Talk:Jack the Ripper

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2024

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

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

More info on victims?

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

Many theories regarding Jack the Ripper's identity are speculation, however, in recent years people believe his identity to be Arron Kominsky; a Polish barber (of course, this remains uncertain). I wish for editors to add this due to him being a prime suspect in the case. The Great Shadow (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

OLd news, very old. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

James maybrick

If you read the book the ripper diary “the final chapter” you will see without any doubt who Jack the Ripper was.do “not” read into the hype regarding the ripper diary.the final chapter is a masterpiece in regards to tracking the true story behind the diary and the real man who was jack. 2001:8003:B074:8500:F499:F80A:9688:F4C7 (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

As with every other "Final solution" it is not more valid than any other claim (and like every book on Saucey Jack it claims all others ignoreD or did to have the "vialt evidence" IT UNCOVERED), except that there is a claim that the diaries are forgeries (by the person who wrote them). So it is not proven, just another allegation. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

2 "killers"

Two killers "Jack" And the Ripper. Jack was someone trying to claim fame and notoriety for the killings. The ripper is the actual killer. The ripper is a woman whose husband contracted a disease like syphilis from sex workers and cost her a child and her life. That is why no sexual act was committed. And why the sex organs were destroyed. She blamed them for her husband's indiscretions. This is why all the killings were silent and no defensive wounds were found. Women don't find other women threatening. Men are gruesome women are cruel. 41.193.88.151 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Some meta stuff on this article regarding descriptions of the victims as "prostitutes" and Hallie Rubenhold

I know that the topic has been discussed before (see archive [1][2] [3][4][5]), but I've found a research paper that specifically discusses how this Wikipedia talk page has been handling the description of the victims and the inclusion of Hallie Rubenhold as a source. So I'm posting the relevant quote from the research paper here as some food for thought:

"The principles of ‘neutrality’ and ‘notability’ disproportionately negatively impact the representation of women and people of colour on Wikipedia (Edwards 2015; Ferran-Ferrer et al. 2022). For example, the ‘Talk’ page for the article ‘Jack the Ripper’ preserves how feminist research may be dismissed as ‘fringe theory’ because it diverges from previous scholarship.Footnote 8 Discussions in 2020 concerned historian Haille Rubenhold’s research which, among other points, argues that naming all of the victims ‘prostitutes’ reproduces Victorian misogynist reportage. References to Rubenhold’s book have been repeatedly deleted, and ‘consensus’ against Rubenhold’s research remains firm (as of February 2024)." Nakonana (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Its a shame we do not in fact say they all were. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Why? Nakonana (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Because the fact they have not even read our article, and make a claim so easily disproven renders it highly questionable as a source. It also (nicely) illustrates why none of the arguments used for the inclusion of Haille Rubenhold’s research have convinced anyone. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I assumed that your first comment was referring to calling all the victims "prostitutes", but in your second comment, you are speaking about the research paper instead? I'm not sure how the fact or assumption that the researchers have not read the article is a reason for why we should call all victims "prostitutes". What have those two things have to do with each other? How can one of them serve as an explanation for the other? Or have I misunderstood your first comment? Nakonana (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

We do not say they were all prostitutes. Thus A, there is nothing for us to alter and B. the fact they make this error means there is no way we could use this anyway. Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)