Talk:Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution

Archive 1

Move

I can't understand how this article, a Featured Article which recently appeared on the main page, could get so major an overhaul without warning. And now the related talk pages are moved around, so it's extremely difficult to discern what was going on by looking at past discussion. I don't know how to sort this all out, but if it stays in its present condition it must be delisted as a FA, or it will adversly affect the credibility of the FA process.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say the same thing. The article has been rendered unrecognizable and it should be delisted until it can go through FAC again. Many of the changes were made without edit summaries so we can't even keep track of what is happening. --Laser brain (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am the person who has been very critical of the content of this article. I have just looked at its state after its move. The main problem which involved misquoting a source has been fixed. It requires one of the most relevant texts to have its details inserted at the right place.

When that is done, it will probably be right up with the FAs again. I wouldn't remove the FA for a day or two, because the process is tedious, and it requires very little to be up to scratch.

Amandajm (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, stuff it! I'll fix the blanky reference myself! Amandajm (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, what I mean is, I'll fix the blanky reference again, having had my fix deleted. Amandajm (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

These changes [1] are misleading. They can be read as meaning that Stowell's article implicates Albert Victor because they describe a suspect who had contracted syphilis, gone mad and murdered five prostitutes. All of which point to someone other than Albert Victor not to him. DrKay (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Amanda, please just look at the first sentence of the "Claims of Thomas Stowell" section. There are seven commas, in either version. It's structure/grammar is obviously poor.

The only difference between my version: "In the November 1970 issue of The Criminologist, physician Dr..." and your version "In 1970, in the November issue of The Criminologist, the physician, Dr..." is that my version has a single comma. There is no difference in content otherwise.

Explanation The words are the same, but the order is different. This creates a different meaning. In the history that we are telling here, the year 1970 is significant. In the first sentence, the publication has a date to it. In the second sentence, it is the event that is dated to the year of 1970. This is not simply a 1970 journal. The publication (as an event) took place in 1970. Amandajm (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In your version "article entitled Jack the Ripper' -A Solution?." has a full stop immediately after a question mark, and an apostrophe after "Ripper". My version removes these discrepancies by only mentioning the article title, which is at best a trivial detail, in the references section. DrKay (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't know where the apostrophe came from! It shouldn't be there. Your rewording has fixed the problem. Amandajm (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

DrKay, please address the issue of the unilateral move. One of the criteria of a featured article is that it must be stable - that clearly means that it should never be moved with no discussion after the point it has been promoted to featured status. There is a pending featured article review currently open because of this (among other reasons).--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The old title was always unpopular.[2][3][4] There is a precedent for moving the page when its contents are not accurately reflected in the title. It was moved from "The Duke of Clarence as Jack the Ripper" to "Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories", because the article not only discussed Clarence as the Ripper but also Gull and Sickert as the Ripper. I then moved it to "Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories" because it is a masonic conspiracy theory as well as a royal one. While it was on the Main Page, complaints were again made that the article's title did not reflect the article's contents.[5][6][7][8] While I was initially against a merge, I changed my mind given the strength of feeling of all the other editors,[9] though preferred to merge with a virtually identical article rather than the one proposed.[10] Finally, the content of the "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" and "Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories" articles was extremely similar. For example, the opening paragraph of the "Origins" section in The Final Solution: Between August and November 1888... is virtually identical to the opening paragraph of the "Background" section in "conspiracy theories". DrKay (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said at the Featured Article Review, clearly you are not done working on the page. The article never should have been promoted to featured status while such serious changes were pending. I recommend delisting it and then renominating it once it is more stable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The changes were not pending. They were requested by editors after promotion. DrKay (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Basis for the Movie "From Hell"?

The article says that Stephen Knight's book "Was the basis for the films Murder by Decree and From Hell, as well as other dramatisations." I think we may want to re-word this because... well the basis for the movie "From Hell" was PROBABLY the graphic novel of the same name. In fact this is confirmed by the first few sentences of the movie's Wikipedia page. Dr. Ransom 11:34, 19 February, 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added on 04:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC).

Possibly, but then the graphic novel is based on Knight's theory also, so the point is somewhat moot.Revmagpie (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That’s what I came here to query too, and I think you’re wrong to describe the matter as “moot”, Revmagpie. If nothing else it is to deny the legal rights of Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell to be identified as the authors of an original work upon which the film is based (an interesting paradox, as Moore is famous for not wanting to be credited for adaptations of his works). It makes it sound as if they plagiarised Knight’s book, which they didn’t. The film’s primary source is the graphic novel, not Knight. Jock123 (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Book cover request

Fair use book cover would be a nice addition to the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved or merged or new article or what?

I'm confused. What go sent where? This looks like the old Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories article, and a lot of changes were made there, and discussed on that talk page, but now this one has a new talk page? If this is the old article, it should have been merged to preserve the page history and the talk page. There are issues on the talk page over there that were brought up that need comment, but it seems silly to discuss them there as that talk page isn't directly connected to the article any more, so anyone looking at this article who wants to comment on it will never see those. Don't admins have something where they go back and fix mix ups like this so that the talk page stays with the article? DreamGuy (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The page histories are merged. I've added a link to the old talk as an archive. DrKay (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Other Ripper conspiracy theories

OK, so.... if the old Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories article is now at this title, what about the offshoot conspiracy theories that went beyond just the one in this particular book? There are all sorts of different ones now. That's what the old article was covering. If this is to be seen as an improvement to the article about this particular book, fine, but what about the rest? DreamGuy (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Aren't they covered in the "Influence" section? DrKay (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense "These, and other books which promote Sickert from a knowing accomplice to being Jack the Ripper himself, such as Jean Overton-Fuller's Sickert and the Ripper Crimes (Oxford: Mandrake, 1990) and Patricia Cornwell's Portrait of a Killer, are marketed as non-fiction books, but they are dismissed almost universally as derivative fantasies based on Knight's initial flawed analysis.[52][53][79][85]"

I've never heard it suggested--let alone "universally dismissed" as--that Cornwell's book is deriative of Knight's, has anything to do with Knight's, or is any kind of Ripper conspiracy.Revmagpie (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement is supported by seven references. DrKay (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527152447/http://www.essaysinhistory.com/articles/2012/90 to http://www.essaysinhistory.com/articles/2012/90

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)