Talk:Steven Gerald James Wright

message: There's been some talk over Talk:2006 Ipswich murder investigation which concerns the appropriate title for this article, on the basis of the presumption of innocence. I suggested Steve Wright (Ipswich) as a neutral title. Are there any views on this subject? Sam Blacketer 23:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the current title is poor, it should at least tie up with all press sources which are suggesting Stephen Wright and then, because of Wikipedia, it'll need to be disambiguated.  So perhaps for the time being (murder suspect) would be a useful post-fix.  Inevitably it must change to reflect his forthcoming verdict but we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it.  Budgiekiller 23:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like using (Ipswich) rather than anything involving suspect, since that will change one way or another eventually.  I also think we should wait a little bit to make sure what his proper name is. Aleta 23:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Cool, I think we can all wait a bit, but (Ipswich) seems a little weak to me.  Just a little though.  At least it wouldn't change several times... Budgiekiller 23:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree no hurry, especially as we know we will have to change the name to his full name when we are sure of what it is anyway. I would go fo (Ipswich 2006 murder suspect) myself as there is clearly only one 2006 Ipswich murder suspect with enough notoriety to appear in this encyclopedia, and even that could only be temporary as he will or wont go to trial and then will be found guilty or not, SqueakBox 00:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I suspect that's a typo Escaper7 07:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Suffolk Constabulary website has got the suspect named as Steven Wright in the two statments it released on Thu 21 Dec. Escaper7 07:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC have now renamed him as "Steven Wright".  I think we're reaching a consensus!  Budgiekiller 14:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: The Guardian says "Steven Wright" here. Sam Blacketer 00:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that's a typo Escaper7 07:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Suffolk Constabulary website has got the suspect named as Steven Wright in the two statments it released on Thu 21 Dec. Escaper7 07:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC have now renamed him as "Steven Wright".  I think we're reaching a consensus!  Budgiekiller 14:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One press source breaks ranks

message: The page should not be moved until we have achieved a consensus on the name of the man in question.  I have moved it back to Steve Wright for the time being until further clarification is provided.  Budgiekiller 09:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Suffolk police say he's Steven Wright (see above) then it should be moved, I can't think of a better primary source, but I agree it should be discussed as it's getting very confusing across two articles - (three if someone updates Stewart Gull's), but that consensus should be reached quickly.Escaper7 09:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Good research!  Budgiekiller 10:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I notice however, Wiki is still calling him Steven, which is plainly wrong. I trust ancestry far more than I do the BBC! Jcuk 12:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the page 

message: Sorry to sound negative but, given the necessity to abide by the principles of legal prejudice, is this article really a good idea? It would be very unfortunate if Wikipedia came into disrepute by prejudicing a trial. Of note is the fact that contributors to Wikipedia come from a variety of countries where the laws of prejudice are quite different. For instance, in the US, free speech tends to be the predominant concern, whereas in England it is the right to a fair trial that predominates. At some point it is likely that editors of this article will have to make a decision between including details (which could prejudice a trial) and excluding them (thereby leaving an incomplete article). I think the best plan would be to remove this article until legal proceedings have concluded. Bluewave 09:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did mention my concerns on the 2006 Ipswich murder investigation page, but nevertheless it was deemed necessary to have the article.  With the comments made recently about press coverage influencing trials, I'd be all in favour of removing the page, but somehow I think we're on our own...!  Budgiekiller 09:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have always perceived Wikipedia as having high moral standards: for example, its strict policing of copyright issues seems to go beyond simply avoiding litigation, and takes quite a principled view of the matter. My real concern is that, by writing biographies of suspects, Wikipedia could actually prejudice criminal trials. Some UK trials have collapsed due to publication of prejudicial information about suspects: the Leeds footballers trial is one that springs to mind. I am not going to comment on this article (for fear of making things worse) but the arguments apply to any articleabout a suspect. Some kinds of Wikipedia content about suspects could make a UK trial virtually impossible, if the defence could argue that Wikipedia was a worldwide reference that would be likely to be seen by any juror. For example, if a biography of a suspect included a photograph of them, in a case where identity was an issue, or if a biography mentioned previous convictions of a suspect, a trial could easily collapse. Bluewave 09:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Magistrates' court hearing has apparently made an order restricting the information which may be published about Steven Wright to his name, age, occupation, appearance in court, and the details of charges against him. Sam Blacketer 10:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Wikipedia wants to retain its UK reputation for integrity, I suggest that it honours that court ruling.Bluewave 10:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :: That's standard under UK contempt of court act, the magistrate doesn't have to make an order, because the case becomes "active" on arrest, and that's when "the shutters come down" so to speak.  The magistrate might have made additional reporting restrictions - I haven's seen that yet, but it's a good point so we should be careful and check. Escaper7 10:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Elsewhere" should (as stated by Escaper7 above) be restricted to the UK. Material that can be published quite legally in, say, the U.S., can be prejudicial in the UK. Bluewave 11:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To clarify that, it's about information that's already in the public domain - information that could influence a UK jury. Websites are tricky because they're so easy to update.  If a US news organisation really went to town, in a backgrounder before the case was "active" - then re-published it now, and it was added as a source, it would have no effect in the US because it's a UK trial and UK jury.  Most people don't have access to old UK newspapers or re-runs of News 24 or Sky.  I guess it's commonsense really, we should stick to reputable UK sources.  I think links already published will be fine, that info is in the public domain, although some was a bit iffy hence Goldsmith's warning to the press. There's enough editors watching the page who are up to speed with the rules. In any case, I can't think why any UK source - or the police website updates wouldn't be sufficient. Escaper7 11:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm all in favour of not prejudicing a fair trial, however, I don't see why we should avoid US content if it is available from within the UK.  For example, any information on the CNN website is freely accessible in the UK, and therefore there is no reason not to include it in WP.  Such an action would not do any harm that had not already been done.  Guinness 13:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, there are examples such as the publication by the New York Times  of information about the alleged terrorists who are awaiting trial in Britain. The online version of the New Your Times barred the article from access from UK IP addresses because of the possible prejudice implications. To publish that sort of content in Wikipedia would be irresponsible. Bluewave 13:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't just apply to the UK of course. Here in NZ, details are often suppressed for the same reason. And of course, things may be supressed after the case as well. In some instances, there has been permanent supression even when the party has been found guilty (usually to protect other parties involved). This has always resulted in controversy. In most instances, this has never been of great concern to wikipedia IMHO because the are no reliable sources and/or the stuff probably isn't noteable enough to merit inclusion. But the details have sometimes been published in other countries and in one controversial instance, supressed details were "published" in a flyer after the trial about people who were charged in a rape case but found not guilty. These people were later charged in another case IIRC so the breach here was quite a serious matter (haven't heard anything about the new case recently). While it's arguable if the flyer was a reliable source, I believe the media more or less confirmed the details in the flyer were true even though they obviously didn't publish them. So I agree, there are serious issues here we need to consider. Indeed, I seem to recall seeing something about this in the policy discussion once way back when the aforementioned flyer controversy happened Nil Einne 15:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Forgot to mention, I agree with the idea we should basically obey what we would be required to do if we were publishing the info in the UK. Even if it's published in the US or even the UK for that matter, IMHO we would do greater harm if we risk prejuidicing the trial then if we don't publish details that may be of interest. It doesn't matter what the legal situation for us is, as mentioned by others, we have try to uphold a resonable moral standard. Nil Einne 16:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  "The Magistrates' court hearing has apparently made an order restricting the information which may be published about Steven Wright to his name, age, occupation, appearance in court, and the details of charges against him" This article contains more information than this, for example the name of his girlfriend, and his previous occupations. Ought this not to be deleted? MBerrill 18:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What is important is that we maintain a good article according to the highest wikipedia standards, i dont see why having an article should be controversial esppecially given that the press are anywaty having a field day with this chap. Those in the UK must remeber that we are an in ternational encyclopedia and that there are editors from all over the world editing this article, and we certainly can source stuff outside the UK, SqueakBox 18:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is important that there is a good article, but surely in cases such as this the law is more important? However unlikely, if this man *did* kill those five women and ended up getting off on a technicality because the jury was prejudiced, it would be awful. I know that you can source things from outside the UK, but I think the harm done in being too careful here would be much, much less than the harm potentially done by not being careful enough. Therefore I'd advocate removing anything which is not strictly permitted according to the British courts. So what if the News of the World or similar publications push the limits? We are not a tabloid newspaper. MBerrill 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of us are trying to make Wikipedia into a respected worldwide source, not just something limited to the interests of Miami. Bluewave 20:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, absolutely. My own contribs show my long term commitment to making this an international encyclopedia and removing America-centrisms repeatedly. All I am saying is that from a legal point of view wikipedia is based in Miami, and hence musnt be treated as if it were a UK publication. I imagine most editors will want to obey the laws of the country they are in at the moment they edit (something wikipedia does record), whereas this case is only sub-judice in the UK. My main point is that as long as we create a good, sourced, NPOV article we cant go wrong, and that these wikiguidelines, not UK law, should be our standard bearer, especially given that non-UK citizens (which doesnt include me) may no nothing of UK law but are still welcome to edit the article, SqueakBox 20:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point... it's a really awkward issue. I'm aware that Wikipedia is an international resource, and normally I'd be all for having international consistency. However, I feel that because the article is extremely current, because the issue of how this case is being dealt with by the UK media is a contentious one, and because the UK media have been specifically warned to be careful, I think this article warrants more caution than would ordinarily be necessary. After the trial, we can go into as much glorious detail as we like and no harm will be done. MBerrill 20:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to make a few points which are relevant to this article  but generally apply to any article relating to a UK sub judice case. Firstly, POV is quite different from legal prejudice. As an example, publishing a photograph of a suspect can breach prejudice rules, in some cases, but would hardly be seen as POV. Secondly,SqueakBox seems to imply that the consequence of a breach of the prejudice rules would be an unfair trial for a defendant. Actually, this is an extremely unlikely outcome — if there was any question of a jury being exposed to prejudicial reporting, a trial could not go ahead. As an example, there was a high profile trial of two UK football players in a serious assault case in 2002. During the trial, the Sunday Mirror newspaper published an interview with the father of the victim in which he expressed the view that the assault was racially-motivated — a statment at odds with the evidence in the trial. As a result, the trial collapsed. So the risk is that prejudicial Wikipedia content could actually make a UK trial impossible in some circumstances. Right now, that is unlikely to happen because Wikipedia does not have the same impact in the UK as, for example, the Sunday Mirror. However, many of us want it to have that influential position as a primary repository of accurate information, that is likely to be viewed regularly by most people in the UK (and everywhere else). To achieve that position, it must take a responsible attitude to sub judice cases. Legally, Wikipedia only needs to abide by the laws of the US. However, I believe it has a moral duty to avoid impeding the legal processes of other countries. Other respected US-based sources take this approach (see for example  ). Bluewave 09:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Although contributors may have no idea what the law is in the UK, there are a couple of simple approaches that would ensure compliance and have already been suggested. The Magistrates' court made an order restricting the information which may be published about Steven Wright to his name, age, occupation, appearance in court, and the details of charges against him. It would be quite easy to honour this order. Alternatively, we restrict this article to content which is referenced from the UK media (which should amount to the same thing). Bluewave 11:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this article really a good idea

message: Please DISCUSS major changes to this article before making substantial edits - particularly in resepect of the legal process.  there are serious consequences for Wikipedia, and its credibility as an encyclopaedia if you don't.
* Steve Wright has been remanded in custody until 2 Jan 07
* There is very little that can be said about him due to the Contempt of Court Act, the case against him is now "active"
* His next hearing has to be before a Crown Court as murder charges can't be dealt with by a magistrate
* At some point there will be a plea and directions hearing - could be the next one and we have absoulutely no idea what will happen until that hearing takes place.
Escaper7 11:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember BLP applies in any case as well Nil Einne 15:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anyone doesn't know, that's WP:BLP as also linked in the box above.  Aleta 18:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree that we definitely won't breaking sub judice if we follow BLP and NPOV. Since international publications are basically unrestriced in what they can publish, there are a lot of things which could have reliable sources but won't be published in the UK. These details may be written in a NPOV fashion and their inclusion per BLP may arguably be acceptable. But this may still be breaking sub juidice in the UK. As stated above, IMHO we should follow what we would be expected to do were we in the UK, even tho there are probably no legal reasons we have to do so. Nil Einne 10:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but wikipedia is not a UK publication, its really important to remember that. Why should the 6.4 billion plus people have info restricted merely to "protect" the other 60 million? If Iran passes a strict censorshiop law does wikipedia conform to that because people in Iran can read wikipedia? Of course not, and it has to be the same for the UK. I think if you want to promote a policy to this affect you need to do it at a policy page rather than here, SqueakBox 15:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if we couldwrite anything, why does the BLP template above - specifically say "anything libelous should be reverted immediately"?  If Wikipedia is concerned about libel, rightly it should be concerned about contempt of court.  This is new territory, social networking is a new issue to the world outside of Wikis.  But in any case, would a contributor to Wikipedia seriously want to cause a case to be thrown out and prevent a possible murderer being convicted?  As I've said, and will continue to say on various talk pages, it's Wikipedia's good reputation that matters.  I'm not trying to be over-dramatic -  I do have some experience in this field and I'm simply trying to provoke the debate.  Regards Escaper7 00:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Since our exchange of views, above, in December, I haven't had time to pursue this argument, other than trying (unsuccessfully) to raise some enthusiasm from various people who are more qualified than me to talk about legal prejudice. I share Escaper7's concerns and agree that this is an issue for Wikipedia's good reputation, and is not just about adhering to the letter of the (U.S.) law. I think that in other areas, such as copyright, Wikipedia takes a high moral standpoint, rather than simply staying legal. This should be another of those areas. If this was simply any old website outside the UK, it is unlikely that it would impact a UK trial because it would be unlikely that the jurors would have seen it or taken it seriously. However, Wikipedia aims to be widely seen and to be taken seriously. Maybe not now, but in the future, one might expect that most UK jurors would be regular readers of Wikipedia and would be influenced by what they read. I agree withSqueakBox's comment in an earlier post, to the effect that this needs to be discussed as a Wikipedia policy, although I am not sure what is the best forum to discuss it. It is likely to be relevant, not only to this case, but to other UK cases that generate international interest. Bluewave 11:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal process

message: Is the subsentence 
"and appears to have changed jobs on a regular basis, including a few weeks prior to his arrest." NPOV? It seems to be suggesting he was unable to hold down a regular job (thats how I read it, anyhow) I have no idea what is or is not predudicial now the legal case is active, but can't help wondering about this bit. Jcuk 19:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Magistrates' court hearing has apparently made an order restricting the information which may be published about Steven Wright to his name, age, occupation, appearance in court, and the details of charges against him" (above). On that basis, I'd agree with you. MBerrill 19:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History Section

message: Should we be publishing the guy's actual street address - right down to the house number?  That does not seem reasonable to me, and I'm tempted to delete at least the number.  What to others think? Aleta 05:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle, I would say remove it, however since it was in today's Mirror it is already in the public domain.  Not that I would object to its removal. Guinness 13:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree we should not include the house number, even if it is in the public domain it's not good practise if you ask me. However, while I still say we shouldn't include the number, I believe his partner is staying with friends. --GracieLizzie 16:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Street address?

message: In line with Wikipedia policy, this article has been given a crime stub template.  Given the many discussions here, and on the 2006 Ipswich murder page about contmept of court, with legal proceedings being active, is the stub a good idea given that it invites editors to expand the article.  Bit of a no win situation, any thoughts? Escaper7 23:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote for a "sub judice template" which would explain why such articles contain a bare minimum of information and would strongly discourage anyone from expanding them! Bluewave 11:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do we do that?  I've seen note to eds written in some articles but only visible in edit mode - is that what you mean? Escaper7 11:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was being more idealistic than practical! I imagined something that looks like a stub template, or even a big box at the top, like a current event template. It would say something like "Warning. This article relates to legal case that is sub judice. Commenting on the subject may be prejudicial to the due process of law in some jurisdictions. Please check <some reference> before contributing to this page." I appreciate that it would require a Wikipedia policy decision to support such a template and also appreciate that some people would be strongly opposed to the proposal!Bluewave 13:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub

message: I've checked a few things in relation to the hearing on 1 May and I hope this will help other editors:
* 1030, Tue 1 May, Ipswich Crown Court
* Plea and case management hearing for Wright (he's still not on trial at this point) 
* This hearing will include discussions about possible location for any trial and timing of such, and a plea by Wright
*It's expected to last two hours
I hope that's useful.  Escaper7 15:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far he hasn't pleaded - allegedly because if he did so, he would not be able to argue that there is "no case to answer". Is it the 1 May hearing that will determine whether there is a case to answer? Bluewave 15:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't mean to shoot you down Bluewave but... up to now it's been standard legal proceedings that apply to all serious cases.  This will be his first opportunity to enter a plea - he can't plead at  mags court because a magistrate can't hear such a serious case so straight to cc (Jan). He's had a first hearing and now it moves on to plea and directions (or plea and management).  If you phone Ipswich CC it will be on their court list, for this day, as a "plea and management hearing".  Given previous discussions about contempt, whether that applies to Wikipedia etc etc; we absolutely cannot predict what he may or may not do until it's been heard in court. Then we can update the article with the facts. Regards Escaper7 15:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1 May court hearing

message: This page can now (and should) be reinstated following Mr. Wright's conviction for the murders. As a point of fact any information in the public domain that this article contained could have been made visible quite legally once the trial had started. That is now neither here nor there, the suggestion remains that this be reinstated. --John Gibbard (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinstate Following Prosecution