of the Ripper. Mixing up Tabram etc with the fictitious Fairy Fay, the American Carrie Shakespeare and others who were never ever suspected as Ripper victims is not helpful. In conformance with the wikipedia guidelines I am going to confine my remarks to matters of substance and not make personal attacks. Colin4C 08:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, per all the discussion above you KNOW you do NOT have consensus to do so, and in doing so you are wiping out a large number of EXTREMELY important edits. You need to stop and get people to agree to your radical new version BEFORE you make the change. In the meantime we are going with the longstanding consensus version, per Wikipedia standards on such disputes. Starting a whole new section to make the exact same disputed claims you made above and ignore all the reasons why you are wrong does not in any way justify your behavior. DreamGuy 16:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that the article's fully protected, I stronglhy suggest that the both of you either find a mediator or go off somewhere and duke it out. This behavior of reverting and re-reverting, discounting edits and the general lack of AGF and civility is both boring and tiresome - and it will get one or both of you blocked in short order. So, find a way to deal with your problems constructively, respectfully and professionally or find somewhere else to edit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have assumed good faith until such point as no reasonable person could continue to believe that actions were made in good faith. I have repeatedly over and over acted with professionalism here while you have falsely accused me of name calling, blind reverting and now (below) sockpuppeting and so forth. Please do not try to lecture other people when your own behavior leaves much to be desired. DreamGuy 18:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not accused you of sockpuppetry, DG - if I thought it, I would simply report it. I was offering you the opportunity to defuse the situation by admitting to editing under the anonymous IP. If you feel that my attempts to assist you in this endeavor were in fact attacks, I must candidly state that that impression was certainly not one which I would wish to convey. I do, however, admit to being stymied over your reticence to step up and avoid problems. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And I am frustrated by your continuing attempts to invent them up out of thin air. DreamGuy 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, i do not understand what you mean. What am I continuing to attempt inventing out of thin air? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a reference to the last sentence of your previous comment. DreamGuy 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"A matter of some importance"

As well, I would specifically like to know if DreamGuy has posted to the article and discussion as User: IP 71.203.223.65. I consider this matter of some importance, for if you are, i need to know that you will stop doing that. If you are not posting as that IP address, I think it would be a small matter to simply say, 'no, I haven't posted under that IP address. Please answer the question. Everyone gets a level playing field, and no one gets to bring in socks to defend their edits. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, and as I have already repeatedly explained to you on my talk page, your demands here are really quite bizarre. I don't know what you think the policies on Wikipedia are, but there are no rules that say anyone has to sign in, so the question is completely irrelevant. There are also no rules that you can insist upon answers to any question you think up and keep demanding it over and over.

Furthermore, you are now accusing me of using sockpuppets, which is nothing but a violation of WP:AGF (which is interesting because of your claiming immediately above that other people were violating it -- please also see Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black). But, beyond that, it is downright deceptive because if I were editing under that IP address it most certainly would not be accurately called a sockpuppet. Sockpuppets are multiple accounts to try to give the false view that more than one person for false consensus building or to avoid 3RR enforcement and so forth. Even if every IP address that has been editing this page in the last month were me (which of course they aren't) there would be no sockpuppeting going on here. Using that term is either simply trying to insinuate wrongdoing for no valid reason or a massive misunderstanding of what the term means.

At this point it'd be best for you to stop this whole line of nonsense and focus on improving the article instead of... whatever it is exactly you are doing. DreamGuy 18:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As you said, you cannot be all of the anonymous IP addresses that have posted here, but that isn't really what I asked (and not "demanded", as you have mischaracterized) you, DG; I asked if you were one, specific IP address: 71.203.223.65. You will note that the edits of this anonymous user (which are unlike that of an anonymous user, which has little in the way of an edit history) seems to have an edit history spanning back over a few months. You will also note that this IP address seems to make edits, which you then defend (pretty much the definition of a sockpuppet). Now, if you were just continually editing and began editing specific IP address of 71.203.223.65 and then signed in to further edit, I am unsure as to why you would not simply admit that. If the edits were not yours, I am not sure why you wouldn't admit that, either. By avoiding answering what appears to me to be a very simple question, you are fostering a belief that there is a specific reason why you aren't answering, such as a binding ruling from a prior ArbCom prohibiting you from creating different IPs and editing under them or editing uncivilly, and I imagine that the content of the anonymous posts would constitute a violation of that. If that is the reason you are choosing to not respond, the failure to respond is very much an answer in itself.

I am not accusing you of having sockpuppets, DG. I am pointing out how pointedly avoiding a very simple 'yes' or 'no' question about whether you were editing under a specific IP can cast doubts as to your sincerity. It is that sort of behavior which causes the erosion of AGF. And I think that perhaps you are misunderstanding the usage of the 'pot calling the kettle back' metaphor; for it to be effective, both of the parties have to have been admonished for creating different IPs before, and I have no other accounts aside from this one.

I am very sorry that you feel the question is in some way bizarre. It seems to be a very simple matter to answer yes or no. Perhaps you can resolve the matter rather quickly: did you previously edit this article under the IP address 71.203.223.65? If you cannot recall the IP address, perhaps this post can help you recall, or this one. It would seem a simple matter to admit you were the author of those posts or not. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The question originally was very simple, and I could very well have answered it, but it's clear that you attach more meaning to it than actually exists and that you are asking for a specific reason that appears to be part of some strategy of making some accusation. Based upon your bizarre behavior and your rather uncivil approach I decided, as is my right, to not answer it.

It is also clear that your claim to not be accusing me of sockpuppeting is false when you outright said "no one gets to bring in socks to defend their edits" as if my not answering you means that was what I did.

You are now trying to ignore the fact that your behavior here has been a violation of all the very policies you keep asking people to follow. Trying to characterize my not choosing to respond when you have no right to demand it as eroding good faith is just nonsense. It's more of you outright assuming bad faith and trying to come up with any insinuation or accusation you can come up with to try to get things away from the topic of the article itself. I would again encourage you to be civil, assume good faith, and work toward improving the article.

One last time: You have no right to demand anything, your none too subtle accusations that I am operating out of bad faith or using sockpuppets are completely wrong, posting the same thing over and over (either here or my talk page) in no way accomplishes anything, and I will no longer respond to this tactic of yours. DreamGuy 20:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that my requests (and whatever implications you have drawn from those requests) have violated any policy in Wikipedia, I invite you to discuss the matter with an admininstrator, and report me thusly. I don't think I've violated any of the rules, and I am fairly certain tha ti have not violated them here in this article whatsoever.

Furthermore, I apologize if you feel my questions (again, not "demands") were somehow "part of a strategy"; I was simply asking a question about an anon poster who seemed to write the way you did, an I wanted to ensure that if it had been you, we could nip the matter int he bud and avoid anyone running to ArbCom suggesting that you were socking and being uncivil. You - and anyone else here - will note that I have been unfailingly polite and charitable to you in all of our interactions. When you were blocked, i specifically asked the blocking admin to have you unblocked, that you be offered a chance to be 'caught doing something right' instead of constantly being penalized for doing something wrong.

I am very sorry that you continue to misinterpret my actions and statements as being somehow a threat to you. Were you to simply answer the question as to the IP usage, I am sure we could put the matter to rest. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper A-Z

I'm going to see if I can obtain Begg, Fido and Skinner's Ripper encyclopedia The Jack the Ripper A-Z from the library and see if they have an entry on the notion of the 'canonical five' to check out the history and status of this notion, who believed it and when etc. So far in this article the notion of a 'canonical five' has just been assumed without references. I think a new edition of the book is coming out next year which should be helpful to us here to see the current state of research on this topic Colin4C 17:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The last edition of the A-Z came out ages ago and isn't going to give any more information than what other books have to say on the topic. The claim that the canonical fiv has just been assumed without references is just nonsense. There is a whole line of references at the end of the article, and the information can be found in basically any of them.

Also, the new A-Z is planned for February, but it's not the final word on the topic by any means. The authors have very definite views of their own which often contradict the views of many (if not most) other authors (Begg and Fido, for example, are the two strongest supporters of the Mad Polish Jew theory), and other books by equally respected authors need to also be used as references. There's no need to wait for the new A-Z to come out when we already have a umber of experts weighing on the topic. DreamGuy 20:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Just done a bit of googling. Much of the internet stuff about the 'canonical five' seems to merely refer to our wikipedia entry. There is nothing on who in any authority established the canonicity of the canonical five. The Met police do not have an official view on this. It just seems to be an undefined assumption or 'factoid'. This is fairly interesting but doesn't answer the question:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/ripperoo-why.html Colin4C 19:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Googling? I might suggest you read the books in the reference section of this article instead of just hopping around the web. Encyclopedia articles here need to be based upon the full expert wisdom on the topic, not just what somebody can find on the web. DreamGuy 20:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I prefer getting info from books (especially the ones I have myself written or edited...[don't panic folks - no conflict of interest - none of them was about Jack the Ripper]), but I will give the internet a chance once in a while. Amazing how often it refers you to a dubious wikipedia article though...However, saying that, the wikipedia IS improving. I'm actually starting to believe in the project...Colin4C 21:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

Alright, well, as the the article is locked, we have to move forward. A number of sections above were created to talk about side issues, and since they don't reflect the controversy that was ongoing and seem to be going into all sorts of new things, I think it's important we get back to the differing versions of the article that went back and forth and see which parts are the real controversy, which parts were just getting erased or restored because of Colin and Arcayne blind reverting the article, and what can be agreed upon to get the article fixed up. I'll have subsections below to try to organize this.DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find a great deal more cooperation from me by perhaps restraining your need to take jabs at those who disagree with you. I have stated on at least five different occasions that I did not blindly revert you. I knew what I was doing, would do it again, and since you are now finally addressing the edits, maybe it would behoove all of us for you to knock off the mischaracterizations. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's a mischaracterization to say that you blind reverted the article when the list of changes below include a number of things you now say never should have happened but that you were responsible for putting into the article. You say, for example, of the spam link I removed: "It is utter dreck, and should never darken the doorstep of this article again." yet this edit of yours was what put it back in. Note also that your edit comment there falsely accuses me of blind reverting while it was in fact exactly what you were doing at the time. Yeah. You see now why your accusations are completely misplaced? DreamGuy 19:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you forgot the title of the section you started? It was called 'Moving Ahead', right. Now, if you wish to keep taking pot shots at those you are going to have to work with, we can do that, and your uncivility will almost certainly get you blocked. However, if you wish to actually address the article instead of pointing out how the world and all its inhabitants have wronged you, that might be more in keeping with what I think (or, rather, hope) you were trying to do. Needless to say, I am more interested in working the article. How about you?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)

I am clearly moving forward, as I have addressed the changes and facilitatd discussion of every point in dispute. Unfortunately you still insist upon making false statements, such as "your uncivility will almost certainly get you blocked" for one, as I am not being uncivil, merely responsing factually to your mischaracterizations. If you honestly wanted to work on improving the article, you could drop the false accusations, own up to your misbehavior, and move on. In fact I have been asking people hee to do just that the whole time. If you are unwilling to apologize, please at least just stop making personal attacks. But if you lash out at people with statements that can and have been shown to be untrue then you should expect the truth to be pointed out. DreamGuy 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of owning up, were you editing this article under the IP address 71.203.223.65? I haven;t done anything incorrect or uncivil in this article, DG. I don't consider it false to suggest that incivility on your part would result in your being blocked, as per your ArbCom probation. If you were keen on repeatedly telling everyone on how I (and others) have been making "false accuations", you would respond to the repeated requests to actually define these accusations. If any statments I have made are untrue, do be so kind as to "point out" the truth. Please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not spread out this stuff all over the talk page and act like I haven't pointed out the truth elsewhere on this page already. You have said you did not blind revert the article, for example, and this has been very solidly disproven below as you yourself admit you did a full revert and did not care about the content. You also have falsely accused me of blind reverting the article when I have clearly pointed out that my edits also went in and tried to preserve all the solid contributions made by others since my last edits, and which is supported by the edit history of the article. In fact from discussion of specific points that you reverted out of the article you have clearly said you agree with having the article the way I had it in more of the disputed sections than not but felt justified in reverting them all anyway. And there are countless other such examples now spread all over this page. Trying to claim otherwise is just silly. DreamGuy 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that has been solidly proven is that you apparently aren't very good about moving on (the name you actually gave to this section). Yes, i reverted your edit, and the edit had a good faith purpose of stopping the edit warring you were participating in. If you felt it blindly reverted out what you had put in the article, and utterly miss the point that you were edit-warring about it instead of asking an admin for assistance, then I guess it really doesn't matter how you characterize anything, as you aren't really seeking to discuss matters but instead to argue for your point of view and your point of view alone. You are certainly in for a bumpy ride, as I don't particularly agree with either your pov or your method of communicating it. And it did not escape notice that you failed to address your usage of the anonymous IP address? I wonder why you continue to avoid that subject? Is it because you were specifically told to not edit via anonymous IPs to evade editorial scrutiny? i would urge you to recall the saying about how folk in glass houses shouldn't throw stones - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference tags

Colin's version had tags asking for more footnotes and references, and my recent version did not, largely because I had added a fair number of footnotes since the tags were placed there and they seemed to not apply anymore. Colin's edit both removed all the references and footnotes and also added back the tags saying more references were needed. Seems kind of counterproductive, but hey. When the references are kept, I think the tags aren't necessary, and that individual sections that need references should be tagged as such to better help us track them down. Thoughts? DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that some tags are going to be necessary; you are apparently immersed in this subject (what with the website and all), so it might be a forest for the trees-type situation. Some fresh pairs of eyes might help point out things that might need citation for exploration. that said, it might be a WP:DUST issue, and we can just wait until matters simmer down before looking at that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are grasping at with the "website and all" comment, but the point here is that if you find things later that you think still need citations, by all means add a tag to them individually. What's up for discussion here is the tags that produced huge boxes at the top of the article insisting that the whole article needed footnotes and references. Do you think there are so many missing references that the entire article gets flagged as being deficient in this way? DreamGuy 19:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've never really liked the more general article and section tags regarding uncited info. I prefer to put them by the statements in question, and don't care if they ugly up the article - it allows for targeted searches for citable references. While I was making a fairly clear point about the website, and not "grasping", its clear that you understood it. Maybe you could be imposed upon to take a less confrontational tack when addressing comments. I am not sure how you would feel about being mischaracterized, but i can assure you that I edit in good faith, and don't feel those are necessarily justified. I would like to ask you to stop using those sorts of descriptors, at least in your conversations with me. Thanks in advance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"I am not sure how you would feel about being mischaracterized" -- sure you do, because you have consistently mischaracterized other people's edits. I don't know how you can argue that it's "clear" I understood something in some way other than how I responded. That's the definition of bad faith, and more importantly it should be clear to anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind who reads this what I was saying. Considering what I was talking about and your response not having anything to do with that, I clarified the point nder discussion to try to remove any doubt.

Point out how and when I have mischaracterized your edits, DG. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's already been pointed out several times, as anyone who reads the comments on this page can quite clearly see. Also, please do not add your own responses in the middle of my comments, as it makes it difficult for others to follow later. DreamGuy 21:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, moving on, you say you don't like the general tags at the top, so then we are in agreement that they should not be there. Great. DreamGuy 15:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AGREED that the article stays AS IS without any boxes at the top saying more footnotes or citations required.

Actually, it will stay as is unless or until someone else alters it. And now, we move on. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Which isn't helpful, as the whole point to having the article locked is so that people won't be making changes they know are under dispute. If you intend to change it later after the page in unlocked, then you should state an objection and try to support it here. DreamGuy 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting such; I was pointing out that your use of absolutist language wasn't really adding to the spirit of community editing. Wouldn't you agree that working with others is helpful? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As we seem to disagree as to the application of reference tagging (you think none, whereas I think they should be applied as necessary), I've struck through the text noting agreement. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

killer (or killers)

Colin's edit (I'm not sure if he originally removed it or if his revert just added it back with all sorts of other things) removed the "(or killers)" part of "an unidentified serial killer (or killers)". I think this is a pretty straightforward necessity thing to have, per WP:NPOV rules. We do not know if there was one killer or more than one, and certainly the people who think that the killings known as the "Ripper murders" (as separate from the Whitechapel unsolved murder file) were either not killed all by the same hand or may have possibly had more than one individual involved at the same time think there is more than one killer, so I can't see any rationale at all for having the article remove that phrase so that it tries to outright claim there was only one killer. We do not take sides here, and as nobody can prove there was only one person and many (if not most) think there was more than one person responsible for all those murders, this is very important to keep. That was the clear consensus in the past, and various editors have inserted that phrase back whenever anyone tried to argue there was only one killer. DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

ithink the wording is what bugs me about this, there is an implication - from the wording - that the murders might have been committed by two or more people working on concert to commit them. I think that something first noting that the number of actual murder attributable to Jack is a point of debate before noting that a number of suspects exist. the statement needs improvement. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The wording might be able to be improved, but "that the murders might have been committed by two or more people working on concert to commit them" is in fact an opinion of a number of writers on the topic. Removing the part that clearly raises this possibility and leaving only the idea that one person was responsible is making the article take a specific POV, which of course not how things are done here. DreamGuy 19:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And the information to whichyou alluse is best served addressed on the pages for the List of suspects, and not in this main article. there is nothing in the article currently that addresses these theories. Not in the article = not in the Lead. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not being discussed in the article is no excuse for giving a biased view of a topic, especially when you were the one who removed it being discussed in the article in the first place. By WP:NPOV policy we cannot take a side on the topic, so it has to stay. This is also in line with longstanding consensus on the topic, as it has been discussed mltiple times in the past. Without some sort of clear, policy-following reason supported by a consensus of editors here you cannot remove those words. So, despite your disagreement, that's how it stands at this point. DreamGuy 15:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be exceptionally helpful for you to actually ensure that you make factual statements, DG. I was not the first person to remove the 'or killlers bit'. I think you are misinterpreting NPOV, as well. By not giving undue weight to theories that aren;t even presented outside of the Lead, it isn;t a breach of NOPV; it is simply good writing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not try to portray accurate statements as if they were inaccurate by putting up a straw man argument. I did not say you were the first one to remove it, and that's not relevant. The point is you are making arbitrary demands that the wording can't be a certain way without other content being present but then demanding that that other content not be there either. And it's certainly not undue weight to not take a side just because all of the sides aren't discussed in the article when none of the sides are covered in the article at all. The Jack the Ripper suspects article is where it is all covered. DreamGuy 21:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

How about we just cite that little bit? Would that be a good compromise? I can completely understand the undue weight concern, but if it is a valid theory that the Ripper might not have been a single person, it should be mentioned in some way. Citing it, if possible, would eliminate the undue weight problem. Then, later in the article, the actual theory can be expanded more. Does that sound fair? --clpo13_(talk) 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We can certainly cite a source saying there may have been multiple killers as a footnote, as there more than enough sources to choose from that acknowledge that it's a part of a variety of theories. But this article is not the place to expand the actual theory, as that's more suspect territory. DreamGuy 21:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Lead pretty much tells us that, since the Lead is a summary (or overview) of the article, if the content isn't in the body of the article, then it isn't going to be in the Lead (so, footnoting it doesn't help the situation in this case). If we aren't prepared to discuss the theory of multiple criminals working in concert (which the wording certainly suggests) in the article. I opt that the simplest solution is to remove it, which retains most of the article the way it is without having to bring forth more that we have to about the long list of suspects. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the choice is between citing it in the article and putting biased info there, we clearly have to cite it. There is no excuse for violating WP:NPOV. DreamGuy 23:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ripperologist term references

For some unknown reason Colin was removing the references to back up the statement that "Ripperologists" is well known term in the field for people who study the case. His early edits not only erased them but inserted a tag demanding a reference. The more recent one removed both the references and the tag. This seems pretty straightforward to me too, those references should stay. DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I noted before that we should note the first occurences to "Ripperology", and then move on. I think that we need to keep the quotation marks around the word, as it isn't a real science and is essentially a self-aggrandizing title generously applied by most folk who are interested inthe topic but do not actually hold any scientifc degrees being brought to bear. Noting the quotationmarks ensures that the claims made by "ripperologists" do not gain the air of scientific infallibility. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but you entire claim there is nothing but trying to enforce your bias against these authors onto the article. Quotes aroung words for no reason used in this way are called scare quotes specifically because they are intended to bias a reader. Certainly no experts mentioned on ANY article has the air of scientific infallibility. Furthermore this is history, not science, so expecting the writers to scientific degrees before they are credible in your mind is really quite bizarre. The term is jargon within the field and widely accepted by those outside of it as well. You certainly are in no position to pass judgment on the level of expertise of these authors. Some of them are historians with degrees in that field, some are former policemen with countless years of experience, and others come from a wide range of professional backgrounds and have invested years of study in the case. We go by Wikipedia policies on handling reliability. That means published authors and recognized experts in the field get treated as what, indeed, they are. It also means your personal bias is completely at odds with how things work here. DreamGuy 19:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to feel that they are scare quotes, DG; be that as it may, until someone graduates with a graduate degree in "Ripperology", they can then consider themselves a valid science. Until then, the term is a seld-applied term, and not reliably applied. The idinviduals with in the "field" - policemen and the like are usually defined by their actual occupation and/or advanced degree. Can Foresnic psychologists and policement be "Ripperologists"? Yes, they can. Can Hoe Schmo who maintains a website or is a geek playing Halo in the basement of his mother's house be a "Ripperologist"? Also too, yes. As the self-aggrandizing term can be adopted by anyone who's read a book or two, its best to deal with the actual qualifications of the folk involved. I am not passing judgment. I am evaluating the reliability of the term "Ripperology." If this is going to be an issue with you, I urge you to seek an immediate RfC on the matter, because I am not convinced that ther term is allthat reliably applied, and that the use of the term outside of quotation marks implies a scintific expertise that cannot be attributed to anyone who chooses to cloak themselves with the title. I will fully participate in the RfC on the matter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. The bottom line is that you are the only person here who has complained and lots of editors here -- not to mention the people in the field itself and ther sources making reference to it -- had no problem with it. Your arguments are clearly biased and not in line with policies. Ripperology has even been used as a title of not one but two books. That's about as reliable of a source as you can get. Whether they are scientists or not is completely irrelevant. There's no need for an RFC on something so basic, but, hey, if you want to, go ahead, I can't stop you. DreamGuy 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggested that if you object to the use of quotation marks to define what is at best junk science, you may certainly pursue the RfC on your own, as my opinion - and simple good common sense - is not going to be altered by your arguments. At least, thus far. As this is a point of contention, you will need to seek an RfC to resolve the issue. I am pretty sure I am on firm ground here. but you are welcome to seek outside assistance to mediate and or gain outside, neutral comment on the issue. Until you seek the RfC, I will stick with my intended edits. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I might remind you yet again that you do not WP:OWN this article. You cannot demand I file an RFC and state that you will have your way otherwise. The point is only in contention by you, and you alone, versus the people in the field in question, the other editors who edited this article and never had a problem with it, and Wikipedia WP:NPOV policies. If you want to file an RFC, by all means file one, but you've got nothing to go on here other than your very clearly demonstrated personal bias. Unless you have a strong consensus of editors to agree with you, the way the article has done it for years will stand as consensus. That's just how things are done here. You as a single opposed opinion cannot dictate what the article will or won't have or what must be done before you will allow it to be some other way. If you have already stated your intent to ignore that process and make controversial edits against consensus, then it's a good thing the article is locked, I guess. DreamGuy 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would equally point out that you don't WP:OWN the article either, DG, and again, i would like to point out fro the nth time that deliberately choosing to mischaracterize my requests or suggestions as "demands" is indeed uncivil (remember your ArbCom limitation about such behavior). Of course, if you can point out a single instance wherein I used the actual word "demand", please feel to point it out here. Otherwise, perhaps you can be encouraged to cease with the mischaracterizations. I suggested that the level of notability implied by the self-aggrandizing term "Ripperologist" lends itself to more credibility than the admitted pseudo-science actually deserves. I have seen nothing here or in the article that would convince me otherwise, and since your opinion on the subject is not likely to change, I suggested that you might want to escalate this matter to a Request for Comment (RfC) so as to have some fresh eyes from outside the subject weigh in. Of course, you shouldn't have a problem with this. Specifically as you do not have a consensus to retain the field without quotation marks, and I currently do not have one for them in, it isn't really decided, and in the cases of dispute, the disputed part is removed until its resolved. And that is actually how things are done around here. Actually, its one of the reasons the article has been locked - these sorts of issues. I certainly hope you realize that sometimes, your edits are going to be reverted for any variety of reasons. As I said in my initial defense of your edits, they won't be due to whimsical reasons, but because of good faith reasons. If you see me as biased against the pseudo-science of "Ripperology", conside that your unremitting defense of it (and personal identifier as such) indicates a bias in favor of it.

As I said before, if you wish to further debate the issue, please follow the protocols for seeking input on the issue, be they Mediation, RfC or, if it comes to such, ArbCom. I am afraid that, at this point, you haven't convinced me that the term as is deserves to remain unedited. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

L. Perry Curtis

For some unknown reason Colin kept removing the spelling fix I made to L. Perry Curtis' name in the reference about newspaper growth. His name is L. Perry, not Perry L., and it needs to stay that way. (Also, later on in the article at one point a section about how newspapers were growing had a needs ref tag on it, but as that's what was already mentioned here and already referenced that was unnecessary.) He also removed the ISBN code for some reason. DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that after you pointed that out, he changed it. A non-issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, no he didn't. I would hope it's a non issue, but since he insisted upon reverting it over and over so that the page got locked, I am trying to clarify if it is an issue with anyone or if it was just damage he caused while blind reverting. DreamGuy 19:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not keen on spending the time to find the Diff where he corrected himself, so we'll consider it a non-issue and leave it at that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As he never corrected himself, as is clear in his last edit to the page, pretending that you are right and that you just can't be bothered to prove it is an odd choice. I also note that you also had changed the spelling back to the wrong version. I agree that it never should have been an issue in the first place and that the fix was obviously needed, but as you and him both removed it I had to ask if you really intended to do so so we can move forward on the article. As you now admit that it shouldn't be that way, that's at the very least two of us against Colin's vote (should he decide to vote to have it spelled wrong), so it's been decided and no longer an issue. I'll tag this section so we know this one isn;t controversial. DreamGuy 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AGREED that the article stays AS IS on the spelling of this name. DreamGuy 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
AGREED that the spelling is correct and isn't disputed.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

anatomical knowledge ref

Similarly odd was that Colin removed a reference to Evans and Skinner's Ultimate JTR Companion to back up the fact that organ removals, etc., led some people at the time to suspect anatomical or surgical knowledge. The coroner outright made that claim, and the book documents his words and the police's efforts to track down any medical students known to have mad mental problems. I see no justification for removing the reference. DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nor do I. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. I'll tag it as uncontroversial then.

AGREED that the article stays AS IS on the topic of this reference. DreamGuy 15:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Victims

The big one, and the one that may very well be the only change Colin cared about and all the other reverts were just collateral damage from his efforts to shove this one through without discussion. To be brief, there have been a large number of proposed victims of Jack the Ripper. We need a way to organize the list so it's manageable, and we should do so following the lead of the police at the time and the modern experts in the field. Overall that, without a doubt, is to talk about the Canonical Five -- the term used by modern authors (for about 30 years now) to describe the five victims Macnaghten mentioned in an official report to the Home Office on the status of the investigation. The officials at the time tended to agree with this list, with some here and there adding or removing one, but they were doing so from this main group and not any other group. The Whitechapel Murders file, of which these five were also included, was a list of unsolved murders in the East End, but was never thought to be the full list of victims of the Ripper. Certainly these other victims can and should be mentioned (and currently are), but there is no justification for highlighting all eleven when most officials and books focus on the main five. In fact many of them do not even mention any others at all. The way the current article frames the discussion is good, but of course the exact wording can be tweaked. Colin's demands that 11 people all be treated as equally important are wholly out of step with the officials at the time and virtually every modern scholar. DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost every book on the Ripper I have ever read starts off by mentioning the Smith and Tabram murders, then goes on to the 'canonical five' and then mentions the later murders up to 1891. Eg in Begg's 'Jack the Ripper: The Facts' we have:

Chapter 2 - Smith and others. (non-canonical!)

Chapter 3 - Tabram (non-canonical!)

Chapter 4 - Nichols

Chapter 6 - Chapman

Chapter 9 - Eddowes

Chapter 16 - Mary Kelly

Chapter 17 - the final four 'Whitechapel Murders' (non-canonical!)

I don't see why the 'non-canonical' Whitechapel murders some of which were then and are still are suspected of being commited by the Ripper (Tabram) should be mixed up with dubious victims identified by Ripperologists with too much time on their hands. 'Ada Wilson' for instance was first suspected of being a victim in 1987! 'Fairy Fay' never existed. Carrie Shakespeare died in America in 1891, long after the 'autumn of terror' and is mentioned in very few books on the subject. I think we should stick with the official police list of eleven - as listed in the Metropolitan Police files. Also of interest is that the police at the time suspected a guy called Sadler not only of killing Coles - the last of the Whitechapel murders, but of being the Ripper himself. Their case was not proven in court but it is still possible. But it seems suspected Ripper victim Coles must now be mixed up in a dubious list of 'others'! Alice McKenzie, one of the other later murders was suspected of being a Ripper victim by one of the pathologists (Dr Bond) who examined her. This pathologist had previously examined the bodies of other Ripper victims. Maybe Dr Bond, who examined the actual body, should be given more credence than speculative Ripperologists who have established a 'canon' not recognised by any official body. None of the Whitechapel murders was solved, so I am amazed that some people here can pronounce so confidently on them, based on no proof whatsover! Colin4C 11:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to separate arguments about who you think were most likely to be victims and not from the more important question of how the experts on the topic choose to frame their discussions about these topics. Of course the "canon" was not recognized by "any official body", but that's a pretty odd argument to be making when there is no official body that could have made such a recognition. The canonical five victims were recognized by the only official police report that offers any sort of conclusion on who was and was not a victim of Jack the Ripper, and they are recognized as the most likely victims by an overwhelming consensus of authors on the topic.

Regarding your citing of chapters in Begg's book, this is misleading as Begg certainly does not argue that all of them were Ripper victims, he is just chronologically going through a number of names in a file. Certainly the amount of pages given to each of these murder victims very clearly shows that the canonical five are the main thrust of his discussion. Chapters 2, 3, and 17 (which you label as "noncanonical!") are only 22 pages in total for the six noncanonical victims listed in the unsolved murders file of Whitechapel, for less than four pages of discussion per each murder case. The chapters specifically devoted by name to the canonicals vary from 15 pages (Nichols) to 47 pages (Kelly), but the intervening chapters also cover details of the investigation related to these victims, which would mean the total page count for the canonical five is much higher. This very clearly shows that Begg is focusing on the canonical five far and a way more than any others. And if we were to look at other books in the field this trend would be the same or even more drastic. Neal Stubbings Shelden's book The Victims of Jack the Ripper, for example, devotes no space to anyone except the canonical five, and other books do the same thing.

Regardless of your personal opinions on the matter, we have to follow both what the official documentation and the overwhelming majority of authors on the topic say. You should not try to portray merely listing the canonical five first and devoting the most time to them as if we are endorsing them and rejecting other, we are merely reporting that these are the ones most often discussed and giving the same weight of discussion about them that the experts do. We also discus other potential victims, and the facts you mention (that Tabram seems to be the noncanonical most often named as being also a Ripper victim, etc.) are already mentioned in this article. DreamGuy 17:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to start with the actual murders that folk and police of the period attributed to the same individual (Jack), and move from there, whittling down the list, from the Macnaghten memo and police arrests and releases. Then, we address the further whittling down (and additions like Albert, and Sickert and whatnot) as they come to light. this would appear to be a natural progression to me. it is for this reason that I think the infobox listing of the canonical five makes a certain number of assumptions that we an encyclopedia shouldn't be making.

As well, it might be possible to sub-page the list of victims, as we did with the list of suspects. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no clue what you mean by whittling down from police arrests and releases or Albert, Sickert and whatnot. Those have nothing to do with the list of victims. It sounds like you are talking about suspects instead.

Oops, I meant to put the names of victims that were added to the list laste. My bad. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But as far as starting with the murders attributed by period sources to the same individual, there is dispute about it, but the only one in an official police report is Macnaghten's. We can and do mention that the list might have one or two added or removed by various sources. It sounds like you are asking that the article contain what it already contains. DreamGuy 19:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Or suggesting that we maintain that evolution. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific here? I want to make sure we move forward on this, especially as it's the most controversial part, or the part Colin seems to have based all of his reverting around, so I want to be very clear on what you mean. Maintain the evolution... toward what? What sort of end content do you wish to see here? For the specific differences between Colin's version and the basic version as it had been for years (and is now), do you more want the full list of eleven unsolved murders (including the ones no sources then or now link to the Ripper) as being highlighted first, or do you want to start by mentioning the main five that the official document named? DreamGuy 16:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am actually of two minds on this, DG. On one hand, I think its simply more concise and encyclopedic to simply list the Canonical Five (and yes, the first usage of this term, as Macnaghton didn;t refer to them as such, will need to be cited). On the other, I think it might be more instructive in showing the chaos that surrounded (and some would say corrupted) the investigation, detailing all of the victims claimed during the period to be the work of Jack and whittling down the unlikely victims from that.

I am not sure why both cannot be done, though. I mean, list the ones that are most considered to be the work of a single killer, monikered Jack the Ripper, and then show how that number was arrived at not only by Macnaghton, but by subsequent authors. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that what you say you want is essentially the basic structure of what the article already has... The Canonical Five is listed first (and, no, first usage does not have to be cited, only proof that it is currently used, as Macnaghten didn't have to use the term in order for it to be used here... and I don't know why you are still arguing the point, as a professional source written by an expert explaining the first usage is already cited in the article) and others are listed after, followed by how various people came to the conclusions they did. DreamGuy 20:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are claiming expertise for someone who doesn't have the authoritative credentials to back it up. We need to cite the first usage of the term 'canonical five', specifically because it is utilized by subsequent authors. If you don't know when it was, or don't have a citation for the first time it was used, its okay to say so. We'll just need to find it before we can move on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Investigation section differences

There are a number of miscellaneous differences to this section. I'm not sure how many of these are due to Colin's explicit changes or him just reverting to an old version to get his preferred victims section back and losing other edits in the process. Notable differences include that his version adds a section on brief suspect John Pizer (who fits better in a discussion of suspects and is indeed given much space in the Jack the Ripper suspects article and seems out of place here mentioned all by his lonesome when a number of other people had been arrested and provided alibis -- furthermore the sentence was factually incorrect, as Piser was not suspected after the Chapman murder but after the Nichols murder and so forth), moves the paragraph about the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee of 1888 until after the (IMO, unnecessarily long) paagraph about some modern documentary's EFIT image (thus breaking the chronological order of this section quite dramatically), and argues some POV views that the police acted as modern investigators would and explored "every imainable spot" for information (while some authors have this view, many others do not, and I personally think it's better to just describe what they did do instead of trying to argue that it was good or bad). I think these all work better as they currently are instead of how Colin had them, but if someone has an argument on individual points here, pull them out for discussion. DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems okay as of now, although the neutrality tags are correct in pointing out the poor writing of the section. Indeed, this is a problem with much of the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Err, there is only one neutrality tag, and I added it, and it wasn't for poor writing but for an opinion I did not feel meets WP:NPOV policy. I'm not sure what parts you think have bad writing, there or in the rest of the article, but if you want to discuss specifics later and in a different section, by all means do so. DreamGuy 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of things that had been been getting reverted, which is what this section is about, Arcayne said that as it is now version is acceptable, so that looks agreed upon:

AGREED that the article stays AS IS in this section, at least in respect to the parts that had been reverted back and forth. DreamGuy 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC) AGREED - barring new or better cited info, the section should remain as is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Shaw quote

Colin's revert removed a reference for George Bernard Shaw's quote and also changed the spelling of a word in the section so it was different from what Shaw had written. Neither one seems to be at all reasonable.DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could list the diff here for inspection? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at his last revert of the article. Scroll down to the Bernard Shaw quote. There you go. I can't list it individually as he did it as part of an article-wide revert. DreamGuy 19:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. maybe you could assume a good faith edit in that he misspelled a word, and move on. misspellings tend to happen even with the most meticulous of editors. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if he had typed it himself then misspelling it would make sense as a possible explanation. But, considering that in his edits he both ignored the clear note there which read "He spelled it with two Ls, do not try to adjust spelling on historical documents" and removed the book which was the source for the statement, a mere misspelling wouldn't really be a reasonable explanation. For what it's worth, WP:AGF does not mean rationalize away the bad behavior of you and someone you were helping while at the same time lashing out at people who were doing exactly what Wikipedia policies say they should do. DreamGuy 15:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AGREED that the article stays AS IS on the original spelling and the reference for this letter. DreamGuy 15:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

further versus main in popular culture reference

For some reason the current version of the popular culture section has a tag that says "for further information" and then a link that doesn't link to the article in question instead of the "main article" with a link that Colin's had had. I think that was someone else's change in the middle. At the very least we need a working link there. I also prefer having the main article link at the top of the section and a line in that first paragraph explicitly telling people that the fiction is covered on Jack the Ripper fiction and not here. This avoids people feeling the need to add nonnotable trivia that's barely even relevant on the other page (see next section). DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the further information tag, but I don't know why it didn't produce a link. I used that instead of a main article tag because the section was about the Ripper in pop culture, but there's no "Jack the Ripper in Popular Culture" article. The "Jack the Ripper fiction" is related, but not the main focus of the section, so I used the further tag. Strange that it's just text and not a link, though. Most template tags just require an article name, but it looks like the double brackets were needed for this one. If an admin could fix it, that would be great. --clpo13_(talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is definitely what we used to call in the Marines a clusterfuck. I think that a worthwhile discussion could be formed on what bits could be included in the article without sub-paging it, as a lot of the items in the Jack_the_Ripper_fiction page are entirely crufty, redlinked, non-notelworthy and/or obscure. A full editing of that article could render it to less than a quarter of what it is now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

By all means, go edit that page. I gave up on it a long time ago as a lost cause. DreamGuy 20:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I might very well do that. feel free to join in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like it's not controversial either:

AGREED that the article stays AS IS (after an admin made the change under discussion here and below). DreamGuy 16:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fiction trivia

Colin's reverts added a mention about a Judas Priest song having a similar title, a mention of an old and minor film, and an extremely trivial reference to a minor appearance in a minor television program. All of these are already covered in the Jack the Ripper fiction article and do not add anything of notable enyclopedic value to the main Jack the Ripper article. DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See my comments in the section above in regards to this subject. Song titles are almost always non-noteworthy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. But then you put the trivia back after I had removed it, including specifically a song title. DreamGuy 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that was when I was trying to stop the edit-warring between you (and your anonymous IP editing address) and Colin, consisting on a single edit, and asking the both of you to stop and come to the discussion page to discuss your edits. I believe this single occurence was what you termed my big and crazy time of all my blind reverts (wherein you confuse Colin and me a few times). :)

Eitehr way, no harm, no foul. We are agreed in that it should be there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

First, you don't stop edit warring by edit warring yourself. Second, the discussion page was already used by myself. Third, here you go yet again jumping to conclusions about an IP address. Fourth, you yourself did not know what was in the edits you made and said you did not care, which is the definition of blind reverting. Fifth, now you are claiming you only reverted the page once, but you did revert it earlier without looking at the edits in question as well. To sum up, basically everything you claimed above is incorrect. Please do not try to rewrite the history of your edits to make yourself look better, as it won't fool anyone and it's certainly not demonstrating good faith. DreamGuy 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are incorrect in practically every one of your assertions, and stating that I am trying to fool others is in fact a personal attack. I would ask that you cease immediately with the personal attacks. this is the only warning I will provide you on this matter before reporting you to ArbCom. Please never confuse my politeness with a willingness to tolerate being attacked. You might wish to re-read NPA and CIVIL very carefully before responding. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are not policies that were created so that they could be used by people who do not follow them themselves as clubs against others as part of petty personal disputes. I am bending over backwards here to treat you very civilly, especially considering your actions. ArbCom can and will sort out good faith claims from bad faith ones, so I should have nothing to worry about. DreamGuy 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, those policies were formed to protect people from arbitrary attack by others, and it is certainly used as a club to swat down those who fail to follow them. As you've been specifically bound to be civil (because of issues inthe past with 'ad hominem attacks' and editing under fake accounts to evade editorial oversight), I think that it is understandable that you would consider these policies to be weapons. they aren't. They are guidelines to help guide your behavior. I certainly hope that you find them useful. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite off topic odd behavior, this looks agreed upon as well:

AGREED that the article stays AS IS without nonnotable fiction and music trivia. DreamGuy 16:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite disingenuine jabs by others, I also

Agree - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture references

Colin's revert also removed a number of references in the section. He took out a book that supports the claims made about about the Mansfield play about Dr. Hyde. He reinserted a tag requesting proof for the idea that the legend of the Ripper is promoted in the East End when there is already a reference in that sentence to there being regular tours of the Ripper sites held. He also readded a tag asking for proof that the ten Bells was a focus of these tours, when we have a source in the next sentence tht supports both of these sentences. He also removed a reference to a website listing nonfiction Ripper books and added a tag demanding proof that there were more than 150 such books. He also readded the word "published" in place of "introduced" which would lead readers to assume wrongly that all of these titles have been published continuously since the 1990s. DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you may be a bit confused, as some of those edits were in fact mine, and not Colin4C's. I added the tag to the Ripper tours because it needs to becited that such a thing exists. I also added a tag requesting verification of the claim that over 150 books on the subject of Jack the Ripper exist. I am not sure, but i might have also substituted the published word based solely on readability issues. We can surely discuss a better structure, if you wish. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not confused... I said his revert removed the references, and have made it clear here that his blind reverting has been responsible for a large number of changes he probably didn't care about one way or another as long as he could get the victims section the way he wanted it.

That Ripper tours exist has already been cited. The number of nonfiction Ripper books also had a reference. Colin's edit not only removed the reference but added a demand that a reference be provided. So you are saying there should be references for those things, and there are already. I'm sure you would agree that removing the references and then adding a tag looking for references is a bad idea. DreamGuy 19:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly would, unles it was a crap reference, which would have to be discussed here, and not edit-warred over. Wouldn't you agree? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's a crap reference, go ahead and discuss it here. There's no point in engaging in what ifs when you can easily look at the exact item up for discussion. But as a general principle, yes, of course anybody can and should discuss things here if it's controversial, but then this doesn't appear to have ever actually been controversial, it appears to have been removed as part of clumsy blind reverts. We're trying to be clear on these things, so tell me if you object to the reference or not. If not then I'd like to mark this as agreed upon and focus on solving the things that are not. DreamGuy 15:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

MY comment was about the edit-warring you were engaging in with Colin, under both your Dreamguy account as well as the anonymous IP address. however, i am glad to agree with you that crap references need to be discussed before removal. What's crap to me might be "Ripperology" to you. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Again with the bad faith accusations and ucivil behavior. You're like a broken record here. And I never said that any references needed to be discussed before removal. Only controversial edits need to be discussed. Much of the edits on this list never were controversial at all, they simply ended up being changed as part of very clumsy blind reverting of the article... as further discussion here has proven. I would caution you to take the time to read for content and to not put words in other people's mouths. Over the past week you have on numerous occasions tried to claim that I said something or another of your own invention when actually reading the words shows I did not. DreamGuy 20:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What bad-faith accusation? What uncivil behavior? You keep offering these accusations and never seem to go into detail about them. If I've noted your uncivil usage of an anonymous IP address, that is a statement of fact, not an accusation. If I've pointed out your uncivil behavior in edit-warring with another editor, it isn't uncivil to point out, nor is it either inaccurate or made in bad-faith.

You said "Over the past week you have on numerous occasions tried to claim that I said something or another of your own invention when actually reading the words shows I did not". Please point out where I have done this. This is your opportunity to point out where the one person who has been consistently defending you in this discussion has tried to claim anything that was untrue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Main references list

For some unknown reason he readded Patricia Cornwell's book to the reference section despite the fact that it was never used as a reference for anything in this article (which is good, as it's generally regarded as one of most error-filled titles on the topic)... and despite the fact that he himself says on this talk page that it's not a valuable reference. It seems pretty odd then that he would have made this edit. DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, time to stop beating up on Colin and concentrate on moving forward, as you suggested. if Cornwell wrote a book, then we have to mention it. If it is utter crap and was citably reviewed and/or dismissed as such, we can include that as well. We have readers who will have read that book alone on the subject and then come here wondering why there isn't any mention of it. If, out of the 150+ books that have been written, its been consistently considered the worst (which is saying a lot, considering Spiering's book Prince Jack), it becomes notable within the scope of the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"if Cornwell wrote a book, then we have to mention it." Why? It's not notable concerning any of the topics mentioned on this article. It is mentioned on the suspect page when Sickert is mentioned, and it also is mentioned on the Cornwell article and the Sickert article and has a full article for itself. It's listed in the JTR category.

And I didn't say "the" worst, I said "one of the"... Prince Jack would be worse, yes.DreamGuy 18:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it might need mentioning. I still think we need to include the main theories in the article, and cornwell's accusation of Sickert is in factr noteworthy, if for no other reason than everyone else inthe field of "Ripperology" dismissed it. I think it warrants further discussion, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You'd be very hard pressed to come up with a list of "main theories" that could be easily summarized without giving undue weight to one or another. If any sort of summary were attempted, I would argue that Cornwell's probably still isn't noteworthy compared to the police theories and some other contemporary writers' theories. Of course it should and is mentioned on a full article specifically on suspects, and within her article and the article of her suspect, and detailed in a full article on its own (maybe this could be listed as a See also here).

But, back to the part that I was trying to clear up. You and Colin kept adding Cornwell's book to the References section of this article as if it were used to write this article. Do you agree that it does not belong in the references section? Colin earlier said it didn't, which probably gives us consensus right there, but I'd like you to answer that specific topic, as that's what this was created to come to a firm conclusion on. DreamGuy 16:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, two people don't make a consensus, they make a ping-pong game. Considering the recent interaction between you two, its more like a deathmatch, lol. If other authors are listed in the references list without thir specific work being cited in the article, then so should cornwell's. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Two people, in additional to all the people who supported not listing it here in the past, certainly is a consensus. Also, please be WP:CIVIL. You also seem to misunderstand what the References section is for. Specific citations are listed separately. References are used in general for the background knowledge of the article and to form the basic understanding of the topic as used to write the article. That's exactly what the ones listed there now do. DreamGuy 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to stop you right there, DG. The prior consensus carries no eight in the current consensus. You are certainly entitled to think so, because you were a part of that prior consensus, but it simply isn't so anymore. And, by your definition, Cornwell belongs in the references section.

Again, i entreat you to point out where I was uncivil in my previous comment. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of people commenting her currently, the clearly stated opinion of editors who already weighed in on the topic in the past certainly is how consensus is determined. The fact that they are not here right this very minute does not change the fact that the discussion and decision already happened. If you get enough people to agree with you to change things, by all means, but one person voting for one way certainly doesn't overrule multiple editors both past and present.

"its more like a deathmatch, lol" certainly would not appear to be an attempt to stay civil, as it is a loaded characterization and trying to make a joke at other peoples' expense. Please read WP:CIVIL if you still don't understand.

And there's no way Cornwell belongs in references by my definition (which, by the way, isn't my definition but Wikipedia's, paraphrased). It certainly does not give general background information and basic understanding as used to write the article, as there's really nothing from her book in the article, and, considering how poorly received it was, there shouldn't be. But it is mentioned in the suspects article for where her suspect is discussed, and has it's own article, etc. 23:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

And lastly, Colin's edit for some reason added a link in the External links section promoting a site featuring some website for a film student who put some clip together with some actor friends of his. This link is not encyclopedic in the least, has no informational value, and if added by the creator would basically be spam. I removed it again, and I think it needs to stay gone. DreamGuy 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, too. It is utter dreck, and should never darken the doorstep of this article again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny, you put it there while complaining about other people blind reverting. DreamGuy 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny, you might want to take a closer look at that eidt summary, DG. It was my single revert of the version edit-warring, wherein you had prefaced your revert with the words: "reverting back to last good version, over the blind revert of an editor who has a long history of wikistalking me'', to which I reverted your edit - seen essentially as an attack edit with the following statement: "Well, I've never editied w/you before, and I'm reverting your blind reverts. Please see your User Talk page as well as the Discussion page fro this article, wherein I ask you to discuss your edits". I didn't care what was in the edit, DG. i saw you two going at, further destabilizing the article (as there is NEVER a good reason to edit war), and sought to calm things down and get the two of you to the Discussion page. Apparently it worked. Yay for me, and yay for the article.

Now that we are all on the same page, we can stop with the 'blind reverting' comments - right or wrong, it is no longer occurring and its continued use here is tendentious and corrosive to editor harmony. I am not picking specifically on you, DG - I have supported at every stage your right to edit peacably here, and have called Colin on some of his mistakes, as I've done with you. Please try to remain polite to your fellow editors. I am not asking you to be all chummy with us - I know that's not who you are (jusging from your edit history) but I would expect you to recognize the value of being polite and professional with your fellow editors. You aren't any better than any one of us, and continued contention on your part will only damage the ability of others to look at your edits neutrally. I know you are aware how difficult it is for you to deal with others looking at you like a troll, and I feel that frustration. I want you to have that chance to work with us instead of in spite of us. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You said "I didn't care what was in the edit, DG" -- I'm not sure what you think blind reverting is, but that's exactly what it is, and exactly what you were doing. You also claim "there is NEVER a good reason to edit war", which is of course exactly what you were doing when you blind reverted the article. If you cared about either of things you would not have made that edit. Regardless of whether you want to admit to me that you were wrong, you need to recognize that your behavior is not in line with what you expect other people to follow so you do not continue to take such actions in the future while at the same time pointing the finger at other people. As we can see from the long list of changes here that I made for which no one disagrees but yet were still being undone as part of the blind reverting, my edits were sound and justified, while you have no defense for yours other than wanting to undo what I did and tryig to claim you were somehow justified in doing the exact same thing you were falsely accusing me of doing. That's what's really corrosive to editor harmony. DreamGuy 15:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think my behavior here has been exemplary, DG, despite your mischaracterization of my revert which forced you and Colin to stop edit-warring and discuss your edits. the perception of your edits - both as your account DreamGuy and as the anonymous IP address - derived from your edit summaries didn't show a person interested in reslving a prolbem. They were the act of a seemling very angry person who didn't think to seek administrative assistance with the problem. I am unsure why you insist that nearly violating 3RR, uncivil language and personal attacks, and your continued refusal to admit that you were editing under an IP address (checkuser is indeed a nifty tool) places you on the side of angels here, but I can assure that that these aren't behaviors which inspire faith or credibility. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's clear you have a rather peculiar idea of what "exemplary" behavior consists of. That certainly does not include blind reverting, personal attacks, false accusations, not so subtle insinuations and so forth. DreamGuy 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello pot, meet kettle. Your mischaracterizations aside, you have yet to point out even a single instance of a false accusation, personal attack or insinuation. Please - as you've been invited to do earlier, take a moment and illustrate them. If you aren;t prepared to do so, i would point out that making unsupported accusations are in themselves uncivil and personal attacks. I welcome the opportunity to read instances of the behavior you claim I am exhibiting. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

AGREED that the article stays AS IS and that the link to the video is not allowed here. DreamGuy 15:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments please

Considering how much arguing was going on here, I find it odd that now that I am going point by point over the parts of the article that had been reverted back and forth that all but one of the sections that were getting reverted have not prompted discussion at all so far, and the other one has had very limited discussion. Where is everyone? Should I assume that all of the sections mentioned above that were part of Colin's reverts were mere collateral damage of his blind reverting the article to get the Victims section the way we wanted or does anyone have any comments on those? And what about other people weighing in on the canonical five? Comments, please. DreamGuy 17:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've stayed out of the content discussion because I know next to nothing about the Ripper and even less about his victims. I did comment on the further information bit, since that was my doing. --clpo13_(talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been involved with RL issues as well as the other parts of my watchlist. I had decided to sit back and wait for the pissing match to stop before getting involved again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)`

Fix needed for Jack the Ripper in Popular Culture section

Could someone add the double brackets inside the "further" tag at the top of the popular culture section? I added the template, but I forgot the brackets so it's not linking properly. So {{Further|Jack the Ripper fiction}} should become {{Further|[[Jack the Ripper fiction]]}}. Thanks. --clpo13_(talk) 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And for any admin who comes along, this is an uncontroversial and necessary change.DreamGuy 19:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed - TexasAndroid 21:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --clpo13_(talk) 00:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagging as AGREED

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

Proposal to get the page unprotected

Ok folks. Progress appears to be being made. Are the parties involved in enough agreement that the reverting will not resume if the page is unprotected? I'm not saying that all disputes need to be resolved, just that things are far enough along that progress can be made on an editable page without the reverts resuming. The current version would serve as the point from which to go forward, and disputed changes would continue to need to be worked out here in Talk. If all involved think that the discussions have reached this point, I would be willing/able to unprotect the page. If anyone thinks that things are not to this point, or that I should not unprotect it for any other reason, then I will not do so. Lack of a response will be taken as objection, as I really need agreement from all the players before I unprotect. - TexasAndroid 20:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see a lot of progress. The problem is that there are not enough people involved to have anything resembling "consensus." I've been loosely following what's going on, but I don't have the time to read all the references and whatnot to express a carefully-weighed opinion. Somebody besides DreamGuy, Colin4C, or Arcayne needs to do that. Colin4C seems to have disappeared, and in any case seemed to have a grudge against DreamGuy (no offense to Colin if you read this, but misrepresenting the Arbitration was dirty pool). I think Arcayne is attempting to be a neutral 3rd party, but cannot seem to come to an agreement with DreamGuy on a number of points. There needs to be at least one or two more people to break the deadlock, otherwise I just can't see any progress being made. --Jaysweet 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The progress has been on what are probably minor sections overall. Arcayne has expressly stated his intention to make changes to the article which he knows are not supported and which were not how this article has had them in the past. He also denies that reverting the entire article to an old version and wiping out countless changes made in the meantime counts as blind reverting when he does it and that he feels perfectly justified in doing so. Based upn all that I see no reason to believe that unlocking the article will not mean more of the same activity. Also, I should point out that Colin4u has in the past tried and failed to get consensus for his changes to the victims section and then just disappeared for months and returned to make the exact same changes despite knowing they were opposed. His lack of participation here isn't necessarily an indication that he won't return and continue the same activity. I would like a clear consensus to be established, and the areas that are currently still under dispute seem to me at least to be pretty clear cut based upon Wikipedia policies, so a clear consensus should be able to be established. DreamGuy 21:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm STILL glad to see more references, but that still seems to be the only progress. I can understand why other editors disappear 'for months at a time' when you browbeat them so thoroughly. The development of a consensus is partly about listening to the opinions of others. I don't want to criticise your knowledge of the ripper case, that is obviously extensive; but you do need to discuss changes without dismissing the opinions of others out of hand.

There were some suggestions as to moving the structure of the article forward. That would be useful, if we could obtain some sense of agreement there. Just knocking any change is, at the least, unhelpful. This a collaborative environment, and many people have something cogent to offer. Arguments just serve to dissuade people from contributing. Kbthompson 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Browbeat them so thoroughly" is both inaccurate and uncivil. Colin4u is actually the one who tried to browbeat to get his way and then failed, and then came back when he thought the editors who opposed his edits in the past were not looking. I am fully in favor of making improvements to the article, but many of the suggested ones quite significantly degrade the actual quality of the article and introduce information or insinuations that are simply wrong. I'm sorry you feel I am "just knocking any change", but your misunderstanding of my edits and assumptions of bad faith do not mean your opinions are correct. DreamGuy 14:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I rather agree with JaySweet that Colin's misinterpretation of ArbCom was unfair and just plain uncool. I also agree that the article isn't ready to be unprotected, as i think that the main things agreed upon are fairly minor, leaving the majority of the article's direction and future being pulled in two directions. there is the previous version, which DG seems intent on reintroducing, despite the fact that the article has languished essentiually since inception under the UNDUE weight given to certain "Ripperology" books whilst ignoring others.

As well, i am noting - as does KBThompson - DreamGuy's unwillingness to credit the opinions of others, and the subsequent sniping of comments. A less civil editor would remark that this 'my way or the highway' attittude doesn't provide a professional, friendly working environment for editors, especially when there are edit summaries like "Reverting back to last good version... absolute nonsense that some editor would blind revert changes to approved version of page just out of spite" or "reverting back to last good version -- got some editors here who insist upon ignoring long standing consensus out of misplaced ownership or anti-IP editor status or something". those sorts of comments aren't inviting. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, and not a bloodsport, which is what the article history (and the discussion, too, i am afraid) have appeared to other editors, who I've invited to come and help rewrite the article. DreamGuy has a rather unfortunate reputation, which I think is at least partially undeserved. The relative perception of his unwillingness to work politely with others, as well as my own perception that disagreeing with hism is automatically seen as a personal attack, makes editing alongside him un-fun, and is what I think drives a great many potential editors away. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, and DG doesn't come across as an enjoyable person to edit with.

Perhaps it might be helpful to the article if DG were to take a break from this particular article, allowing for things to cool down and other editors to feel free to post and edit without fear of being decapitated editorially. It would seem a good way to gain fresh eyes on the article, as well as keep away those contributors who seem to dislike Dreamguy intensely, and follow some of his edits around. i am sure that DG has a great many articles on his watchlist, and this shouldn't pose too much of an imposition upon him. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, guys, these mischaracterizations of me personally (and the personal attacks and more outright false accusations in Arcayne's case here) do not get the article anywhere. I do consider the opinions of others, but what I do not do is suddenly decide to follow the opinions of editors who show up out of the blue demanding changes against the way other editors have agreed to do it in the past when it's clear that they have no real consensus to do so, have not read prior discussions, and do not understand how Wikipedia policies apply. As someone who knows about the case and who has edited this article for a while, my opinions are at the very least just as important as any other single editor's, but we have people who admit to no real knowledge about the topic deciding that they want to ignore my opinion and that of the other editors who created this page over years of discussion and consensus-building just on a whim. They are certainly free to make changes, and I am free to make changes to get rid of errors and so forth that they introduced. But when it comes down to a final decision, we need a real consensus and not just what some newbie demands with no discussion. I certainly welcome the edits of those editors who have tried to work to real consensus, and how make the effort to go research issues when they can. We have had a great many of those here. No offense, but that's clearly not what Arcayne is doing (telling me to take a break from the article so he can do whatever he wants? yeah, right), and certainly not what Colin4u was doing either. We need more input from people with an understanding of Wikipedia policies and encyclopedic practices here, and knowledge about the topic itself would certainly be helpful. DreamGuy 14:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I didn't feel browbeaten before, I do now. Apologies if you feel that 'me telling it like it is' (or at least my perception of it), is in some way rude. It's not my intention to be rude to you, or to vilify you, or even to ask you to stop editing. As to newbies, yes, your first edit to this page (under this username) was 4 years ago; mine about a year ago, TexasAndroid has also 'done his time', even Colin has been around for over a year. In that time I've not seen any attempts at consensus building, and I note that DG has made twice as many edits as anyone else. I've also not seen the article change substantially from the version that failed to gain GA status.

It is a more valuable use of everyone's time to devote this energy to improving the page, rather than bickering. The editorial process is to both discuss and allow change. How about putting the article up for peer review to obtain a wider community of comments? Kbthompson 16:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think a peer review is a splendid idea, Kbt. Frankly, going back and forth using the carrot and stick with DG is growing tedious, as he either doesn't get it, is avoiding civility on purpose, or possesses one of those personalities that thrive on conflict. This can either descend into a lame little discussion of bruised egos, perceived vs, actual attacks and whatnot which will almost certainly end unfortunately for DG (which would be a loss to us all), or we can refocus on the article. A peer review would grace us with some much-needed independent feedback on the article and where it needs improvement, as the old consensus has clearly shown it currently hasn't the muscle to even make it to even GA status. it might also attract new editors to the article. Let's do it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Illustration of cover from PUCK magazine on Wikipedia's Jack the Ripper article

At the beginning of Wikipedia's article on Jack the Ripper, a color scan has been posted of a cover page from PUCK magazine, showing Jack gazing at various suspects in the mirror. The date of the issue is barely legible in the scan, even the large one. I can make out Saturday Sept 21, but the year is unreadable. Checking past calendars, I see that Sept 21 fell on a Saturday in 1889--so maybe that was year this issue of PUCK was published.

Does anyone know from what source the color photograph posted on Wikipedia was scanned?

That is not such an obvious question as it may appear at first. The famous PUCK magazine in the 19th Century was an American magazine, not a British publication; and this cover does not appear in microfilms of issues for September 1889 of the American PUCK. Moreover, the scanned PUCK magazine cover appears to have been a British publication, since the price was "twopence." However, the British Library has no record in its newspaper collection of a PUCK magazine published in the late 19th Century. Punch, yes; Puck, no. So where did this cover from PUCK come from? From what source was it scanned--in color, no less. Where is it archived now--either in hardcopy or on color microfilm? Was it previously reproduced in any other source? What is the provenance of this picture?

Zazou1888 22:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly right, it doesn't appear in the on-line serials index for 1888-1889; however, not all items for the nineteenth century are indexed by the British Library. I tried here without luck. Further searching here shows Puck to be deposited between 30 July 1904 - 11 May 1940. I'm afraid it's a grey area, since digitisation has been a backwards progression, and a foreign copyright publication might have felt it did not have much to gain by deposit with the Library, nor indeed would it be a priority for adding to the on-line catalogue. The use of the image seems to be widespread, but there's nothing that couldn't be plausibly traced back to here. Kbthompson 00:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that, because it is the placeholder image, we need a far clearer provenance than we have been presented for this image. I think it should be removed, and hopefully replaced with an image actually from that period, perhaps one of the many illustrations presented in the newspapers of the period (many of which, I think, lambasted the police incompetence in capturing the murderer, a class warfare thing). Failing that, we might have to end up using a crime photo, picture of the supposed letters from Jack (which I think someone says have since been discounted; if so, never mind) or nothing at all. A period photo of Whitechapel may better serve to illustrate the ajject conditions in which the Ripper was able to commit his crimes without capture. thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that Tom Merry was a contemporaneous English cartoonist, and from here that Puck was published in England from 1889 Jan - to June 1890 when it changed its name (to what?). That's from just a quick online look-see. It is such a powerful lead image that I'd give it a couple of days before (asking an admin) to pull it. It should be possible to find proper evidence in that time - and now for bed! Kbthompson 00:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that. Let's see if someone can source a lot closer to the original timeframe. I saw this image; not very good, but clser to something we can papertrail right back to the time period. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at some of the ads, and they are contemporaneous too. The sepia monotone cover is not a problem, but the blood dripping from the knife suggests a colour process, and I think this is too early for that - with this magazine. There's no particularly confirmatory evidence, but equally there's no nugatory evidence against the picture. It could be used, but the caption changed to attributed to ... I could just put in a reader request at the British Library and see if they can find it! (Just because it isn't in the catalogue, doesn't mean they don't have it; and even if they didn't have it, it doesn't prove it's not a pukka Puck! The magazine was published in London from 1889 Jan - to June 1890, not very long, but includes the expected date). Kbthompson 12:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

PUCK was a real publication then. This was from Britain, not America. Color illustrations were common in large publications back then, and I own several examples of such. I uploaded this image and provided the info that it was from "the September 21, 1889, issue of Puck magazine, featuring cartoonist Tom Merry's depiction of the unidentified Whitechapel murderer Jack the Ripper." The online British Library site does has a copy of this (just go to http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/ and search for "Jack the Ripper") and it has been published in more than one Ripper publication (an issue of Ripper Notes in 2005 and also in Evans and Rumbelow's 2006 JTR: Scotland Yard Investigates). The idea that anyone would show up demanding this image be pulled, especially without investigating the matter, is just ridiculous. It's clearly public domain, it's clearly real, it's in several sources... What more could you ask for? Before people rush off into conclusions some small amount of effort should be placed to track it down. Thanks to Kbthompson for doing some of that. Of course, as the uploader of the file it'd have been really easy just to ask me. DreamGuy 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see now that the person who uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons did so without crediting me and then had the original upload deleted so that any reference to me being the provider is missing. This is rather annoying, as Wikimedia should credit the uploader, both as some small recognition of the work people do and also so that when questions like this come up they can be directed at the correct person. DreamGuy 18:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that DG, I can confirm that the image turns up on an images on line search. I should have thought of that, it just didn't turn up on a catalogue search. As you say, carrying over the provenance of uploader, would make some of this clear on wikicommons and not lead to such requests. Perhaps you could fill in some of the missing details there? Never letting a bit of research go to waste, I created William Mecham, Tom Merry's real name - and used the cartoon, so thanks again. It's not unreasonable to be sceptical, sources and references should be traceable - just the transfer to wikicommons lost some of that attribution. Kbthompson 18:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Skepticism is not a bad thing, but after providing the publication and date I'm not sure what else I could have done to prove its existence. DreamGuy 18:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As well, perhaps you can re-read the actual posts from above, and realize that you might be using the word "demanding" incorrectly. I suggested that if we couldn't verify the image, we might need to take it down, and then agreed to wait a while to see if provenance presented itself via research all of which hardly fitting the mischaracterization of "demanding." Perhaps you could take some time to reflect on how you interact with others and perceive their posts. I am guessing that it's about 90% of your problems in Wikipedia.

Btw, thank you for providing the provenance of the image. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you managed to once again try to lecture me on the proper way of acting on Wikipedia while at the same time breaking several Wikipedia policies and protocols yourself. Could you please give it a rest already. DreamGuy 21:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also a bit surprised, as I have asked you any number of times to point out where my comments or behavior have violated "several Wikipedia policies and protocols". You keep making these claims, but never seem to actually iterate them. I would ask that you either do so, or simply stop making them. Even better, you could maybe avoid the vague accusations and attacks altogether and focus onthe article. In the words of my grandfather, put up or shut up.' - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet another confusion wrought by Wikipedia's disastrous new policy of wantonly destroying old information! There was no need to ever delete that page. —Toby Bartels 06:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Toby, what in heck are you talking about? The image you linked to has apparently been in Wikipedia since 8/14/05 without edit. maybe calm down, take several deep breathsm and explain why you are all wound up. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, but that's understandable; my complaint, after all, is that the situation is confusing.

Read the comment above (DreamGuy 18:37, 3 November 2007) and look at that link again. You're seeing a page from the Wikimedia Commons; the original page on the English Wikipedia was deleted just over a year ago. This hid some information, now available only to administrators through Special:Undelete; that information will eventually be destroyed for good (after a wait, I forget how long). See the original discussion at Wikipedia talk:Moving images to the Commons for the issues involved; but the process described there cannot be used by non-administrators, and admins are still deleting the originals afterwards. The official policies aren't too bad, but there's still no need to ever delete the old page.

This is just one example of an ongoing problem that bugs me whenever I run into it. Sorry if I sounded shrill; that wasn't my intent. —Toby Bartels 13:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin Fido's 'The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper' (1987)

This is a book on the Ripper I picked up at random from a second-hand bookshop yesterday. I am not pushing any POV here. I don't know Fido and I've never met him and don't necessarily agree with him. Though I've only read six books on Jack the Ripper and watched four documentaries - so therefore hardly know anything at all about him compared to the other editors here - bear with me and Wikipedia:Assume good faith:

Contents:

Part 1 The Legendary Murderer

Chapter 1 'Whitechapel Murders'

Part 2 The Victims

Chapter 2 Emma Smith [uncanonical], Ada Wilson [uncanonical] and Martha Tabram [uncanonical]

Chapter 3 Mary Ann Nichols

Chapter 4 Annie Chapman

Chapter 5 The Night of the Two Murders

Chapter 6 Elizabeth Stride

Chapter 7 Catherine Eddowes

Chapter 8 Marie Jeanette Kelly

Chapter 9 Annie Farmer [uncanonical], Drunken Lizzie [uncanonical], Clay Pipe Alice [uncanonical] and Carotty Nell [uncanonical] - "Clay Pipe Alice's [uncanonical] death prompted a short lived zenith of the scare in the East End. For the first time the Times reported that prostitutes were staying off the streets"

I accept that the uncanonical murders are 'uncanonical' to Ripperologists, but I don't think that is any reason to bury the info on them. Nobody knows how many murders 'Jack the Ripper' committed. The police don't know, nobody knows. The guy was never caught and never confessed how many murders he committed and who they were. Different authors hold different opinions on the matter. The police and pathologists at the time of the crimes held different opinions. Why should we be so keen to blazen about unproven assumptions as though they were definate facts? Can't we trust the readers of the wikipedia to make up their own minds about the case? I hope we can discuss this like rational human beings. Note particularly this policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks Colin4C 11:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Much like how you simply listed chapter titles from Begg's book above showing that they were mentioned but without any indication of how the victims were presented, looking at the content in question shows that the authors themselves don't take the "noncanonicals" seriously.

Chapter two's title is "Prelude" as in before the Ripper murders happened. It covers the three women you mentioned above, plus "Fairy Fay". There is five pages of description total, plus some additional fact, which means each of these women are only discussed for an average of about a page each, if that.

Chapters three through eight take up 100 pages for five victims, for an average of 20 pages each... and later chapters about the police investigation concentrate solely on these murders as well, so the actual time given to each is even more.

You also left the title off of chapter nine: "False alarms", as in, not real victims. That chapter is only ten pages long for four women, or less than three pages each.

And, of course, devastating to your point is that on page ix Fido has a list of alleged victims and says straight out that the five known as the canonical five were the only real Ripper victims, which he repeats elsewhere.

So if your argument here was that Fido focuses on all victims and does not endorse those five, you are mistaken. If your argument is that we should not "blazen about unproven assumptions as though they were definate facts", the current article does not do so, and explicitly states that different sources have different opinions. All the article is doing is putting the primary focus on the five victims that the only official police document at the time endorses and which the vast majority of authors frame the entire case around. The current version of the victims list does everything you claim it should and does not do the things you argue against. DreamGuy 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So why doesn't Fido go straight into an account of the 'canonical five'? Why is he wasting his readers time mentioning Emma Smith [uncanonical], Ada Wilson [uncanonical] and Martha Tabram [uncanonical] in chapter two before he mentions the first of the 'canonicals' in chapter three? Why do all the Ripper authors in the bibliography mention Smith and Tabram before they mention 'canonical' Mary Ann Nichols? If they followed your logic mention of Smith and Tabram would be buried at the back of the books along with a heap of dubious others, (one non-existent like 'Fairy Fay', another who cut herself in the kitchen and another who died in America in 1891) which bored Ripperologists, with too much time on their hands, have speculated might be victims in the intervening years. The Smith and Tabram murders set the scene for the 'canonical' murder of Nichols. When Nichols was killed the police already suspected that they had a serial killer on their hands and they were right. And both Smith and Tabram were thought of by some of the police investigating at the time to be killed by the 'Ripper'. Walter Dew thought Smith was a Ripper victim and said so in his autobiography. As for Tabram, the guy investigating the case, Abberline, thought she was a Ripper victim, so did Sir Robert Anderson, so did Edmund Read and so did Dew and so do some contemporary Ripperologists. MacNaughton - who you rely on - was not involved in the investigation of any of the canonicals and his theory was based on his unproven belief that the Ripper committed suicide after the Kelly murder so ipso facto (according to his logic) the Ripper couldn't have commited any more murders because he was dead. This suicide theory was controverted by other officers involved in the case. Many thought that a guy called Sadler, suspected as the murderer of uncanonical Coles, was the Ripper. MacNaughton was not in charge of the Ripper investigation and was not expressing the official view of the Met. Others who were in charge of the investigation, such as Abberline and Dew, had different views. Colin4C 11:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fido DOES go into the canonical five... in his intro he states straight out that the canonical five are the only victims of the Ripper. Your list of who thought what isn't entirely accurate anyway. Macnaghten (how his name was spelled) WAS, in fact, in charge of the case at that time and was *specifically* expressing the official view of the Metropolitan Police. DreamGuy 17:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of observations present themselves for me:

• Is the reason Macnaghton (what is the full name and precise spelling for this person, please?) cited most often because his notes survive? I have heard of Abberline and Dew (though likely through Caine's portrayal of him), and would be surprised if his or Dew's investigation reports had vanished. Were there other investigative notes, for example by Warren?

Wikipedia article here: Sir Melville Macnaghten. The three top men at the Met at the time of the Whitechapel murders, the three succesive Chief Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police: Sir Charles Warren (1886-8), James Monro (1888-90) and Sir Edward Bradford (1890-1903) left no notes or memoranda as to their opinion on who commited the crimes and how many murders he committed.

• I think we are moving into the territory of debating suspects, and I am not sure its entirely appropriate, as there is a sub-article that deals with this almost exclusively.
• I realize that many of these books tend to speculate wildly (a la Holy Blood Holy Grail), but perhaps for the purpose of this article, it might be more helpful to first find the facts that seem undisputed by all of them (including those sources that some feel are too esoteric - an OR assumption, btw), and then to decide whether they are intelligently in agreement, or if they are parroting prior books. Those "Ripperology" books which cite other "Ripperology" books should be considered immediately suspect, as the provenance of the research in some of the books is spotty at best. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking for the Ripperology books that did their own research and didn;t just copy from other books in the field but went straight to the original documents, that would be the ones cited as sources for this article: Phil Sugden, Stewart Evans, Paul Begg, Robin Odell, etc. All of those authors went back to the original police documents and didn't just rehash other books' claims. In other words, what you are asking this article to do is exactly what it already has been doing for years. DreamGuy 17:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My main argument is that the primary data on which all the rest of the speculation is heaped up upon is the bodies of the eleven Whitechapel victims. There is no argument that these women were found dead on the streets of Whitechapel in the period 1888-91. It's in the police files and was mentioned in the newspapers of the period. From that we can plausibly deduce that a serial killer was at work. A lot more speculatively we can assign some or all of the murdered women as the victims of an unknown person whom we call for the sake of conveniance 'Jack the Ripper'. Going in the reverse direction from the (somewhat mythical) Ripper, to his speculative victims and then to the Whitechapel murders is like looking through the wrong end of the telescope I feel. In other articles on the wikipedia about serial killings it is the murders themselves rather than the putative murderer which are highlighted. See for instance: the West Port murders committed by (the re-directed) Burke and Hare.Colin4C 09:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your speculation about the serial killers isn't what this article is about. It's about what the published authors and official police documents at the time said. Thee are no sources saying the Whitechapel Murders list is an accurate accounting of the murders of Jack the Ripper. Therefore all this discussion of yours amounts to is your own personal opinion and original research, which is not what Wikipedia is for. DreamGuy 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[conflict]... and I think that the problem is still fundamentally trying to introduce too many ideas at once. Some of that can be dealt with by applying a structure to the article - at the moment it looks like a collection of post-it notes.

Something like,

1. Lead
2. Introduction, to the Whitechapel of the time
3. Intro to the murders in chronological order
4. Initial police and public response
5. Jack the Ripper, the serial killer theory, the attributions of the murders and the canonical five. Why are they the canonical five?
6. The police investigation, including contemporary theories
7. Media
8. Modern appraisals and the suspects
9. anything else ...

The ultimate problem is that it is a large field, and this can only ever be an introduction to it. I think Col is right that the sequence of local murders is important, but equally the article is specifically about Jack the Ripper. There needs to be some middle ground that allows both ways of examining the case to come through in a coherent fashion. Most other murders that we've written up, don't have a multiple pool of victims, perpetrators and theories that have accumulated over a 100 years. Structure and narrative are key to making a complex picture clear. Kbthompson 10:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The article could certainly be improved upon, but the discussion here is specificall about what to do with the Victims section so agreement can be reached and the article unlocked. It sounds like you are saying that the canonical five needs to be the thrust of that section and not a mere list of victims that may have nothing to do with anything. You asked for a middle ground, and that middle ground is exactly what we've done with the article as it currently stands... it doesn't claim that those five were the only victims of the Ripper, just that they are most discussed; it also mentions the full Whitechapel Murder list later as well as other possible victims most frequently named by other books on the topic. DreamGuy 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

According to my research Walter Dew wrote a book called 'I Caught Crippen' in which he gives his uncanonical views on the numbers of victims of the Ripper. Be warned though, although Dew WAS involved in the original Ripper investigation and later caught the notorious Crippen his views are not strictly in line with modern Ripperologists - who have access through supernatural means to the whole truth of the matter. Its my bet, in fact, that just a couple of Ripperologists could solve the Madeline mystery in less time than it takes to boil an egg if only the Portuguese police let them have a crack at the case. I'll see if I can get hold of a copy of Dew's book - hopefully the Ripperologists have not burnt all the copies of this heretical work. Colin4C 13:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no evidence that Dew actually WAS involved in the Ripper investigation when it happened, only his claim in an autobiography some fifty years later. His book is full of factual errors, which might be due to his advanced age or because of his writing it to make himself sound more important in a case he actually had no major connection to. If he was involved in any way, he was only a beat cop at the time.

And you really need to be more civil and assume good faith. DreamGuy 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Colin, while I understand (and mostly agree) with your views of "Ripperology", you might need to dial down the tone of your posts somewhat. Civility is often a two-way street, and if you expect other editors to follow the rules and not lash out uncivilly, you need to help set the tone as well. I think Kbt makes several good points. I'm still not sold on the Whitechapel as socioeconomic setting as of yet, but I am willing to be persuaded. We need to keep open moinds, as the main problem with the previous non-GA version was - as Kbt succinctly described as a mountain of post-it notes. We need to take that info and put it together both engagingly and cogently for the reader unfamiliar with the subject (you might be surprised how many people are not interested in a 100+ year old set of murders). A Streamling of the article is certainly called for and, as I see it we can try out Kbt's plan o' attack, or we can continue arguing over piddling matters of ego and split hairs over who 'done which deed.' I think its time we actually moved forward, beyond simply saying so.

Kbt, would it be too much to ask you to sandbox a version of this article using your structure? We can work on it, hopefully providing something a bit cleaner to replace the article with. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I try for irony but it usually ends up looking like sarcasm. But, yes, I will attempt to moderate the tone of my remarks. Colin4C 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My local bookseller has just told me that he can get me a second hand copy of Walter Dew's 'I Caught Crippen' for a mere £350...Better start saving my money...Colin4C 11:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps getting a copy from your local library first, to see if its worth the investment? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Colin4C 21:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of encouraging you to read more about the case I should let you know that the relevant sections of Dew's book are online for free if you look around. Of course the problem is that there were a whole slew of people claiming to know about the Ripper case and giving opinions on it, but Dew isn't known to have any major involvement in it (his claims of being at the Kelly murder scene, for example, are not supported by the police documents) and his opinions must not overshadow those of the officials who were in charge of the case. DreamGuy 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper Articles on the Wikipedia

Why out of all the articles on Jack the Ripper on the wikipedia was the one created by me deleted? If all information on the murders should be put in one article, shouldn't all the rest be deleted as well?:

• Frederick Abberline
• Robert Anderson (Scotland Yard)
• Edward Badham
• William Henry Bury
• Casebook: Jack the Ripper
• George Chapman (murderer)
• Patricia Cornwell
• Thomas Neill Cream
• Durward Street
• William Gull
• Hanbury Street
• Henriques Street
• Israel Schwartz
• Jack the Ripper
• George Lusk
• John Netley
• Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories
• Jack the Ripper, Light-Hearted Friend
• Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution
• Liston knife
• James Maybrick
• Mitre Square
• Mary Pearcey
• Walter Sickert
• Joseph Silver
• Jack the Ripper suspects
• Whitechapel Vigilance Committee Colin4C 20:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it was a violation of WP:CFORK. It has nothing to do with "putting all the information in one article". DreamGuy 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That'd be having your cake and eating it. Here you deny the Whitechapel murders are linked, there you claim they are (by redirect) the Ripper murders ... why not compromise?

Articles whose subject is a POV

Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. As noted above, "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors.

Kbthompson 16:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving?

Would anyone have a problem with me archiving the lengthy conversation prior to this section? It would seem advisable to clear out some of the clutter that has the Discussion page swelling to about 4x its suggested size? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking much the same thing myself. Restrict the talk to substantive matters in the article, and move on. The archive will contain any previous 'robust' discussions. Kbthompson 10:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne archived for practical reasons (size), I don't see the point of reverting when other discussion is both archived and (if he did what he said he was going to do) limits the remainder to substantive points about the article. That's what a talk page is for. Kbthompson 14:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

When the article is locked AND there is an active RFC going, it's essential that the sections discussing the reason why the article is locked remain active on the talk page and not be hidden away. That's what a talk page is for. DreamGuy 14:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought it was about moving the article forward, not about your personal struggles with other editors. Kbthompson 15:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, please follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, as that comment is both untrue and unwarranted. Second, it is about moving the article forward... But we can't do that when most of the discussion about the topics that need to be resolved are hidden away. Anyone coming to this page for the RFC goes direct to that section. There's no purpose to hiding the active discussion, except to make the page "clean" (and if all we worried about was keeping pages clean we'd blank all talk pages every day or so) or perhaps for other editors wanting to hide relevant discussion to influence responses. We know, for example, that Colin has been gong through and just deleting sections completely (without even archiving them). Preserving discussion when it is active and not hiding it is a pretty fundamental part of the process of making an informed decision. DreamGuy 15:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What's an RFC? Colin4C 18:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Request for Comment.

I am sure that DG wasn't implying that I was atempting to conceal the prior conversation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)