Talk:Jack the Ripper

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2024
Please remove the image titled "Official police photograph of the body of Mary Jane Kelly as discovered in 13 Miller's Court, Spitalfields, 9 November 1888" from the page. Although the photograph does indeed depict the body of a woman distorted beyond recognition, it nonetheless violates Wikipedia's own Image Use Policy because it (a) depicts graphic nudity, and (b) does so in a private setting (that of a private residence), both of which have naturally been obtained without the victim's consent and render the image's appearance as highly objectifying. This image is also far too easily accessible to minors. Mister Birdcrumbs (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. M.Bitton (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Historic photographs are not covered under the portions of the Image Use Policy you cite. That's meant to prevent the upload of paparazzi shots through people's windows and the like. What is relevant is WP:NOTCENSORED - Wikipedia does not censor itself because minors might find something. MrOllie (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia Image use policy states that the "only reason for including any image in any article is to increase readers' understanding of the subject matter." Given the extremely detailed accompanying description for how Mary Jane Kelly's body was found, particularly on the victim's own Wikipedia page, an illustrating image should not be necessary. Lord abacus (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to be (given your reaction to it) it has achieved that goal. You are horrified by this in a way a mere description would not do. Thus the image is serving the same purpose as it did when it was first published (in 1888). Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove the photo of Mary Jane Kelly’s body
This is a bit too gruesome for a page regularly visited by school kids, especially considering that the description of how her body appeared is so graphic and detailed one surely does not need a visual to accompany it. If you MUST display the photo somewhere then do it on Mary Jane Kelly's own page, but I think it appears particularly deplorable on a star-marked page such as this one that is visited by so many. Lord abacus (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As this is in every book (as far as I know) ever published on this topic, this seems too much like censorship. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether school kids might visit a page or not isn't relevant, see WP:NOTCENSORED. MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe it's time for them to learn the reality. When world war 3 starts, they will see dead body everywhere. Let them have a glimpse of it now so that they don't freak out later. Bir Das (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also see Help:Options to hide an image. Lectonar (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Understandable Bir Das (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2024
Translate and add the Literature section from the Dutch version of this page. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_the_Ripper NzzA (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's unsourced, so the media section here is better. DrKay (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The Wiki page doesn't appear to address this perspective or indeed include any information about the victims at all. Seems like a significant topic that merits further examination. 2601:602:480:3600:31A3:7AE8:3A65:C2A0 (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The canonical Five victims have their own articles. Mary Ann Nichols had several arrests for prostitution since her separation from her husband in 1880. Her estranged husband stopped paying her allowance in 1882, stating to the parish authorities that she was "earning money through prostitution". Annie Chapman was using prostitution to supplement her income from "crochet work, making antimacassars and selling flowers". Catherine Eddowes is thought to have used prostitution to get money for her rent. She worked regularly in performing "domestic work such as cleaning and sewing", and worked in seasonal hop-picking work in Kent each summer". Her earnings were at times insufficient to rent a bed for the night. Elizabeth Stride reportedly used prostitution to supplement her regular income from "sewing and housecleaning". It is not clear what she was doing doing at the night of her murder. She was seen speaking to various men, but she apparently turned down a prospective client: (quote) "No. Not tonight. Some other night." She was standing for quite a while at a position close to a "Jewish social club". Given that she often worked for Jewish families and had learned to speak Yiddish, Stride may have been expecting to meet an acquaintance from the club. Dimadick (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes we have discussed this before, this is one person's opinion that goes against 100 years of scholarship (and police records). And "prostitution" does not mean " a person's primary work" it means they have sex for money, even if only occasionally. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)