Talk:Jack the Ripper

This article uses British English dialect and spelling. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Note: The official spelling of the formal name is correct with the -ize ending, which had been discussed in the past.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2014

“Dear Boss, I keep on hearing the police have caught me but they wont fix me just yet. I have laughed when they look so clever and talk about being on the right track. That joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits. I am down on whores and I shant quit ripping them till I do get buckled. Grand work the last job was. I gave the lady no time to squeal. How can they catch me now. I love my work and want to start again. You will soon hear of me with my funny little games. I saved some of the proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with but it went thick like glue and I cant use it. Red ink is fit enough I hope ha. ha. The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn't you. Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight. My knife's so nice and sharp I want to get to work right away if I get a chance. Good Luck. Yours truly Jack the Ripper

Dont mind me giving the trade name

PS Wasnt good enough to post this before I got all the red ink off my hands curse it No luck yet. They say I'm a doctor now. ha ha” George Montgomerie (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No request for changes to the article; nothing to be done here. Huon (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper was CAUGHT in 1889!

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/local/door-county/news/2014/07/25/traveling-back-advocate-archives-july/13191327/

July 27, 1889 • In London, England, the Whitechapel murderer, better known as “Jack the Ripper,” has finally been caught. He gives his name as William Brodle and confessed he is guilty of the crimes as charged. He was remanded to jail for a week and will doubtless swing in time.

172.242.144.89 (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

William Brodie sailed for South Africa in early September 1888 and returned to Britain in July 1889, so he was abroad for most of the killings. In his statement to police, he claimed to have walked from London to Cornwall and back in 30 minutes. He was either drunk or mad. Either way, he wasn't the Ripper. DrKiernan (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper Actually a Nurse from Outer-space

Why is the theory that Jack the Ripper was actually a midwife brought into London by a UFO during 1888 not advanced in this article? It is cited by Sugden and others as a nonsense theory but it deserves to be included under speculation about Jack the Rippers identity section.--Ordessa (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to pick out one particularly ridiculous theory out of the dozens of other ridiculous theories. References to much better known suspects and theories were already removed on that basis (by others not me). This particular one is not notable enough to feature in the main article. DrKiernan (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

DNA evidence confirms identity of The Ripper

DNA taken from a shawl found at one of the victims crime scenes contained mitochondrial DNA from the woman and cells and semen from the perpetrator. They have even tracked down decendecedents of both and gotten 100% matches. DNA evidence proves Aaron Kosminsky, an eastern European Jewish immigrant IS "The Ripper." [1]

Cashdds (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Cash, Jeffrey W.Cashdds (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So says the Daily Mail. Let's wait until other sources provide commentary on this. The Candlemas shawl story is a little wacky. Shii (tock) 01:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"So says the Daily Mail". It's a world exclusive from them themselves. And it confirms it in there. Wikipedia prefers primary referencing, and as that is the primary source itself, should be used. We can't just use secondary referencing that copied from the Daily Mail just because those are more akin to wikipedia. And also people always mentioned it isn't reliable for wikipedia, where exactly is the list to back this up? Charlr6 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of being on a "list". Anyone with common sense would be able to tell you that "identifying Jack the Ripper beyond all doubt" is an enormous claim and requires multiple sources backing it up. Daily Mail alone is not sufficient. Kindly undo your edit. Shii (tock) 01:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding the 'list'. You want multiple sources, which I bet you won't be happy with either. Here you go... Charlr6 (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read the articles you are linking to? "a British businessman claims that he has ascertained" ... that's what the Raw Story article says. It's just another claim. There are hundreds out there. Shii (tock) 01:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, as a matter of fact, I happen to be someone with "common sense" and a biology major. The techniques used to extract and multiply the DNA samples is extremely accurate and accepted in a court of law as admissible. Perhaps you feel more comfortable with the premise that he was actually a "nurse from outer space?" I would suggest you brush up on your biology, reread the article and then post your comments. The daily mail was the first to post this I could find, but scrutiny of it will prove it and the techniques sound. Cashdds (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Cash, JeffreyCashdds (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I really hope, for your sake, that you never try to use the Daily Mail in a court of law. Please check out this article from another newspaper. Shii (tock) 01:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

AND... SEEING AS at 1:19 I posted this, and your rebuttal came at 1:22, I doubt if YOU read the the article...Shii... Cashdds (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC) J. CASH

In fact... I read the article first, then came to the Wikipedia page afterwards! This talk page thread directed by M. Night Shylalanaman Shii (tock) 02:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC

In addition, the "business man" did not perform the DNA analysis. Daily Mail or Medical journal...this is the "read" section, not Wikipedia proper. The submission was to show that a new, more scientific, approach was used than swabbing envelopes with Agatha Christy. Please feel free to grab your cell phone, take a ride with Jules Verne and let us all in on the truth. Cashdds (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)J. Cash

Wikipediots, it's not us to decide who the Ripper is. We report on what the sources say. The sources say this guy did it. Cla68 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

What sources? The only source used in our article is the Daily Mail. Also, why was the claim added to the WP:LEDE, but not to the body of the article? Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cla68. My point exactly. Reporting in the talk section merely let's people know what IS being said/presented in the media. I didn't expect it to immediately be stuck in the main article...if anything, only mentioned in "controversies. "Cashdds (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)J. Cash

Question: While we can all debate whether the scientific process of extracting DNA from the shawl provides Jack the Ripper's identity accurately or not (for all we know, Ms. Catherine Eddowes might have simply had a nightly ordeal with Mr. Aaron Kosminski before being murdered by Jackie), why not simply put it in the page as a businessman named Mr. Russel Edwards bought the shawl, asked his friend Dr. Jari Louhelaine to examine it, with the results having found DNA of the new suspect on Ms. Eddowes shawl strongly suggesting him? This would seem to be both honest and reliable information providing a compromise between those that believe Jackie IS Mr. Kosminski and those that question the actual identity of Jackie still. Furthermore, it would still leave the door open for additional information of fraud (if ever discovered), mistakes made by the research and also anything that helps confirm the information. It would also show that Wikipedia keeps information updated on important historical factors. This I think, would help Wikipedia's reputation.No name74331 (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just came to point this same thing out. I have another link regarding the topic. Perhaps not the most reliable, however, something additional we can source. At that I agree with the above individual. Even if proven to be false, unreliable, or otherwise, it should be noted in the article, even if only from a historical perspective. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There are loads, loads of RS out there for this fact. To omit it from the article is rather disengenious. Check out Google News "Jack the Ripper". Tutelary (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There are probably thousands of sources that identify the Ripper. There is no reason to select this particular suspect over all the others. The so-called "evidence" is just as silly as in the other hundred "identifications". DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well this one has DNA evidence backing it up, and as I said before, there's more than loads of RS for this. Per WP:DUE, it deserves a mention. Tutelary (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We exclude Sickert for example on the same basis. The DNA analysis in all these cases is clearly flawed and there's no reason to select this one from the others. It is actually undue to take a sensational ephemeral tabloid piece and blow it up into something it isn't. DrKiernan (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see the grand statement "After 126 years of debate, Jack the Ripper was positively identified as Aaron Kosminski through DNA testing." removed from the intro of the article, at least. Sure it is better to put that it has been claimed to. I think this article by the Independent shows how newspaper report isn't proof that Jack the Ripper has been revealed; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-jack-the-rippers-identity-really-been-revealed-using-dna-evidence-9717036.html 82.1.125.173 (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)