Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth Stride

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References

[edit]

Wouldn't this article benefit from in-line references? Colin4C 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty now.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Alice

[edit]

Peter Ackroyd Thames: Sacred River, pp 389 claims that Stride was a survivor of the Princess Alice disaster, and that she ("perhaps falsely") had claimed to have lost her husband and three children in the accident (on 3 Sept 1878). I haven't added this snippet here, as it does not appear to concur with the timeline and circumstances of her life given in the article. Kbthompson (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Begg in Jack the Ripper: The Facts (2006) pp 138-9 notes this story. According to Begg, Stride did indeed claim later that she was a survivor of the Princess Alice disaster and had lost a husband and three children in the accident. However historical records show that she didn't have any children and that her husband died in hospital six years after the boat sank. There is no historical record of her being on the boat at all, so the story is most probably a fantasy. Colin4C (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Height

[edit]

Reid said she was 5 ft 2 in, but Fido uses her supposedly tall height of 5 ft 5 in to explain her nickname. Any ideas on how to resolve/explain the discrepancy? DrKay (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallie Rubenhold

[edit]

For a discussion on Hallie Rubenhold's The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper see Talk:Whitechapel murders#Prostitutes? --John B123 (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resting place

[edit]

In common with other victims, the coordinates of 51.55782°N 0.04432°W are incorrect as this is in Hackney 4 miles away from the East London Cemetery, Newham Post Code E16 4LG for the main entrance. It's 51.526658°N 0.012057°E see bullets below for reference.

Photo of Elizabeth Stride

[edit]

It would be preferable if the lead photo for this article was not a mortuary photo of Stride. Stride was a person, not simply a corpse. There are photographs of her in existence. I'm not sure of the copyright/procedure for adding one to this article so would appreciate it very much if an editor with the requisite knowledge could do so? The mortuary photo could still be included, but further down the article in the relevant section. Songofachilles (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 December 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Frost 10:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Elizabeth StrideMurder of Elizabeth StrideWP:DEATHS. The article is about her murder and her notability is dependent on such. Biographical elements in the article are more as background information and does not contribute to her notability. Theparties (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That page recommends Killing of Elizabeth Stride. The naming convention dealing with death is designed for cases where there are NPOV, BLP, privacy or legal considerations, and so is ill-designed for historic cases such as this where there are no such considerations. Consequently, I oppose on the grounds of concision and common name. DrKay (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with DrKay. Subject is one of the canonical five victims of arguably the most infamous serial killer of all time.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. This is biographically focused and a person subtopic of the overarching event (the ripper murders). PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.