Talk:Jack the Ripper

Please read this before posting about DNA evidence or Kosminski

The purported DNA evidence is unreliable and universally dismissed by DNA fingerprinting experts and by most Ripperologists. The scientific journal that originally published the study has already printed a notice of concern after the authors were unable to produce any of the original data or rebut criticisms of the work. Consequently, the identity of the Ripper remains unknown. DrKay (talk) 18:36, Sunday, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

Not all victims were prostitutes

There's a claim in the article that the victims were generally prostitutes. I disagree with this wording - expert historians generally consider the victims poor, marginalised women. Whilst it is highly likely a few engaged in occasional sex work, labelling them all prostitutes paints an oversimplified narrative. ~2026-40236-3 (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

"Whilst it is highly likely a few engaged in occasional sex work" Here we go again. Quoting my own reply to the exact same comment from last year: "Among the canonical five, Catherine Eddowes was likely the odd one out. She had a history of casual prostitution dating to the early 1880s, but otherwise she was mostly employed as a domestic worker and seasonal hop-picker. At the time of her death in 1888, she had a long-term romantic relationship which had lasted for 7 years and she had a reputation for monogamy. Per the main article: the "deputy of Cooney's Lodging-House... stated Eddowes was generally within the lodging-house "for the night" by 9 or 10 p.m. and that he had never seen her intimate with anyone aside from Kelly in the years she typically resided at the lodging-house." Also a bit of an oddity. She was working in Kent for most of the month in September 1888. She returned to London on 27 September, just three days before her death." Dimadick (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

We do not say they were. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not a post about Kosminki's DNA.

This is a post about Kosminski's maternal mitochondrial genetic inheritance, which is not DNA, and which is frequently called "mitochondrial DNA" even though it isn't DNA.

Today I find this text: "The mitochondrial DNA recovered from the uncorroborated crime scene evidence compared with undisclosed descendants of Kosminski (who had no children) is considered questionable." Maybe the so-called "mitochondrial DNA" recovered from the crime-scene is questionable for OTHER reasons, but Kosminki's lack of any children can't possibly have any bearing on the question. (If you think I'm wrong, explain why.) Even if he has millions of descendants alive today, none of them will be of any use for any analysis of his "mitochondrial DNA". None of Kosminski's descendants share ANY of his "mitochondrial DNA" (barring flukes or incest), so it doesn't matter if any descendants exist or not. Also, you are contradicting yourself when you say "undisclosed descendants of Kosminski" and "who had no children". If he had no children and he is dead now, then it has always been and always will be impossible for him to have any descendants at any time.

The fact that Kosminski never had children has no bearing on the question of whether any person living today will be an expected 100% "mitochondrial DNA" match to Kosminski or not. And if such person expected to be a 100% match to Kosminski is NOT a 100% match to "mitochondrial DNA" found at the crime-scene, then that "mitochondrial DNA" cannot belong to Kosminski. Of course it doesn't work the other way: if a person expected to be a 100% to Kosminski IS a 100% match, it proves nothing, since for all we know millions of people might have that same "mitochondrial DNA" (which is a good reason to ban calling it "DNA", since in the commonly-accepted definition of "DNA" only identical children born at the same time, such as identical twins, can have identical DNA).~2026-35547-68 (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

If he had no descendants, how would they get DNA to compare his too? Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, it received coverage, and we accurately quote and repeat what our sources say. Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to look in to this, but descendants can have several meanings Lineal descendant or direct descendants is only one of them. My guess is the undisclosed descendants bit refers to collateral or indirect descendants who were believed to be down the female line and therefore would be expected to share highly similar mitochondrial DNA to Kosminski himself. Since I'd be very surprised if someone would go through all this effort and no one not even the lab they used would point out the futility of what they were doing if they didn't do this. It is true that him having no children is fairly irrelevant when it comes to mitochondrial DNA comparisons. Also you sound very confused what DNA means. No biologist worth their salt will dispute that mitochondrial DNA is DNA. Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Rubenhold BRRRD

I added this at Jack_the_Ripper#Legacy, inspired by a comment at User talk:Jimbo Wales I found a source I thought useful for this article:

Authors noted for their non-fiction Jack the Ripper related work include Donald Rumbelow, Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Hallie Rubenhold.

I was reverted and I reverted again before starting this thread. And while writing this, I see was reverted again, edit summaries at .

The addition of some prominent Ripper non-fiction authors seems like a good "Legacy" addition to me, and the source is afaict WP-good. On the second revert-comment, "feminist" is not a disqualifier for including an author either, she's still an author noted for her Ripper work. The reaction to it, "disrupted the very foundations of Ripperology" according to Bleakley, is part of why it's noted. Also, this added content is not using Rubenhold as a source, which afaict is the issue of discussions like Talk:Whitechapel_murders#RFC_Description_of_5_victims_as_prostitutes.

So I think the mention of these authors is reasonable content in the "Legacy" section context. Opinions, editors? FYI-ping to @Kieronoldham. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It is community consensus which opines and not myself. This version alone of the talk page history on the Ripper Wiki. article clearly shows consensus among the community (at least insofar as today) as viewing Rubenhold as a fringe theorist.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I skimmed through the Rubenhold hits at Talk:Jack the Ripper/Archive 7, and they seem to be mostly about using her as a source. The content I added is not about that, fringe or feminist doesn't matter, she fits the Legacy section anyway. And if Rubenhold is your hangup, why did you remove the others? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

To me it doesn’t look much like community consensus, rather two or three editors saying it is fringe, with two editors starting each discussion. I’m not familiar with the source or author, so I can’t judge if it is fringe, but even if it is WP:FRINGE, it may still be able to have a sentence or two, considering that undue weight ≠ no weight.

If necessary, you can ask at WP:FTN. Mitchsavl (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

From the WP-pov, my addition is not WP:FRINGE. "noted for their non-fiction Jack the Ripper related work" is not a WP:FRINGE position on these authors per source given. There's an article on her book at The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper, with some other good refs showing her work is noted, like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Kieronoldham, your edit summary says: "A "feminist's" look into the Ripper? Hardly impartial." You may want to tweak your understanding of our inclusion criteria. Neither sources nor content have to be neutral. They can be very "partial" and biased, and still usable. It is editors who have to edit neutrally and impartially, without censorship or whitewashing. That's what NPOV means. Editorial, not source, neutrality is its main message. Just sayin'. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

And even if Rubenhold is "a feminist", is that a problem you (Kieronoldham) find with the source I used in the article? Btw, the source is a long article, but the Conclusion section is not that long. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not deny my edit rationale could have been better worded in that edit summary. No, I do not think a feminist is incapable of impartiality any more than an expressed vegan could contribute to a Wiki. recipe for brisket. From what can be freely found online, Rubenhold's mindset from the outset regarding the "lives of the five" women murdered was to negate over a century of others' research regarding documented lifestyles forced by poverty and, in some reputable articles at least, push an agenda because they were born female.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with mentioning her, by name as having written about the Ripper story. Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

AFAICT it's true she's noted for their non-fiction Jack the Ripper related work. Whether her work is fringe seems IMO besides the point. E.g. there's IMO similar no question that Oliver Stone is noted for his non-fiction JFK assassination related work (JFK (film)). The only possible dispute might be usage of the term non-fiction. But I don't think such work being questioned for its accuracy means we can't call it non-fiction since IMO there's no dispute in either case that the work "attempts, in good faith, to convey information only about the real world, rather than being grounded in imagination" no matter how wrong they might have been. To be clear, I make no comment on the accuracy of her work. I'd note that if it's really that bad, our article on the author really doesn't convey that so IMO there's an actual problem if what you say is true anyway. My point is that even if it is, it doesn't matter here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know that much about the JFK film, reading the article I might have been wrong about it being non-fiction as it sounds like it did include explicitly fictional elements. So I've struck that example. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I had to resist the urge to bring it up, it was off-topic and would just have made the thread longer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It is community consensus which opines and not myself. This version alone of the talk page history on the Ripper Wiki. article clearly shows consensus among the community (at least insofar as today) - That page... is you and Slatersteven taking on all comers. You are fully half of the self-opining "community consensus" that you speak on behalf of? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

(reply to Kieronoldham) In the context of the article content you reverted, her impartiality is not an issue. Even if you are right about "Rubenhold's mindset from the outset" (I haven't read her book, so I have no firm opinion on that), I have read sources, a couple linked in this thread, that focus on other things than this supposed mindset. I've also read that she says she was compared to David Irving. Consider also freely found online commentary like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Them being murdered for being female isn’t a preposterous idea, it is something that does happen today, and in other times in history. At the time it isn’t unreasonable to suspect news outlets or police may have been using the prostitution as a form of victim blaming, whether for the sensationalism, to downplay the potential threat to the broader public or to persuade the public that the crime isn’t as bad as it is to reduce damage to their reputation. (And to be clear I am not saying that crime against a prostitute is any less bad than against anyone else). There will likely be more supporting material for whatever idea people thought at the time, and challenges to academic consensus can be frowned upon and countered by established members in the field.

And also, if someone is pushing an agenda, it doesn’t make them any less notable. Mitchsavl (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Let's not confuse the issue; the issue here is whether we can name her or not, nothing else. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The other names do seem uncontroversial so far. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately we don't have to judge her, but if she can be included. If we decide to have a legacy part whre authors can be mentioned, we can include her. Lectonar (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I need to study this further, but I have a couple of preliminary comments:

1. WP:BRD is acceptable behavior. WP:BRR is not. WP:BRRRD is arguably a reasonable response to seeing someone BRR. Any further reverts that bring any editor past 2RR and into 3RR is edit warring. I am going to be watching for that and will report it at WP:3RRNB whether I agree with any of the edit warriors or not.
2. The question of whether Hallie Rubenhold is a fringe theorist is worth discussing, and I have initiated a discussion at the appropriate noticeboard. Whether or not Hallie Rubenhold is or is not noted for their non-fiction Jack the Ripper related work cannot possibly be a fringe theory. Please don't imply that it is. That's not how fringe theories work. It needs to be a standard "notable enough for inclusion in this article?" discussion. Which, BTW is not the same as a "notable enough for a separate article" discussion. Two completely different things.

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Fwiw, being the B, one of the R:s, and the one who started the D, I have no intent to EW at this point. Unsurprisingly, I think my WP:BRR was justified, but that's moot now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

If there were just a few non-fiction books on the subject I'd agree with adding Donald Rumbelow, Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Hallie Rubenhold in the legacy section. There are however many, many books on the subject, with all their authors having an argument for a mention in the article. We shouldn't be giving just four effectively our 'approval' by mentioning them and disregarding the rest. --John B123 (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm. That sound reasonable, but following that rule would forbid MOS:FURTHER / WP:READING on thousands of pages. Speaking of which, why was this put in the body and not in a further reading section? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Per source provided (Bleakley), these authors aren't random, for example "Rumbelow’s work has been cited as providing a definitive coverage of the Ripper murders. His book The Complete Jack the Ripper (2004) is regularly updated with new information, and serves as an aggregation of existing research in Ripperology. While most see Rumbelow’s work as definitive, ..." And that's not from an online bookstore. Do all the authors of Ripper non-fiction have decent coverage like that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

More: "Paul Begg has emerged in recent years as a potential successor to Rumbelow’s role as the preeminent researcher in Ripperology." and "Martin Fido (1993) is another key contributor to modern Ripperology who sought to identify the Ripper." Same source.

So yes, @John B123, there are many authors, this list is unlikely to be perfect, but the source is unlikely to be very wrong, and if there are similarly good sources that mentions more people as key contributors etc, we can add more/edit again. But doesn't seem like a reasonable incremental improvement of that section with decent sourcing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a good edit and belongs in the article. Let's do a quick head count: 'without any long discussion (you can do that elsewhere), who says "yes" or "no" to this edit? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yes --Gråbergs Gråa Sång (Added by Guy Macon. The person who made the edit obviously approves of it)
• Yes --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• I am less convinced now. What makes these authors any more notable than any others? Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  The source, which seems reasonably independent and WP-good, gives them WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION-ness. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  A source, but it seems that every decade throws up a new go-to expert, only to be replaced. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  A source, according to WP a peer-reviewed academic journal. We like those. It's written this decade, and we can look again the next decade. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  There have been a lot of decades (and a lot of books/experts) between now and 1889. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  So we can improve further with more good sources at some point. Perhaps make a listicle or something. The suggested addition is still improvement and doesn't claim anything extraordinary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Or we do not make value judgments, and only name people where we have an attributed opinion. Why do we not need to know that these people have said things about the Ripper? What does it tell us about him? Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think I'm making a value judgement by using what's in this source and saying these people exist. The subject is Legacy, which mentions "lots of stuff written", so it's reasonable to mention some of those noted for doing so. That's my view. If we mention Assault! Jack the Ripper in that section (whatever value judgment that makes), we can mention some non-fiction authors in the field.

  Well, I'm approaching WP:BLUDGEON now, so I'll let others talk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• It seems like an odd sentence that doesn't really get at the crux of the long-term dispute, unless its primary purpose is to set up a resolution of that dispute. If someone is a noted for their non-fiction work on the subject, it should just be included in the article. As I said over on Jimbo's page's it's strange to see anything other than e.g. a proposal for a basic starting point like this sentence added to the "canonical five" section: "In her 2019 book, Hallie Rubenhold controversially argued that only Kelly and Stride were sex workers, suggesting homelessness may have been a reason for being targeted" with some smattering of secondary citations like those found in the book article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  It wasn't supposed to get to the crux of a long-term dispute, whatever that dispute is, but perhaps you're thinking of something like . It was meant to improve the Legacy-section. Afaict, there has been a dispute about using Rubenhold as a source. That is not what I suggested in my OP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, seems like a reasonable addition referenced to a quality source. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 02:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Yes, both the author's name and a summary of their research should be presented. If there is doubt and lack of evidence that several of the Ripper's victims were sex workers then that doubt should be presented and reflected as alternate information. I haven't read the book but have had the experience of realizing that what-everybody-knows-is-true is only a personally perceived mental framework removed from the facts. Is it possible that some of the victims were not prostitutes? If the book makes the case then it's findings and language should reshape some of Wikipedia's coverage of these women's lives and deaths. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• The issue has never been we cannot mention her or use her, the issue has always been that we cannot use her as if she is the only authoritative account. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Luckily I don't think anyone has suggested that! Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 16:29, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes they have, every time (apart from this time), someone has tried to use her. Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  And we were right to reject any such suggestion. Saying that we know for sure that some of "The Five" were not prostitutes based on one source that is a minority view would be even worse than what the article does now, which is to strongly imply that we know for sure that all five were prostitutes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can we see the above responses as a rough consensus for inclusion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Seems to be we have two, one for mentioning her name (which seems to have general support), and another (but seperate) one for including her claims (which does not seem to have general support). Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  With inclusion I meant , what Guy Macon asked "yes or no" on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  I believe that there is a clear consensus in favor of including the edit linked to above. I don't see a consensus in this discussion either way about including a brief description of Rubenhold's theory somewhere in the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  I made the edit, we'll see what happens. Other articles that could be considered for some Rubenhold theory are the C5 articles and Whitechapel murders. There are some decent secondary sources in this thread and at The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper which could be used instead of or in combination with her book. There is a technically ongoing rfc at Talk:Whitechapel_murders#RFC Description of 5 victims as prostitutes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  That's not an RfC, so I renamed it Talk:Whitechapel murders#Discussion: Description of 5 victims as prostitutes. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  The original "!RfC" was archived by bot two weeks after the last comment. DrKay (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

References