Talk:Ipswich serial murders/Archive 2

message: :Given that Tom Stevens has been released without charge, I have removed the link. Hope this is okay but I feel per BLP there is no justification for this now that he appears to be no longer a suspect. Nil Einne 15:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the myspace FOUND 

message: Two editors (one anon, one admin, perhaps the same?) have removed the Atlantic City link section.  Two different editors have put it back.  It meets WP:VERIFY, although there appears to be no conclusive link.  Discuss...! Budgiekiller 13:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy.  The section is entitled "possible links to other crimes" and Atlantic City is clearly and verifiably a link that the police themselves are making.  If this section is to be here at all, then all links should be included. Guinness 13:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought, and we're the two who reverted it, so I guess it'd be interesting to hear from some independent editors!  Budgiekiller 13:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Suffolk police (as opposed to just the media) have mentioned it, I think that is a strong supporter of its significance - in this particular case they have been quite frugal, and obviously very considered, about what information they release. Barnabypage 13:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source for the information is media (FoxNews), however that article quotes a police spokeswoman, so unless FoxNews are lying or just plain wrong... Guinness 14:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - a police spokesperson is cited as the source - it should be left unless/until that possible link has been dismissed. -Aleta 65.140.99.246 14:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As the admin who removed it (and not the anon), I argue that the fact that someone mentioned a possible connection to crimes 3000 miles away several days ago is not germane to the present state of the investigation. It is perfectly clear that Suffolk Constabulary have their local suspects and no further interest in hypothetical links to crimes in the US. The fact that something is verifiable does not necessarily imply that it is relevant - a little common sense needs to be employed. Presumably the proponents of retaining this section will argue that it should stay until the police publicly dismiss the connection, but I would lay odds that it will simply never be mentioned again. -- Arwel (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Arwel.  Thanks for joining in on the discussion, I hope you don't mind me kicking it off.  I only (kind of) associated the anon revert with yours because they were argued similarly.  In my mind, if it's formed part of the investigation of the case, it's relevant.  Perhaps not necessarily in such detail, maybe something about a suspected link without the list of Atlantic City deaths, but nothing else.  Anyway, let's see how the consensus goes.  Budgiekiller 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If that's the case, then perhaps the entire section should be removed, since the links to these other murders are no more or less hypothetical than the AC ones.  I wouldn't argue against removing the section, but it may be noteworthy to preserve early courses of investigation for historical purposes.  I do think though, that the AC murders should be treated equally with the local ones, regardless of whatever that treatment may be. Guinness 18:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the key question here is: have the police indicated whether or not they are still pursuing other avenues of enquiry? Are they confident they have their man/men? If so, at the very least the introduction to the "possible links to other crimes" section needs to be put in the past tense. I recall that after the first arrest, they overtly said that it was not the end - I haven't read any comments one way or the other since the second arrest. Anyone know? (Meanwhile, I've tidied the section slightly to reflect the fact that Atlantic City is not in East Anglia, even by the broadest definition of that sometimes disputably-defined region. ;) Barnabypage 18:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That'll be East Angular you're referring to?!  Budgiekiller 20:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I nearly removed the stuff myself. I'm in complete agreement with Arwel. Jooler 18:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this report two of the women listed in the possible links section (Natalie Pearman, and Michelle Bettles) used to frequent a pub Steve Wright once owned... of course it says Pearman died in 1996 not 1992 like the Wikipedia article so maybe it isn't accurate. --GracieLizzie 20:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlantic City 'link' 

message: I've noticed that all the names in this article are in boldface. Is there any reason for this? .V. 03:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to put *some* of it back.  I agree there's no reason for them to be bold everywhere, but I think the first instance of the victims' and suspects' names should be bolded for ease of picking out. Aleta 21:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I just looked, and it actually only says not to use them in the lead paragraph except for in restating the article title and its synonyms (which I admit to having previously violated by mistake with the suspects' names).  There is no need to be unpleasant.  I wasn't deliberately trying to "follow the guidelines" selectively.  Pointing out what the guide says is sufficient. Aleta 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. Aleta 23:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the bold? 

message: I added a line about Karen McGregor in the "links to other possible victims" section, citing the same article as the one on Diane McInally.  I just copied & pasted the citation.  I know there's a better way to do it, but don't know exactly how.  If someone would fix it for me, I'd appreciate it.  Aleta 21:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference clean-up help request

message: News just in, will edit as appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.233.40 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2006 
(UTC).
: We had a duplicate reference to Mr Wright being charged and Mr Stephens(?) being released on bail, so I've merged them both under the heading "police investigation" - 81.168.47.3 00:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Wright charged. 

message: The correct spelling of the accused's first name is "Steven" according to the CPS and Suffolk Police:  As they know his precise date of birth I presume they have checked the spelling as well. Sam Blacketer 22:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point.  The BBC have it with a ph... what now?! Budgiekiller 22:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we stick with the Suffolk police as being a more primary source, after all they should know, SqueakBox 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I am not a lawyer" (TM) but from what I know of them, they are not above suggesting that charges should be dismissed if the suspect is charged under the wrong name. Sam Blacketer 22:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sky TV are currently quoting "Steve Wright" as well.  Budgiekiller 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a surprise, now Sky are quoting "Stephen Wright".  Hmm.  No hasty moves y'all.  Budgiekiller 23:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And BBC News 24 are in agreement with the latest Sky opinion.  Budgiekiller 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, but such an article should not be a duplicate of the page about the murder investigations. It is possible that tomorrow's press will provide some more information. Sam Blacketer 22:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A red wikilink currently exists under Steve Wright (suspect) but the name is rubbish.  Shouldn't we wait?  What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Budgiekiller 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That red link has just gone blue. I suggest discussions on its title ought to be made on its talk page. Sam Blacketer 23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It might be argued (not necessarily by me, just making the point) that notability for an article comes merely through being charged, and that he is therefore notable already. Christer Pettersson has an article even though he was acquitted; Per-Olof Svensson has an article even though the case against him was dropped. But certainly the title should not include "suspect". Sam Blacketer 23:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve Wright (Ipswich)? Sam Blacketer 23:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: With all this 'press responsibilty', does Wikipedia face a precedent by creating such an article?  Budgiekiller 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Lucky old Mr Wright then.  Away you go, vultures...!! Budgiekiller 23:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The BBC just sent me a breaking news text alert saying 'Stephen Wright' and 'Tom Stephens'. Hmm. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and the BBC just said "spree" rather than "serial"... Budgiekiller 23:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The BBC also just updated their News page - renaming him to Stephen Wright, also correcting the quote from Suffolk Police  --Sagaciousuk (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Important if small note

message: He is now not nbotable enough for the opening and I have edited him out. he should remain in the article, of course, SqueakBox 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I've removed his myspace page as well, as predicted.  Budgiekiller 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about ask if it was okay to remove it... we should definitely delete it now. --GracieLizzie 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably worth noting that Stephens was never named by the police (well, so far)... which seems (to me) to be a good thing.  Budgiekiller 22:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what happened? He named himself? AdorableRuffian 00:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tom Stephens

message: Is it just me or this talk page getting a bit long? Anyone think it is time to archive it and start afresh? --GracieLizzie 23:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say yes.  Budgiekiller 23:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. Aleta 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of doing this recently, but there are still too many active topics.  If you are going to archive, it needs to be done with care, to keep the active discussions on this page. Guinness 23:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd archive it myself but I don't seem to be allowed to.  Wikipedia is weird sometimes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.28.31.190 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Archive - we could write a section at the top about the fact the case is active, what we can't say etc, and put links to the other areas of discussion.  Things will wind down over Xmas and so there perhaps won't be any major developments once the mags hearing is done. Escaper7 10:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: A number of the sections discussing a rename are still relevant. — Matt Crypto 10:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, I've archived everything that's not got a comment from today; except the rename, for which new comments can be added to the section below. Guinness 17:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive time? 

message: Okay, all major news outlets are saying "Stephen Wright", which is legitimately abbreviated to "Steve Wright".  So what do we do.  The article for him now already exists here - Steve Wright (suspect) which inevitably will change one way or the other.  So two things.  What's his name, and do we need to rename his article?  Budgiekiller 23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His full name should be used until such a time as it's confirmed he's known as Steven. I support moving/renaming the article. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's his full name that's the problem. His usual name is Steve Wright, but his full name may either be "Stephen" according to news media or "Steven" according to the Suffolk Constabulary and CPS. Although we could play safe and stick to "Steve Wright". Sam Blacketer 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspect name 

message: Now that Steven Wright will be charged with the five murders, it seems that the investigation has come to a close or is coming to a close. Because of this, I believe the time has come or is coming to rename this article, perhaps to 2006 Ipswich murders. Any views on this? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one reasonable option, but various options have been discussed above at length, and none suggested so far are without problems. I believe the main objection to 2006 Ipswich murders is that it is more general than this particular case (other murders have occurred in Ipswich in 2006). The same problem applies to the current title, of course. I think the best option is either Ipswich prostitute murders or 2006 Ipswich prostitute murders, but there are some editors who object to using the word "prostitute" arguing (incorrectly, in my view) that it entails a value judgment, or otherwise dehumanises the women in some way. — Matt Crypto 00:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In principle I agree with you, although it's worth noting that the investigation is definitely still ongoing.  For example, Tom Stephens has been released IIRC "pending further enquiries."  However, your suggested title makes sense whether or not the investigatory phase is still ongoing. Guinness 00:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about Ipswich Serial Murders 2006 - it puts the 2006 at the end and I think that sounds better. It also doesn't use the word "prostitute" if people think that's "controversial" and also says it's the serial murders as opposed to any other murders that have happened in Ipswich this year. ( Just The Q ) 20:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  In the German Wikipedia there is an discussion in progress to rename it from "Mordserie in Ipswich 2006" (series of murder in Ipswich 2006) to "Suffolk Strangler". Perhaps this will be a possible name for the article. Greetings --Willicher 09:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Suffolk Strangler has gained wide enough currency to justify this. Barnabypage 14:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename? 

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: I think that's the point.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a tabloid newspaper, so the highest standards should be adhered to, and reporting of what we know as fact.  I'm entitled to my opinion, and I think there are consequences for Wikipedia and its credibility.  I don't believe Wikipedia is immune from the legal process, contempt, libel etc - that's why there are warning boxes on biogs of living people.  I've said on lots of talk pages that newspapers have in-house lawyers and deep pockets.  Wikipedia doesn't. Regards Escaper7 13:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal process

message: Someone posted a URL citation for "The Suffolkator".  It was showing as a broken template, being just a URL within braces.  I changed it to brackets, making it a link.  It is not in proper citation form though.  When I tried to do that, I messed it all up, and just reverted myself to make it a link again.  Could someone do this properly, please? Aleta 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done :-) --GracieLizzie 15:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing that, GL! Aleta 23:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation help

message: Some lines of the time line have a bullet point followed by the date followed by a dash (-) followed by the info. Others have no dash but the info on the next line and an indented bullet point. This isn't all done the same and therefore I'm changing it to all be on separate lines with bullet points. If someone thinks it should be done the other way they can change it so it's all dashed. ( Just The Q ) 20:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline Presentation

message: I have removed Wright's street address from the article.  I don't think we should be publishing that.  See talk page for his article for more discussion. Aleta 05:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspect's address

message: I've altered the headings and sub-headings slightly so that it all makes more sense chronologically.  I've added the section "Court appearances" to take in the first magistrate's hearing and the crown court hearing.  I've taken out the ref to Wright going on trial.  He's not on trial yet as he could plead guilty. (see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) . Escaper7 16:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have another go at organising the headings after my recent efforts were undone.  Wright has had his first appearance before Crown Court, I added some comments, and name of judge, but these have mysteriously been removed. Escaper7 00:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Headings

message: "...After the recent report by Dectective Inspector David Netherton,..." This line was removed - not sure why it was added, if anyone knows why and can source it please re-insert it.  Note Wikiusername of contributor who added it. Escaper7 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of sentence