Talk:Whitechapel murders

Prostitutes?

Given that the work of Hallie Rubenhold has shed considerable doubt on whether some of the victims were prostitutes at all, should this be reflected in the article? Beginning The Five with the idea of focusing on the most famous sex workers in history, Rubenhold was shocked by what she found while searching through coroner inquests, medical, workhouse and police records, and sensationalist newspaper reports – or rather, what she didn’t find. There was no evidence that three of the women – Polly, Annie and Catherine – were sex workers at all. Instead, Polly and Catherine had worked as domestic servants or in laundries, and Annie was supported by her husband, who worked as a private coachman. (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/mar/01/hallie-rubenhold-jack-the-ripper-victims) Sheila1988 (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Fringe theorist. This work has not been vetted and does not have any acceptance among scholars. She doesn't want anyone else speculating (reliable sources have placed it in print) but she is free to engage in "She was unmarried and pregnant – probably by her employer". This needs to be reviewed by academics before it would be suitable here. "At times, she had to stop writing as she was “so upset and furious” at the ways society had failed the five." Red flag. She equates a so-called lack of evidence that some were prostitutes as meaning it never existed. Much of the records were destroyed in WWI and WWII from fire and The Blitz. While this book is being marketed but not yet vetted by academics, it should not be included.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly a fringe theory. Virtually all other sources, and we're talking hundreds if not thousands of sources, say they were prostitutes. It's undue weight to alter the article on the basis of one ill-researchedcontroversial book. DrKay (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC) Amended 07:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

We are talking hundrets of publications by people who often did not even study humanities, let alone history. I do not see why in your opinion the sheer weight of paper rules out actual historical research. Ymyster (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No, they just studied all the documents available from the archives (which is historical research). And many of them are academics. Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not doubt anyone being academic. But historical research entails much more than "studying documents". And Rubenholds approach lies in criticizing these methods applied. Did you read the book? Ymyster (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Have you read every book ever published about then ripper? Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Quite a lot of them. Why? Ymyster (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

You seemed to think having read a book is significant. Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It is certainly to discuss the question of including it into this article or not. So, have you? Ymyster (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No more than your dismal of every other source. Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Uuh pretty hard to get into an actual discussion with you. Please read the above stated again, I am trying to contribute to the agenda of due weight. But I'll quit for today, will read amy answer after weekend, have a good one! Ymyster (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

A 'fringe theorist' doesn't win the most prestigious prize for nonfiction in the UK, or is shortlisted for the most prestigious history prize in the country. In both cases, the judges were academics and some of the most eminent historians in the field, including Sir Richard Evans, whose work Ripperologists like yourselves use to attempt to discredit the work. So, indeed the book has been thoroughly vetted by actual historians, not amateurs. Your biases are completely transparent.https://thebailliegiffordprize.co.uk/ https://www.wolfsonhistoryprize.org.uk/past-winners/2020-winners/the-five/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Year1 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmn. But it is not really in doubt that the victims were sex workers. I suspect praise for her work comes more from focusing attention on the victims and away from the killer, and treating them more roundly and fairly. Looking at the lives of ordinary people rather than extraordinary ones is not something attempted by most popular history. She's right, in my personal opinion, in criticizing the lack of any real documentation and the over-reliance of Ripperologists on newspaper reports that most professional historians would treat with skepticism. It's like trying to write a history of Obama's presidency by only looking at the Daily Mail. However, even given all that, you've admitted yourself that "Ripperologists ... attempt to discredit the work". That's our point: the book has received criticism from what wikipedians would consider reliable sources in the topic area. Wikipedia does not choose between opposing viewpoints: it represents all viewpoints with their due weight in the relevant literature. Her view is not yet the consensus view of the relevant literature. DrKay (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

So, if the consensus view was sexist or racist (for example) that would stand, and you would prevent someone with research pointing to something that contradicted that from having their work discussed because racists and sexists disagreed with it? Why not allow a contradictory view to be expressed, especially if that contradictory view has been widely applauded by scholars? New theories will always be challenged by those attempting to maintain the orthodoxy - it doesn't make the orthodox position expressed correct, however, if you prevent any discussion of those new theories, you are upholding what may be incorrect information and preventing the free-exchange of knowledge. The Five is controversial because it challenges the assumption that the women were all prostitutes. The author puts together a very convincing argument to the contrary based on the legitimacy of sources and their contexts which are often misread by Ripperologists who are not historians and do not have professional training. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Year1 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Additionally, as a non-expert and a non-academic, how are you in a position to adjudicate what is or isn't reputable historical scholarship? The examples you cite above; 'She equates a so-called lack of evidence that some were prostitutes as meaning it never existed. Much of the records were destroyed in WWI and WWII from fire and The Blitz' - make no sense - you can't prove a negative. If the records don't exist, we can't assume what was in them supports one theory or another. No evidence means you don't have an argument. An argument is built on what evidence exists. Historians evaluate the credability of that evidence, which is what is done in The Five.

'Fringe theorists' are exactly the ones who win prizes. Nobody gets a prize, or even published, for agreeing with conventional thinking. Rubenhold admits in Hallie Rubenhold on her Battle with the Ripperologists to excluding evidence she thought was unreliable. This is obviously subjective an based on her personal opinion of what of the existing evidence is reliable. This makes the book a personal opinion rather than an authoritative work. --John B123 (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

'non-expert' and 'non-academic'? I presume that's directed at someone else? You appear to have conflated me with another editor (or two). DrKay (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of your educational background in any way, and imo this is also not the point here. Much more relevant is the fact that "excluding unreliable sources" is a standard method of historical work. Why do you frame that as "personal opinion"? Ymyster (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

You haven't addressed this issue: So, if the consensus view was sexist or racist (for example) that would stand, and you would prevent someone with research pointing to something that contradicted that from having their work discussed because racists and sexists disagreed with it? Why not allow a contradictory view to be expressed, especially if that contradictory view has been widely applauded by scholars? Nor have you addressed how it is you think you can prove a negative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Year1 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

'Fringe theorists are exactly the ones who win prizes' says someone who has sat on numerous Nobel and Pulizter judging panels. 'Excluding unreliable evidence' based on a knowledgable evaluation of those sources is precisely why fellow academics have judged this book to be worthy. You're really proving to me why Wikipedia has just become a platform for terrible scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Year1 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Look at it from our side: the far more likely scenario (and one that arises frequently) is that someone somewhere says something racist, sexist, or ignorant; an editor comes along and tries to shoehorn those views into wikipedia. We use our policies of verifiability, neutrality and consensus to ensure that those fringe opinions are not represented with anymore emphasis than they deserve. We must have these rules to protect the encyclopedia from those who would use it to push an agenda outside the mainstream. DrKay (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Push an agenda outside the mainstream? You mean to offer an alternative view which is not misogynist? It's rather interesting that in this entire article, not a single female author is cited about a series of crimes which were all about the murder of women. Writing on Jack the Ripper is dominated by male authors, it's all written from a male point of view and focused on the murderer. Are you suggesting that until there is a massive groundswell of women writing books about Jack the Ripper which are accepted by a group of amateur, predominately male hobbyists with no qualifications in history, that a woman who has written an award winning, best selling nonfiction book on the subject which has been described by as groundbreaking by the academic establishment, will not be allowed to have her work mentioned on any pages concerning Jack the Ripper? That's called sexism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Year1 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't know what gender I am. Perhaps you should examine your own assumptions and prejudice? I am not going to converse with you anymore. I warned you about your confrontational, rude and abusive comments. You've continued them. DrKay (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Much of the records were destroyed in WWI and WWII from fire and The Blitz' Which makes make the perspectives established before the records were destroyed far more credible than those compiled later based on only part of the evidence. --John B123 (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

But you don't know what was in the records. That's the point. You can't base a theory on evidence which no one has seen. You can't prove a negative.

It's got nothing to do with her being a female, it's to do with the content of the book. --John B123 (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No, of course it has nothing to do with 'her being a female'.

But you don't know what was in the records. That's the point. You can't base a theory on evidence which no one has seen. You can't prove a negative Nor can you disprove an existing theory when much of the evidence it was based on is no longer available. --John B123 (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Except the argument isn't based on information that isn't there, it's based on information that's been overlooked or misinterpreted and builds an argument against the use of or reliance upon other evidence, like unverifiable witness statements and newspaper reports. It includes a wider social context and an in-depth examination of the systems and patterns of sex work versus working class social norms to make its points. Read the book and see for yourself, rather than banning it because it rubs you up the wrong way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Year1 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I strongly advise you to read and understand WP:CONDUCT. Making things personal because people don't agree with you isn't acceptable. --John B123 (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Every few years there is a new "work" that comes up with alternative, often controversial theories. Just as regularly they are forgotten about. As stated above, we need to stick with the established sources and not pander to those who want to make a quick buck by putting a new slant on history. --John B123 (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

How much of the previous writing on this issue has been vetted and has acceptance among scholars, or has been reviewed and vetted by academics? Even the first male professional historian to write on this subject, Philip Sugden, thought that there had been a lot of sloppy scholarship. A lot of previous writers on the Ripper might have a low opinion of each other's work. Hallie Rubenhold does have a degree in history. See George Chapman (murderer) for an example of how to deal sensibly with conflicting views on an aspect of the case. PatGallacher (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

In answer to your question: a huge amount. There is a vast literature, in both the popular and scholarly fields, such as Richard Davenport-Hines and Alex Werner, curator at the Museum of London, both of whom are cited in the article. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Rubenhold appears to think of prostitution as a formal job description, which, particularly in the context of the times, is a misunderstanding. Mary Kelly, the youngest of those concerned, may have earned a professional living in that line, but most of the others (and there were just five -- the article is misleading in attempting to corral obviously irrelevant cases into the main case) had simply fallen on hard times for one reason or another and in a couple of instances there are accounts that they were only on the the streets at the time because they didn't have the necessary threepence for a night's lodging, so presumably they had to earn it somehow or sleep rough. Rubenhold's emphasis on the five women -- as opposed to the unknown murderer, who was simply insane, and either killed himself or was committed to the asylum shortly after the last murder, giving the Metropolitan Police a clear shortlist which they were too incompetent to work through properly -- is just, but she doesn't appear to understand social conditions in Victorian London or the significance of losing caste and falling through into the depths, which could easily happen to a lot of people and which, in the case of women, would often result in prostitution. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You're accusing someone who is a widely recognised expert in the history of prostitution and who has written at least two books about the subject of 'misunderstanding' the definition of prostitution. I'm assuming you occupy a chair at a university in the history of sex and regularly attend academic conferences on the subject? Please do list a bibliography of the articles you've had published in peer reviewed journals on the history of prostitution. No? Then you must be a social historian specialising in the lives of working class women and understand the nuances of their lives and how their sexual behaviour intersected with social conventions? Or how 19th century social attitudes were responsible for labelling women? You obviously know more about how ALL poor Victorian women earned their living when they fell on hard times better than the Met Police did in 1888, because they admitted they couldn't even distinguish between a poor woman and a prostitute who may have worked 'casually'. Aagin, would love to see your list of publications on the subject of working class women's sexual behaviour. Not so sure you're the best person to adjudicate on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Year1 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not happy with this latter-day revisionism. Prostitution is the acceptance of payment or gifts for sexual favours, no matter whether it's a career choice or a choice to do so because of hardship. Virtually all of these women blew their earnings on alcohol, making hardship a lame excuse. Akld guy (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Khamba You: you state that "she doesn't appear to understand social conditions in Victorian London or the significance of losing caste and falling through into the depths, which could easily happen to a lot of people and which, in the case of women, would often result in prostitution." Have you read the book? what brought you to this conclusion? Having read the book, I think she took incredible care to show how easy it was to fall and lose everything, in fact a lot of these women did at one point or another, which she documents very well. @Akld guy: you state "these women blew their earnings on alcohol, making hardship a lame excuse" is a rather obtuse way of looking at their situations. At least one, Annie Chapman, was an alcoholic, and the others suffered immensely given the time and social classes they were born into. I would caution you against being so glib, since addiction is more complicated than that. --Lcrawfish (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you might think of Ms. Rubenhold's book, I sense some original research going on here. PatGallacher (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@PatGallacher and Sheila1988: Have you read the book? ...and what info can you give us from that book that may be valuable to the JTR articles other than the controversial claim concerning prostitution?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I have read the book, and indeed there is a lot of information about the lives of the women that can, and probably should, be used, as well as other information about that time that could add additional information to other articles. A few examples include the fact the Nichols' lived on Stamford Street, which was one of George Peabody's tenements. What so interesting about these tenements is that Peabody, having no spouse or legitimate children, decided to contribute £150,000 towards building low-cost dwellings in London, which in the end was actually closer to £500,000, which, according to the book, would amount to about $60 million dollars today. These tenements were very nice for low-cost housing of the day and carried many stipulations. Perhaps this is not specific to the JTR articles, but is nevertheless could help provide more info to https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/George_Peabody#Philanthropy Additionally, related to Nichols, according to Rubenhold, she was allowed to attend school until the age of 15. This was very unusual for the time, although it was not necessarily unusual for children whose families where in the printing trade, because literacy would have been important. Also Mary Ann Nichols' marriage may have dissolved because their neighbor, Rosetta Woolls, who had been left by her husband and had to live with her mother and siblings, who ultimately married Mary Ann's husband after her death. Would this information be classified as valuable for the articles, in addition to her claim that some of the women may not have engaged in prostitution? --Lcrawfish (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

"that they were only on the the streets at the time because they didn't have the necessary threepence for a night's lodging"

That only fits one of the "canonical five": Annie Chapman. She didn't have enough money for her lodging during her final night, "and went out to earn some on the street."

Mary Ann Nichols was renting a room in a lodging house in Spitalfields at the time of her death, and had a roommate (Emily "Nelly" Holland). Elizabeth Stride rented a room in a lodging house in Whitechapel, and stayed on-and-off at the living quarters of her lover Michael Kidney in Devonshire Street. Catherine Eddowes was renting a room at a lodging house in Flower and Dean Street, Spitalfields, sharing the room with her lover John Kelly. Mary Jane Kelly rented 13 Miller's Court, a furnished single room at the back of 26 Dorset Street, Spitalfields, and reportedly allowed female friends to spend the night there. Kelly was also the only one of the "canonical five" who was murdered in her own residence. Dimadick (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Con'd

How is the idea that history mislabeled these women as prostitutes a fringe theory? I believe the sexism and classism of the time (as well as today) is well documented. Rubenhold takes great care to uncover the details of these women's lives, and calling into question these assumptions isn't "fringe" but rather an important and critical look at history and how it's been told. Furthermore, her stating that ""At times, she had to stop writing as she was “so upset and furious” at the ways society had failed the five."@Berean Hunter: why is that a red flag? Doing research on the time would make any woman upset about how these women were failed, as so many at the time were. I think it is more of a red flag that so many of you criticizing Rubenhold's work haven't seemed to actually read it. --Lcrawfish (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• That it is a fringe theory is self-evident in your question. History is the written record. That one person is attempting to disagree that everyone else has it all wrong, and that her view is not the currently accepted view, is by default the very meaning of fringe theory. She has not convinced the consensus of historians such that her views are the new mainstream views.
• Good historians are dispassionate, stoical and neutral in their written approach. They must present solid data to back their theories up. Instead, she fails to discover such data that clearly states they were prostitutes and then makes the folly that this must mean that they weren't. As I've stated in the main thread above, many of the records were destroyed. Others may have been stolen or misplaced but they are otherwise considered missing. The beginning of Rumbelow's book discusses the records for a start. She doesn't have any solid evidence backing her up on that theory at all (and history is against her) or the theory that they were all sleeping at the time that they were killed. She has put forth a great deal of sheer speculation and unsubstantiated theories.

'History is the written record', on a tablet of stone? I think you'll find that any professional historian would disagree with your definition of history. History can be and is to be disputed. There are some 'hard facts', but most history is about context and validity of context. History is about the construction of arguments, it's not a recitation of lists of facts. From the comments above, I see very little understanding of what the practise of history actually entails. With regard to being 'dispassionate', I'd be surprised if you could find me one historian of the Holocaust or of enslaved people who isn't moved by what they've read. In that quote it says the author had to stop writing because she was angry. I read that as she stopped writing in order to remain dispassionate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Year1 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sensationalism is often used to sell books so making wild claims to get those numbers up has become the norm. We will wait and see what impact her claims have made five or ten years down the road...long after the initial sales push has subsided. This helps to avoid recentism and folks trying to right great wrongs...as well as the paid editors and other COI shills that try to manipulate Wikipedia into becoming part of their sales strategies.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It does appear to pretty much be only her opinion which goes against over 100 years of research. That pretty much means its wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please stop analysing sources and attacking each other.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

(Think I put this in teh wrong place, no harm done): Rubenhold is a reputable historian, published by a significant (albeit not specialist) publisher, I've not come across any reviews significant rebutting her work. The academic consensus can be summed up by the roundtable review

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

"Maybe these women did sell sex, although as Rubenhold demonstrates the evidence for this is far from certain." In a field as small as this, due weight would be to acknowledge that equally we cannot say for certain the women were victims of sexual exploitation, and maybe move to a position of stating they were seen as "prostitutes" (and include the scare quotes)Red Deathy (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Using scare quotes calls into question the term prostitute itself which we should not do in the voice of Wikipedia. Or we should simply use a term we don't need scare quotes for, "sex workers". —DIYeditor (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A discussion on this subject has been opened at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. --John B123 (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Note to participants:: The DRN case has been closed as "failed", refer to the RFC section that will come up in a few moments. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 23:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC) _{DRN Volunteer}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC Description of 5 victims as prostitutes

This is a case from the DRN in which the filing editor did not participate. The case is located at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Whitechapel_Murders. The following is a summation, thanks. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 23:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC) _{DRN Volunteer}

Summation

Users involved

• Year1 (talk · contribs)
• DrKay (talk · contribs)
• John B123 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Any mention of The Five; the Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper (2019) by Hallie Rubenhold is being systematically edited out of every page concerning the Whitechapel murders, as well as the biography pages of the five victims; Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, Mary Jane Kelly. The Five has won the 2019 Baillie Gifford Prize for nonfiction and is shortlisted for the 2020 Wolfson History Prize, the two most prestigious nonfiction awards in the UK. Wikipedia editors are banning any mention of it from Wikipedia pages claiming it is 'fringe'. The work has been universally recognised and applauded by some of the country's leading historians for its pains-taking research and thorough reevaluation of existing source material, but is considered anathema by amateur 'Ripperologists' who disagree with the argument put forward in the book that not all of the women killed were prostitutes. The author has been the victim of misogynistic trolling and on-line abuse as a result. The Wikipedia editors of these pages wish to uphold the so-called 'consensus' view maintained by Ripperologists by banning Rubenhold's book and thereby excluding any mention of this important work within the canon of books on the Whitechapel murders, while also claiming they have to be impartial. To date, no scholarship by any woman is mentioned on any of the wiki pages discussing the Whitechapel murders, a brutally violent series of murders of women. This does not offer balance or impartiality and appears to be a deliberate act of sexism.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[1]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Require these editors to allow fair mention and discussion of other theories, information and scholarly works, especially when those works are recognised as legitimate mainstream works vetted by academic professionals outside of the circle of hobbyists (Ripperologists) who wish to control public discourse and exclude women.

Summary of dispute by DrKay

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

There is no evidence of any misogynistic trolling, online abuse or sexism at the Whitechapel murders page or any other wikipedia page related to Jack the Ripper, and none has been presented here. The opening party has an undeclared conflict of interest. If the book under discussion is "universally recognised and applauded" then in time it will be incorporated into the articles as it gains credence and support. The opening party should follow the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. DrKay (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by John B123

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Rubenhold's book disagrees with the raft of previously accepted WP:RS sources over whether the victims were prostitutes. The "systematically edited out" is in fact resistance to the opening party changing the article to reflect Rubenhold's views, dismissing all other sources.

The book has been applauded by some but dismissed by others. Claiming those who support Rubenhold's theories are "country's leading historians" and those who dismiss it are "amateur 'Ripperologists'" is a gross misrepresentation of the books reception. Literary awards are give for "good reads". They are not the same thing as academic or scientific awards that are based on content not writing skills.

Rubenhold's book has been discussed on Talk:Whitechapel murders previously and the general consensus is that its not a WP:RS. The only "dispute" I can see here is that the opening party is not prepared to accept the principles of consensus, which is one of the fundamentals of Wikipedia, and WP:DUE weight.

I would add to DrKay's comments above that it matters little what sex an author is, it's the content that counts. To infer other editors are exhibiting sexism when they disagree with you is totally unacceptable. --John B123 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• I was not involved in this previously but from my reading of the dispute and statements here I think this is a question of WP:DUE, WP:LEAD and WP:FRINGE. The initial attempt at including it was quite unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. It attempted to phrase a tiny minority view by one expert as the predominant view and go into too much detail of this theory in the lead (where it should probably not be included by DUE). From DUE quoting Jimbo Wales: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. I don't know how to qualify extremely small minority in this case nor am I sure we apply exactly that standard. One person tends to be a very small minority but in some topics one person might meet the threshold for a notable theory I guess. Doubleday is not an academic imprint and this is not a book targeted or vetted as academic history but the author can considered an expert with an opinion. I am not experienced in applying FRINGE in a situation like this, but my impression is that we don't always do a careful analysis of just how representative an expert with a novel idea is before mentioning the new theory in an article. My gut instinct would be to include it briefly in the individual biographies to be fair to the subjects (even though not BLP) and since included there give a very brief mention of a new theory in this article. I would not include it in the lead at all. At most I would soften the phrasing "were prostitutes" to "were believed to be prostitutes" but I don't know that we have enough for that. The allegations of sexism are way out of line from what I can tell. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  OK, WRT Gray's review, Rubenhold responded with a letter (Petty and misleading?, Rubenhold, Hallie, Periodical Periodical | History Today. Jul2019, Vol. 69 Issue 7, p6-6. 3/4p.) It's not freely online, but it illustrates two points. Rubenhold characterises her claim as *not* that 3/5 victims were not subject to sexual exploitation, but that there is a lack of evidence that they were. " Gray takes issue with my argument that there is no substantial evidence to suggest that three of the five victims were involved in the sex trade." (and that does seem to be the consensus of the roundtable Lister et. al) further "The lack of indisputable material as well as the absence of balanced discourse about sex work within Ripperology has caused some historians of the sex trade to question the basis of this assertion. Questions about the sexual habits of five unjustly maligned women have come to dominate a conversation which should be about illuminating their lives." (On a personal note, I've seen hair splitting reviews like Gray's in other circumstances where a book has trod on the sacred pond that some think they can row so well). So to reiterate, I would suggest some such formulation of "Have been perceived as being involved in the sex trade" or "who have commonly been represented as" etc. Red Deathy (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  I think "were believed to be prostitutes" may be OK, but it might be both too weak and not strong enough. Its fair to say there are 100's of books about saucy Jack, of which all but 1 say they were prostitutes. 1000's of articles, countless TV documentaries. So it might be more representative to write "are believed to be prostitutes".Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  "Are believed to have been prostitutes" perhaps? —DIYeditor (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  Or that, but I think we may need to add "widely" as well.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  *not* that 3/5 victims were not subject to sexual exploitation, but that there is a lack of evidence that they were. The interchangeability of the terms "sexual exploitation" and "prostitution" suggests to me a very WP:POV outlook on prostitution along the lines of neo-abolitionism. --John B123 (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• At this article, it should be excluded. This article is already well-referenced with reliable sources and is about the murders not the victims. The opening comment contains no new information about the murders, provides no new insights into their perpetration or investigation, and makes no clear proposal for how the content of this article is deficient. None of the three victims mentioned above are actually called prostitutes at this article, and as the article is about the murders as a whole it is inappropriate to go into a long discussion here about whether they were or weren't. The addition of a "Further reading" section is unnecessary and inappropriate because the literature on the murders is vast and there is already a substantial list of sources. DrKay (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  There is the point that Rubbenhold's suggests, following problematising the identification as sex workers, that he was attacking them as rough sleepers and not luring them as a potential client, which I'd suggest is significant.Red Deathy (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  As we do not mention any thing about Sex or modus operandi in the text why do we need this "context"?Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  It's not mentioned, but neither is any reason given for assiduously identifying which murdered women were or were not prostitutes, I'd think rough sleeper is as much an identification, and relevance. I'd say there's a case for removing the reference to prostitution from the lead, and focus on it being an article about murdered women. Anyway, must stop myself debating, I'll leave my comments at that and let it rest with other editors.Red Deathy (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  I am not following you, we make no attempt to identify them as anything, so why suddenly do we need to, what does this tell us about the crimes? We did not need to say they were street walkers, so why do we need to say they were "rough sleepers"? I do not see what this adds?Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  Since I've been asked to clarify: from the article: "45-year-old prostitute Emma Elizabeth Smith";"prostitute Martha Tabram" ;"the body of prostitute Elizabeth Stride";" prostitute Mary Jane Kelly". The article doesn't say "Hop picker" (was that Chapman, I forget), for example.Red Deathy (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  Then I stand corrected, but two of those are not part of the canonical five the book talks about. Now if any of the canonical five are called prostitutes (and this book says they were not) then I can see an argument for including "possibly" or "represented as".Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  Who disputes that these 4 were prostitutes? DrKay (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  No one AFAIK, what is at stake is the relevance for mentioning that they were, when no-one is described as a hop picker.Red Deathy (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  What? I thought what was at stake was saying those who were not prostitutes should not be called prostitutes, and that this book proves some of them were not?Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  "that he was attacking them as rough sleepers and not luring them as a potential client" First, information on the whereabouts or backgrounds of individual victims can be covered on their individual articles. Second, nobody is certain how he/she approached the victims. In Elizabeth Stride's case we have an eyewitness account of her being attacked at some point:

  "Israel Schwartz informed investigators he had seen Stride being attacked outside Dutfield's Yard at approximately 12:45 a.m. by a man with dark hair, a small brown moustache and approximately 5 feet 5 inches in height. According to Schwartz, this man attempted to pull Stride onto the street before turning her around and shoving her to the ground. As Schwartz had observed this assault, Stride's assailant shouted the word "Lipski" either to Schwartz himself or to a second man who had exited the club amidst this altercation and lit a pipe." Dimadick (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  As far as I'm aware, Rubenhold is the only one describing them as "rough sleepers", based partly on her reinterpretation of "street walker" as someone who walks the streets, i.e. rough sleeper, rather than a euphemism for prostitution. There are numerous references to the women's lodgings, which doesn't suggest they were sleeping rough. --John B123 (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  IIRC Rubenhold notes their lodgings were paid for nightly, and they were shy of the money those nights. Red Deathy (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  Calling them "rough sleepers" when they normally slept in lodgings is misleading. --John B123 (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it may be time to let some fresh blood in.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to say we ought to include the information in this book, but before I say for sure: what specific reliable sources are there that say specifically all five were prostitutes (especially those that postdate the book), and what specific reliable sources are there other than this book that some of the five might not have been? Some of the editors here are referring to a "consensus" that I as an outsider do not find convincing without evidence that it exists. Loki (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This case has arguably been subjected to scrutiny and research more than any other serial killer case worldwide (and certainly over a longer period of time i.e. over 130 years). There is such a wealth of online and printed information which can be found - all of which states the primary (and in some cases exclusive) method of income for these women was selling sexual favours. Official Metropolitan Police records estimate 1,200 other women in the area at the time minimum sold sex on the streets.
    • [[2]] "Jack the Ripper, pseudonymous murderer of at least five women, all prostitutes" [[3]] " All the women murdered were prostitutes", that was after a couple of minutes or so of searching (including typing this).Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Nobody questioned this, until this author, 130+ years later, despite general consensus among all researchers and no printed contemporary 19th century documentation to the contrary. What evidence is there more than a century later to support her claims? Now, if Rubenhold's book was about a potential new suspect or her theory Subject A or Subject X was the Ripper, then a referenced addition on the Jack the Ripper suspects article would be more than welcome and an insertion on the Bibliography section of this article appreciated. In reference to the previous contributor's comment, I can see merit in inclusion of sterile, verifiable facts such as the suicide date of Chapman's father, as, I assume, the death certificate can be sought online or by other means and it isn't therefore conjecture a date and method of death as opposed to what and why any woman was doing in the early hours of the morning in a conveniently dark corner of Mitre Square or a yard known to have been frequented by prostitutes in Hanbury Street in the early hours of the morning before their bodies were found there..--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • Rough sleepers? This article and the Jack the Ripper one unequivocally describe the background within the area and the sheer hardships which forced women to resort to this method to live. There is no stigma. At least not to the mind of anybody who appreciates the overall circumstances. I could say more, but, maybe the author ought to appreciate the fact that whoever this perpetrator was, given the location and the (dare I say desperate) backgrounds of these women, enough evidence (eyewitness/inquest testimony etc.) exists to strongly indicate he lured them (or they invited him) to secluded locations, where he struck.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
      • "he lured them (or they invited him) to secluded locations, where he struck" There are two exceptions among the canonical five. Elizabeth Stride was found dead next to "the International Working Men's Educational Club, a socialist and predominantly Jewish social club" and the one who found her was Louis Diemschutz, the club's steward. Far from a secluded spot, this was a busy meeting place. And Mary Jane Kelly was killed in her own residence, with her neighbors reporting various sounds. Dimadick (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
        • I know that. I spent a lot of time working on the Stride article at the beginning of this year. There are questions as to whether Stride was murdered by the Ripper, or incidentally murdered shortly before Eddowes. Diemschutz gave evidence at the inquest that sections of the yard were extremely poorly illuminated. No lamp existed in Dutfield's Yard, but there were a few on Berner Street. Quite possibly opportunism. She could speak Yiddish. Acquaintances of Kelly state she made comments to the effect that she did not want them to end up like her, and she is believed to have worked in West End brothels a few years before her death. Rubenhold's book does not deserve a mention, to my mind, as giving credence to a "but maybe" theorist with zero concrete evidence calls into question the reputability of all the content, and not just on Wikipedia, but all the exhaustive research by authors and upon the ample Jack the Ripper websites. Oh, and many women did work hop picking or selling flowers in Spitalfields as well as selling sex. They would do anything to make money. I recall reading and adding to the article that Stride earned some money cleaning at her lodging house the day of her murder.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I promised I wouldn't do this, but: Rubenhold's case is a lack of evidence (which is WP:V relevant), and the identification as sex workers was a lazy assumption in the press and from afar. For while this matters, if, as she suggests he was attacking women while they slept, that does put a different light on the profile. Now, her book is the place for such things, wikipedia isn't, but her contribution to the field needs to be considered as does her plea to show more consideration for the victims as humans, if only by checking the facts.Red Deathy (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Red Deathy. We are checking the facts, as have many others, far more eminent than us, before our fathers and even grandfathers were born. She "suggests" he attacked as they slept? She is using wishful thinking to override all the facts. Nobody is denying the human cost, and the painful circumstances which led to the lives of these women in this section of the East End by 1888. If anything, Wikipedia (and other sites) clearly illustrate the sheer hardship of their lives, and an overall contextual focus of attention on both the Ripper and Whitechapel murders articles is directed at the poverty, circumstances compounding the poverty, and the resulting desperation. I read somewhere (not in a fringe theorist's book) that the ages of the girls and women who even occasionally sold sex for food, shelter, and a temporary respite from the cotemporary daily hardships of life (alcohol) was the age of puberty up until the early 60s. Wikipedia is the place to present information in a balanced, verifiable manner. If, as you seem to imply, Rubenhold's overall efforts are to humanize the victims, then, although understandable, it has already been done (and rightly so). Having said this, it shows a selective intent from the outset on her part. Nobody derides or dismisses the human cost here.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Rubenhold's case, in regard to prostitution, isn't supported by other academics. Kate Lister et al sit on the fence, they don't dismiss Rubenhold theories, but they stop short of saying they are correct. Drew Gray dismisses Rubenhold's claim as the "central argument is unconvincing" and that "we cannot simply ignore sources that do not fit our particular view of the past". Having read the relevant parts of the book (keyword searches on Google preview), I find Rubenhold's reasoning flimsy. For example, "On the nights they were killed no one came forward to state they had been solicited." Whilst that could mean they were not prostitutes, it could also mean that men who they had propositioned were afraid to come forward in case they became suspects. What Rubenhold considered the "final word" is that in 4 out of the 5 case they were not recorded as prostitutes on their death certificates. This ignores that usual practice in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that a husband's name and occupation were recorded under "occupation". Any text book on social history will confirm occupations on women's death certificates during this era are of little value. Florence Nightingale (d 1910) had her occupation on her death certificate as "daughter of William Nightingale", but this is no argument that she wasn't a nurse. --John B123 (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you're mischaracterising Lister et. al a little "Maybe these women did sell sex, although as Rubenhold demonstrates the evidence for this is far from certain.", "Greatly expanding on the research of genealogists and amateur historians, she thoroughly and poignantly reconstructs the lives of the five working-class women, and is able to trace four of them back to their childhoods. She demonstrates how historians might reconstruct details of working-class women's lives through their interactions with the state.",etc. the critical comments mostly relate to it being popular history and questioning the claim of finding "truth", which I suspect, per Rubenhold's reuttal of Gray she wouldn't demur over. one of Lister et al substantially challenge Rubenhold's credentials or her method.Red Deathy (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Even Rubenhold says she was a sex worker. There is no justification for removing information when all the sources agree on it. Indeed, something that all sources mention should be in the article. DrKay (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you mean to reply here or to my other edit? I don't mention removing any information at all, nor am I advocating it? I'm a bit confused now about what you're talking about.Red Deathy (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Lister et. al's "Rubenhold demonstrates the evidence for this is far from certain" isn't the same thing as Rubenhold's "there is no evidence". Lister et. al are generally supportive of the book, as is Gray, but this is irrelevant to the area under discussion here. As an aside, I have followed Lister on twitter for years (@WhoresofYore) and find the snippets she posts about prostitution in bygone times fascinating. --John B123 (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I concur, with slight note that rubenhold says "no substantial evidence" in her reply to Gray, which is cutting fine shades: thanks for Lister's twitter handle, I'll have to take a look.Red Deathy (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Concrete proposals

• 1) Edit lead to expand on why some of the women being prostitutes is relevant (i.e. that they were murder because they were or as they were).
• 2) Remove the word "endemic" in reference to prostitution, common or frequent would substitute.
• 3) End the practice of writing "prostitute Jane Doe", move reference of prostitution to its own sentence away from the identification of victim and statement of murder.Red Deathy (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose 1 Its both a bit vague and hard to see how to do it without violating wp:undue
• Oppose 2 It was endemic due to the rampant poverty, Every source I have ever seen on Victorian crime and society have been clear on that..
• Support 3 I am not sure I like the idea of this, We do not need to use it as a label.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This a bit premature, it hasn't been agreed as yet that there are any changes needed to the article as a result of Rubenhold's book. --John B123 (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose all. This RfC has moved away from its original intent and into a new area, which is much more complex than the 3 statements above. The original dispute was caused by single purpose accounts with conflicts of interest trying to add a particular book into the lead or references inappropriately. Now, we've moved away from that to discussing (1) an unsourced addition that the women were murdered "because they were" prostitutes; (2) a pedantic argument over one word without any explanation of why that word is any worse or better than any other; and (3) the removal of sourced information. I don't see how any of these improve the article. DrKay (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose 1 We don't know the identity of the killer or killers, so their motivations are equally unknown. In a crime of opportunity the killer/s would choose whatever victim seemed convenient.
• Oppose 2 Endemic is a better description of the social problems in the area.
• Support 3 Prostitute X is a bit too simplistic for my taste. In all five cases, it was not their only source of income or at least not for long.
  • Chapman supplemented her income with "crochet work, making antimacassars and selling flowers".
  • Eddowes had spend the summer hop picking in Kent, and only returned to London following the harvest's end.
  • Kelly is thought to have quit prostitution during her relationship with Joseph Barnett, as his wages were initially large enough to support her lifestyle. She is thought to have returned to prostitution after Barnett fell out of regular employement.
  • Nichols had quit working as a domestic servant in Wandsworth about a month before her death.
  • Stride supplemented her income by performing cleaning duties both at the lodging house and nearby residences. Dimadick (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
    • As I said before, Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes are not called "prostitute X". I still don't see why people are discussing something that doesn't apply, or wanting the removal of information that isn't in doubt. DrKay (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, there is no removal of sourced information (3) is about moving mention of prostitution to its own sentence and deprecating the use of "prostitute Jane Doe"; (2) Endemic sounds medicalising, and "highly frequent" or "prevalent" or "common" could substitute; (1) it's WP:undue to mention that many were prostitutes without saying why we're mentioning that- after all, all of them were alcoholics, but that is't mentioned. So, either prostitute should be removed from the lead, or made clear why it is there. All that takes is a simple "It has been suspected some were murdered due to their involvement in prostitution or by a suspected client."(properly sourced) Red Deathy (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Endemic is not a medical term.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I hate myself for this but, to paraphrase (for copyright reasons) the OED: (a) Of a species being in its natural environment (opposite of exotic); (b) of a disease in a particular region due to natural causes; (c) analogy to a or b. None of those definitions are appropriate, prostitution is a social phenomena, not a natural one, and it also did't just have a natural habitat in the East End, it was in the West End and probably all over London (as, IIRC Fowles notes in the French Lieutenants woman).

Now, I don't know why DrKay keeps referring to removing information. Perhaps a concrete example would help: "On Friday 9 November, Mary Jane Kelly was murdered in the single room where she lived at 13 Miller's Court, behind 26 Dorset Street, Spitalfields. She has been working as a prostitute from those premises." (or some such, the basic principle, deprecate "Prostitute X" and move prostitution to a sentence where the victim is the active subject.Red Deathy (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It's unnecessarily verbose: same content but using ten words instead of one. DrKay (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, it's exactly the same content, but without the dehumanising and defining the murder victim by one small part of their life, yes, it takes more words, and I would argue necessarily so.Red Deathy (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

How are they being dehumanised?Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It's akin to saying "On April 4, 1841, William Henry Harrison died at the White House, Washington. He had been working as the President of the United States from those premises." Just say: ""On April 4, 1841, President William Henry Harrison died at the White House, Washington." The second sentence has no humanizing effect and imparts no useful information that is not obvious in the simpler and more concise single sentence. DrKay (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

MMMmm, unsure they are the same, context matters. Begin someone who dies whilst visiting the White house a tourist carries rather less implication than dying whilst working there. Of course that is what the rest of the article is for. But yes if thee are no contextual circumstances that make the factoid significant then there is no difference. Here (ironically) there is a cultural context that makes who they were highly significant, at the time much was made of the fact (and even more so since) that if these murders had been committed in the west end more would have been done. They (tragically) became more humanised in death than they had been in life, because of what they had been.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

President is a title, not merely a job, so it is part of their name, but arguably "Bob Smith, President of the United States" is better, or "Sam Jones, Taxi Driver", etc. In this article, people who have worked in the sex trade are singled out by being identified by profession before we meet their name (and, again, no effort has been made to establish why their source of income is relevant and worth mentioning). I think what we owe the as victims, is to introduce them by name first, and to highlight their status as victims, before we move on to their context, especially as, unlike President, Prostitute has many negative connotations (like it or not). I doubt they would appreciate being referred to as "prostitute x"Red Deathy (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I can see a justification for changing to location of the word till after their name. After all it is not what they are notable for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. "the deputy keeper, Mary Russell", "cart driver Charles Cross", "carpenter Albert Cadosch", "City medical officer William Sedgwick Saunders", "psychic Robert James Lees", "police surgeon Thomas Bond", etc., etc.: people who worked in the sex trade are in no way "singled out" and there is no reason to do so by treating them differently to everyone else in the article. DrKay (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd quite happily change all those, whoever wrote this article had weird habits, they should be "a firefighter, Sandra Smith," or "Sandra Smith, the firefighter"; however, I would add that the connotations of un-respectability for prostitution are sufficient for special treatment, especially of victims.Red Deathy (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Towards consensus

OK, so, to go back a step. My concerns are that the focus on prostitution is WP:UNDUE and insensitively handled. I think I've made a good case that the word endemic is both inaccurate and inappropriate (I think that should be an easy change to make); however, none of my other proposals have found support. I'd like to ask other editors what changes we could make that could address these problems, particularly DrKay. It's clear there currently isn't a consensus, but I'd like to think there is scope to build one.Red Deathy (talk) 08:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you've made any case that endemic is not a good word to use. It means something is a feature of a population. For example "endemic poverty" is a very common expression. Why are you fixated on this word? None of your other proposals found support? Wasn't everyone opposed to that one? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this got lost in the kerfuffle, but the OED def is(paraphrased for copyright): "(a) Of a species being in its natural environment (opposite of exotic); (b) of a disease in a particular region due to natural causes; (c) analogy to a or b.", i.e. it at the best applies a biological term to a social phenomena.Red Deathy (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, as I cannot check the OED, I can a few other dictionaries. " characteristic of or prevalent in a particular field, area, or environment", as well as the two you mentioned (but as explanations as "endemic diseases" is a sub section of "restricted or peculiar to a locality or region" [[4]] "especially of a disease or a condition, regularly found and very common among a particular group or in a particular area:" (which does fit your argument better but one example given "There is endemic racism/poverty/violence in many of the country's cities" (which fits our argument perfectly) [[5]]. So I am not sure your argument holds up.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Which brings in the subsidiary argument that it was prevalent in the west end and throughout London, anyway, I thought that was an uncontroversial change where little meaning would be lost but with some possible connotative gains. The concrete proposal to deprecate got some support from editors, so there is some scope for exploring movement there, but moreover my main concern is WP:UNDUE which I don't think has been addressed anywhereRed Deathy (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but was far more common in the poorer areas, hence "endemic". I cannot remember where but I seem to recall reading that in the east end the majority of women were in fact engaged in some form of prostitution. Doe to rampant and unremitting poverty.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No I saw that. I'm more of an etymology guy when it comes to splitting hairs over meaning and it is clear what "endemic" means - "in the population". Again, "endemic poverty" is an extremely common expression, as are many other non-biological uses. You don't need to paraphrase to quote the OED, go ahead and quote it directly. I've forgotten my library card password so I can't check the online OED, but the 2nd edition of the OED said: "A. adj. Constantly or regularly found among a (specified) people, or in a (specified) country". The ODE says: "1 (of a disease or condition) regularly found among particular people or in a certain area: complacency is endemic in industry today." Merriam-Webster's definition: "1a: belonging or native to a particular people or country b: characteristic of or prevalent in a particular field, area, or environment". I did not notice anyone agree with your argument, only reject it, so I am perplexed by why you act as if you prevailed on that topic. Google results for "prostitution is endemic": 330,000. Google books results for "prostitution is endemic": 291. Google books results for "prostitution was endemic": 361. Google books results for "endemic prostitution": 195. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No one prevails on wikipedia, I gave reasons which weren't rebutted, so I thought a path might be open to consensus. Since you asked: A. adj. Constantly or regularly found among a (specified) people, or in a (specified) country: esp. a. French endémique (A. P. de Candolle 1820, in Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles XVIII. 412). Of plants or animals: Having their ordinary habitat in a certain country; opposed to exotic. Now used spec. of plants and animals that are indigenous only in a specified area. b. Of diseases: Habitually prevalent in a certain country, and due to permanent local causes. Prevalence of a usage doesn't indicate that it is good or desirable usage, esp here. Anyway, my main concern is to find some consensus on the apparent WP:UNDUERed Deathy (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read wP:cherry, stop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, genuinely confused, in relation to what? I'm trying to get away from the endemic thing,I mentioned it in passing while trying to work on my main concern...Red Deathy (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Finding (what appears to be) an old and very specific source that uses the word in a specific context that is not even in the Language we are using.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, no, that was the OED def, which I had clearly misremembered when paraphrasing, I was provising in full when asked by —DIYeditor, and it seems to be a good thing I did, it allowed me to be corrected. Red Deathy (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

"A. P. de Candolle 1820, in Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles XVIII. 412" is from the OED?Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they cite it as part of their def (there was some loss of formatting from my copy/paste, apologies if that made things unclear). I suppose it is a Greek word...Red Deathy (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I believe it is showing the origin of the word. Let's move on from this. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You omitted the most relevant part of the definition. I think we're done here. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with being wrong, I wasRed Deathy (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I think we can close this now, we have a clear consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, there is on the endemic issue, which I was mistaken on, but I still have concerns about the focus on prostitution without saying why. My concrete suggestions were rejected, so are there any changes acceptable to editors that could fix my concerns? Why mention in the lead that some victims were prostitutes?Red Deathy (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

[6] Britannica's introduction: Jack the Ripper, pseudonymous murderer of at least five women, all prostitutes, in or near the Whitechapel district of London’s East End, between August and November 1888. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "without saying why"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, for instance, in the case of Emma Elizabeth Smith, it is highly relevant since there is a suspicion of a criminal gang threatening prostitutes, but unless there is some causal connection between the murders, which unless I am missing it (and I'm willing to be proven wrong, it's always possible to misread things) is not made explicit in the article it is redundant to mention that. As I've noted, all the cannonical five were alcoholics, I suspect if asked all the women would have admitted to being Christians, so commonality alone is clearly insufficient for inclusion...Red Deathy (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Still not getting the Why? We do not know (and can never know) they they were targeted. Nor do I see how what you want to add, what do you think we need to say?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, since we can't know the motive, we could say that their trade put them at risk, we could say people assumed a motive for the attacker, etc. But I don't know why it has been included, and surely it is for the presence of the mention of prostitution to justify itself, not the other way round, why is it being mentioned?Red Deathy (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ahh I see, Yes it seems a valid point to explain why they may have been targeted (according to what RS assume).Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

How about this: "Most, if not all, of the victims—Emma Elizabeth Smith, Martha Tabram, Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, Mary Jane Kelly, Rose Mylett, Alice McKenzie, Frances Coles, and an unidentified woman—were prostitutes, feeding the sensation horror in reporting of the crimes and leading to parts of the Tory press holding the victims responsible for their own fate. ref Curtis, L.. Jack the Ripper and the London Press, Yale University Press, 2001. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucl/detail.action?docID=3419898. pg. 132/ref" Ah thangyow. Red Deathy (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I like the politicising baaed upon one source. Leave out "the Trot Press" for a start.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think on a later page the Times if identified (the distinction the author is making is between the liberal/radical papers and Tory papers, which would have been self identification at the time). Ultimately, reactions to the Whitechapel murders were profoundly political. But I'd happily substitute "papers, such as The Times" (pg. 165) for "parts of the Tory Press".Red Deathy (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Except that is saying the same thing, which I disagree with. Reading about the ripper murders the whole press engaged in sensationalism. Indeed it has been suggested this is why the Ripper is so significant, there had been serial killers before, and worse ones. But Saucy Jack was the first one to get the full on tabloid treatment (up to an including forging letters, the mass media of their day).Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Does "own fate" mean their lifestyle or their murder (or both)? The preceding clause to this statement in Curtis refers to Liberal and Radical press blaming poverty for driving the women to desperation: "Unlike the Liberal and Radical papers that blamed poverty for driving so many working-class women into prostitution and alcoholism, the Tory press held the victims partly responsible for their fate". It seems to be referring to "prostitution and alcoholism" as "their fate". DrKay (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Slatersteven this is addressing the significance of prostitution in particular, not press sensationalism, per the opening comment of this section. @DrKay The ref on page 165 is clearer "blamed the victims for making such ‘‘easy prey’’ because they chose to evade police surveillance in order to pursue clients."Red Deathy (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Errr thats not quite what your suggested edit implies.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy to revise if I've been unsuccessful in conveying the intended sense: any suggestions for a better wording?Red Deathy (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

" "Most, if not all, of the victims—Emma Elizabeth Smith, Martha Tabram, Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, Mary Jane Kelly, Rose Mylett, Alice McKenzie, Frances Coles, and an unidentified woman—were prostitutes, feeding the sensationalism in reporting of the crimes and making the polices job of protecting them harder".Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Better, but that reports it as objective fact, rather than an allegation/slant in the press, I think the significant thing to highlight is the victim blaming.Red Deathy (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

How about "[...] feeding the sensationalism in reporting of the and claims that the victims trade made them "easy prey""?Red Deathy (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"Of the" what?Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"crimes" copying errorRed Deathy (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I can just about live with that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the lead is the place to bring this out. Differences in the press reporting belong in the body of the article. --John B123 (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Current version doesn't mention differences in press reporting, merely consequence of prostitution connexion: yes, it may need further follow up elseplace in the article, but I think it's a small addition for clarity for now. Also, I'd say the press reaction is one of the very significant aspects of the story.Red Deathy (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, nearly forgot about this. I think, to progress discussion and to clarify how it would look, I'm going to WP:BRD this and put a version in place so we can see concretely how it would look/fit. Fully expect reversion, but what the hey.Red Deathy (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that is a misuse of BRD, if you know you are going to get reverted you already know what will happen. This you should post your suggested edit here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Also, as this stems from an WP:RfC, consensus needs to be reached before changes are made. --John B123 (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Also agree. No more changes should be made on this front until consensus is achieved. The murders are over 100 years old, this will keep for a month until the RfC can be closed. If it can even be closed at this point as it is not a discussion of a brief neutral question or statement per WP:RFC. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have posted the suggested edit here (above), there seemed to be some confusion in the discussion, so I thought putting it in place for editors to decide how it looked in practice seemed like a perfectly sensible use of BRD.Red Deathy (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Given the objections above I would thought a self-reversion would have happened, but failing this I have reverted the changes.

@John B123, so, what are your objections to the change, or can you suggest a better change?Red Deathy (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As stated above by myself and other editors, it is inappropriate to change the text of the article to what you think it should be until discussions are complete. --John B123 (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

And you cannot hold a discussion to ransom by refusing to talk.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Who's holding the discussion to ransom? --John B123 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

To make this easier.

Slightly confused, no-one responded to my response of 13:22 34th May, until today.Red Deathy (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposes new text

leading to sensational reporting of the crimes and claims that the victims' trade made them "easy prey".

Support

Please also give a reason.

• Support This seems a reasonable compromise and explains why (and briefly) the significance of their trade.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose The "sensationalism" was largely directed at the extreme brutality of the murders. The victims' lifestyles and the circumstances as to why they were as they were are covered in the penultimate lede sentence (which may need expanding to include the context of the proposal).--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Would delete "leading to" insert "adding to" fix this? Probably slightly closer to the referenced source. Otherwise, I agree there is mileage in working on that penultimate sentenceRed Deathy (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Red Deathy. How about something along these lines: "The Whitechapel murders drew national attention to the poor living conditions in and around Whitechapel and the extreme poverty of of the populace. By the early 1900s, the worst of the slums had been demolished. The living conditions of the residents subsequently improved."--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @Kieronoldham I like that, and think it could be easy to source the first half, slight qualms about the sense of causation on the demolition of the slums, but if that can be sourced I think t has a place. I think destitution certainly deserves more prominence than prostitution.Red Deathy (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Sensationalism in press reportage occurs with most crimes, so is not unique to these murders. The lead is supposed to be an overview of the article, so every aspect cannot be covered, nor should be. To added a few words to the lead without expanding on that aspect within the body isn't a good way of adding to the article. The second sentence of the "Legacy" section mentions the sensational reportage. Perhaps this would be the best place to expand on the press coverage and its effect.--John B123 (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The same criticism could be made of the selective inclusion of prostitution in the lead, which is what this change is about, hdo you see any scope maybe for expanding the final paragrap of the lead per discussion just above?Red Deathy (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Ask a person in the street who Jack the Ripper was and you'll get an answer along the lines of "Murderer of prostitutes in Victorian London". Rightly or wrongly, the murders and prostitution are inextricably linked so the mention in the lead is to be expected. The more I look into the press coverage, the more I feel a few sentences in the body of the article on this aspect is justified. (I found this interesting [7]). However, I would advise caution in how this portrayed, even the most factual and neutral reporting can have an immense influence on the public's perception of events. For example, in the mid 1980s there were almost daily riots and necklacing in South Africa. The daily reporting and news footage on tv gave the impression in the UK that South Africa was on the verge of civil war. In about 1986 I had a young South African working for me. One day I made a comment about things in South Africa being dodgy and just got blank look in return. After explaining he told me the riots were confined to the black townships in the cities, and most of South Africa was trouble free. Not long before he came to the UK the Brixton and Broadwater riots had taken place. His parents were against him coming to Britain because of the coverage of these riots they thought the UK was unsafe. Even without sensationalism, two countries had totally the wrong perception of the other due to the facts being reported. --John B123 (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @John B123 Wikipedia is a place for facts, not perceptions: the commonplace view of the Reichstag fire is the Nazis did it themselves, when it's fairly certain van der Lubbe did it, people shouldn't come here to get common perceptions upheld. Certainly, the association of the murders with prostitution has to be mentioned (although it doesn't receive any analysis in the article, which is one of the reasons I think it's undue in the lead). Of the commonalities of the victims, destitution is probably more significant than prostitution. Now, I'm not actually calling for prostitution to be removed from the lead, but contextualised, and maybe afterwards (giving how difficult it is to achieve consensus on small changes here) look at finding a place for more context/explanation in the body. But fixing the lead would be a start. I get your point about sensationalism, but also I think a lot of the Jack the Ripper story is the immediate and different sensationalism that occurred, there were lots of murders in London at that time (It'd be good to have a reputable figure for that somewhere in the article, actually). I agree much of the sensationalism was that the murders were bloody stranger murders, but much of the press angle of the time was on prostitution, and I think that is a fair and balanced way in to discussion of it in this article.Red Deathy (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The sentence makes it sound like the characterization of the victims as prey was the sole result of the sensationalism. Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Can you suggest an alternate wording (TBF, I can't see how the wording does as you suggest) maybe an insertion of "to" after the and, i.e. "leading to sensational reporting of the crimes and to claims that..." that would make it clearer that senationalism and claims are separate things?Red Deathy (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we can cover the two topics in two separate sentences, in order to avoid the illusion of one causing the other. Dimadick (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Alternative suggestions

Please make alternative suggestions here (with reasons)

We have talked about this ad nauseam, can we please lust have one actual decision? Not more of the same arguments?Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Ellymoo (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Simply allow the links and book title to be included in the articles, so that people can make up their own minds. The continual refusal to allow any inclusion of this work makes it the more powerful.

That is not what we do, we are not a bibliography where fringe theories are given the same weight as mainstream ones. Also see wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Robert Anderson (Scotland Yard official)#Jack the Ripper investigation conflict

• The Criminal Investigation Department was then just starting the investigation into the Jack the Ripper murders, which he thought were grossly over-sensationalized. Almost immediately after being promoted, Anderson went on an extended holiday in France on vacation on doctor’s orders, leaving the Metropolitan Police leaderless during the biggest challenge in its history. He was called back after a month because of increased bad publicity over the Ripper murders. About which, he later wrote, “When the stolid English go in for a scare, they take leave of all moderation and common sense. If nonsense were solid, the nonsense that was talked and written about those murders would sink a Dreadnought.” He also wrote that the victims “belonged to a very small class of degraded women who frequent the East End streets after midnight, in hope of inveigling belated drunkards, or men as degraded as themselves.” He did not lead the Metropolitan Police to capture the killer.
• "Dr. Robert Anderson". jack-the-ripper.org. Retrieved August 19, 2022.
• .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. jack-the-ripper.org clearly says Switzerland, which is what Evans and Rumbelow, and other sources, also say. DrKay (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

DNA Evidence confirming the Prime Suspect (Aaron Kosminsky) was the murderer - no mention?

Seems pretty blatantly biased that there is zero mention of the recent DNA evidence linking Aaron Kosminsky, the prime suspect at the time, to the murders.

I'll summarize it briefly: 1.) A shawl from one of the murdered women was covered in her blood and some semen (presumed to be of the Jack the Ripper's), this was recently re-tested for DNA evidence and the results published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1556-4029.14038). The Journal of Forensic Sciences (JFS) is a well-established and reputable peer-reviewed academic journal in the field of forensic science, not some crack-pot publication. 2.) This shawl was tested multiple times by Jari Louhelainen, a biochemist at Liverpool John Moores University in the United Kingdom and then again later by David Miller, a reproduction and sperm expert at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. 3.) This evidence shows the owner of the semen was related to modern-day Kosminski descendants. 4.) The DNA matches that of a person with brown hair and brown eyes, both of which eyewitnesses ascribed to the murderer.

Keep in mind that the lead investigator at the time was also convinced that Aaron Kosminsky was the murderer due to circumstantial evidence such as his comings & goings, but could not get a conviction due to lack of co-operation from Kosminsky's community/neighbors. Also strange why Kosminsky is listed near the bottom of the list of suspects in the Jack the Ripper article, almost like a footnote, when he was the prime suspect at the time. 113.38.197.41 (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus governs. Certainly would be "undue weight" to add such a stark entry in the lede.

This has been discussed earlier (see the talk history on the Jack the Ripper page). The origins of the shawl are disputed (if memory serves me correct, the copper who supposedly had the shawl in his possession did not even serve in the East End). No appropriate forensic methods were taken in preserving the shawl, and among those who handled it were apparent descendants of Kosminski etc. .--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

So some descendent randomly decided to ejaculate on a bloody shawl? Seems weird. Meanwhile, Occam's Razor would suggest that a man who witnesses identified as Jack the Ripper (but would not testify against in court due to a shared religion) was probably the murderer. 113.38.197.41 (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere,[8] the journal and other scientists have expressed concerns over that paper. You can't include the study without including the criticisms of it by other scientists and the journal's retraction. This is just another delusional theory (one of many). It deserves no more mention than any of the other poorly-evidenced and contested theories. DrKay (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

As I recall there are serious issues over contamination of some evidence. Also just having semen on the shawl does not show he was the murderer, just that they had had sexual relations at some point. But yes I think we can say that this study found links. [[9]] also raises doubts. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

That's the older, original study. A second scientist repeated the study recently and came to the same conclusions. 113.38.197.41 (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This one has also come in for criticism [[10]], with the fact being that is can't be shown to have even been at the scene pretty daming. Also its not the only DNA test out there. And [[11]]. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You said, and I quote word-for-word, "this was recently re-tested for DNA evidence and the results published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1556-4029.14038)". To reiterate my (and Slatersteven's point) once again, that study is labelled at the top EXPRESSION OF CONCERN in big bold capital letters by the journal editors. It is a trash study that has essentially been retracted. DrKay (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)