Talk:Catherine Eddowes/Archive 1

Untitled

As I mentioned on the talk page of the IP address, when I see a huge article out of nowhere (and two, actually, what with the Martha Tabram article) and especially from an unregistered user, I have to wonder if this is original writing orif it was copied from somewhere. Also, Wikipedia policy is to list people by the name they are most commonly known by, so this article should be at Catherine Eddowes (where another article existed until you erased it and changed it to a redirect) and not Catharine Eddowes. Besides, she spelled her own name "Catherine" so the version with two As isn't even what she considered her name to be. DreamGuy 12:25, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Author's comment

The spelling is up for discussion. I'll add comments to the Jack the Ripper talk page shortly.

Gordon L 21:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Most notorious rookery?

Is this description correct? I thought the most notorious London Rookery was St. Giles. Would "a" notorious rookery be better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.107.10 (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit and comments

DreamGuy, thanks for your improvements.

Since popular opinion here is to keep the spelling of "Catherine" with an "e," I've changed the links back to reflect that.

As for "Eddowes's" murder and so forth, perhaps nobody here is a Strunk disciple—"Charles's friend," etc., the very first example on page 1. Of course, there are other nuances to that issue, as Burchfield for one points out. I must admit though that extreme anti-Strunkists who even give movies names in big letters like "The Boss' Wife" get me. How many people do not pronounce that "The Bossiz Wife"? Anyway if we're going to write "Eddowes' murder" instead, I've made that consistent throughout.

It's an interesting point about Eddowes's proposed visit to her daughter. I don't remember hearing it said before that she must have known by then that her daughter had moved. I don't know the date of the move either, or if anyone knows it. Certainly I've heard she had a reputation for cadging money from her daughter, who preferred to keep her new address secret for that reason. That suggests they were estranged. If they were, Eddowes might not have seen her daughter for some time. Also, if she already knew her daughter had moved and couldn't be found, surely she would have told John Kelly that. If she had, why would Kelly buy the excuse that she was going to see her daughter? "Going to track her down if she could" might be a plausible enough excuse though, especially when John and Kate were both in need of money.

In spite of the above, I agree it's very probable that Kate went off to get money by other means, without telling Kelly. Everything fitted together in this relationship. She was warmhearted and generous in insisting he took the few pennies they had left to get a halfway decent night's sleep at a lodging house, while she went off to get a bed at the casual ward. Yet it was financially practical at the same time. If he had to do a hard day's work to earn any money the next day, he needed his "beauty sleep." She could earn money another way by night. But she didn't want to hurt his feelings about that. And if she hoped to spend some of it on a drink or two along the way, that was another motive.

I'm sure Kate was a cheerful soul who did what she had to do to survive, as so many did back then; yet her teamwork was good besides. I wasn't surprised to find that a number of people saw her as having the most attractive personality of the Ripper victims.

Gordon L 05:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Gordon,

The possessive form of words already ending in S was something I was taught quite strictly, and I wasn't aware any reference source suggested it the other way, so that's where that change came from. I don't know who all supports it which way or which would be preferable as a policy.

I'd have to track down sources on the idea that Kate lied about her reason for leaving. I think there was something about her claiming to have visited previously at times when the person had already moved, probably from the inquest testimony. It's a bit of deduction there then that since she couldn't have found her those previous times that it was all just an excuse. And it's apparent that she did end up drunk far away from where claimed to be going, so apparently wasn't making an attempt to get there. Of course the sources on this would be helpful for a complicated bit like that. I bet Begg's newest book has something on it, I can check later. DreamGuy 09:10, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Kelly?

who is the Kelly the article refers to? This needs to be made more clear

Yes the narrative at the beginning of The Day of the Murder is entirely confused and makes little sense. You might think Kelly was her husband/partner but then this person is referred to as 'her'. Lycurgus 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow this is illustrative of something wrong with the WP process. Looking at the history of the paragraph in question, which appears to have good content but is unacceptably bad wrt composition, people keep trying to clean it out and it keeps getting put back. Since the juicy content is unsourced, I've deleted the § entirely. Judging by the log though it'll be back.Lycurgus 23:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of dead bodies

Pictures of dead bodys should not be shown. Such pictures are unencyclopaedic and offend against the dignity of men.Fsdahah (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. We do not censor Wikipedia. Decisions to include or not to include are formed by concensus which is formed on talk pages like these. There may be a precedent for this discussion but I am not aware of it. Generally speaking, you shouldn't remove the pictures but instead should discuss your suggestions first on a talk page. Thank you, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well this is simply a personal opinion. I don't think there is anything "undignified" about being dead, but certainly there would be cases in which depiction of the bodies would be inappropriate. The pages on Uday Hussein and Qusay Hussein hide the images of their corpses, so that the viewer can choose to look at them or not. However, I think this case is different. The photos of Eddowes are certainly graphic, but in this context her death is the only thing that makes Eddowes notable. Paul B (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I´m the same as User:Fsdahah. The pictures of Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly are very cruel. You must consider, that children can also see them. And that is just not good. And because of that I have removed the pictures of those two articles. Not every article needs a picture.87.160.127.6 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but while we are discussing here, you shouldn't make any changes unless you gather a concensus for what you are doing. You have been reverted, so the proper way is to follow this procedure to discuss your concerns. The photos are "cruel"? To whom? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The picture show mutilated dead bodys. It´s not good, when children see them.87.160.127.6 (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And do you have any evidence of this? Again, it is an assertion. Paul B (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Are death certificates considered indecent? You removed that as well. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, they aren´t. That was by mistake. Sorry for that.87.160.127.6 (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Wikipedia is not censored. Period, end of story. And folks, it's "consensus", not "consencus" (what can I say, I am a Latin nerd!). – ukexpat (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa! Thanks for pointing that out.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop deleting these images - continuing to do so without consensus is vandalism and will be dealt with accordingly. Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

***

PLEASE, kindly remove those pictures ASAP - or stop complaining about people deleting them. The original complaint was absolutely rightful - if anything, it was too mild.

Such pictures are offensive on all possible levels, to both the victim and the viewer.

If the scenes they depict were deemed "too much" (to put it mildly) for the policemen of the time (who weren't strangers to gruesome scenes) to bear them with composure - and if you knew about the case, you would know this - who gives you the right to force them upon the wide public?

Not all the users of this would-be-encyclopedia are sick voyeurs, you know. But in the end, if you persist with this scandal, they may be the only ones left to visit it.

Oh please. Pretty much every comercially printed book I have come across that has been printed since the mid '70s when these photos first became well known has featured the morgue and crime scene photos. Is it your contention that these are only included in these books to sate the passions of "sick voyeurs"? That kind of meaningless hyperbole does not help anyone...in particular it does not validate your opinion on the matter. As for "forcing them on the public", that too is an exageration. I rather doubt that the number of people who would come across the wikki pages devoted to the Ripper vitims without having been previously exposed to these photos is very high. For what it's worth, I say include the photos. They are part of the historical record of these murders and thus belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.93.254 (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well just hide this photos under some link - even on specialized sites photos of such an horribly multilated bodies are hiddden :/

I agree on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.28.65 (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesarz (talk • contribs) 23:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is incorrect. Most of the sites devoted to the Ripper case do not in fact "hide" the photos. A casual look at most of the major Ripper sites will show this to be the case. Shall I recomend a couple of links for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.93.254 (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

---

No idea if I am doing this right.... but why does it say PENIS in the first line of this article? See below...

Catherine (Kate) Eddowes (14 April 1842 – 30 September 1888) was one of the victims in the Whitechapel murders. She was the second PENIS killed on the night of