Talk:Ipswich serial murders/Archive 3

Merge

I think Ipswich suspected serial killer should be merged with 2006 Suffolk murder investigation. It is possible in the future to rename it if other murders outside the Suffolk area are included or someone is convicted. Phildav76 11:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree - the content's duplicated. Squeezeweasel 12:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've redirected; I couldn't see anything that needed to be merged. — Matt Crypto 12:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is another fork Ipswich Ripper with largely overlapped content. Shouldn't it be redirected to here as well? --Vsion 00:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirected here. --Majorly 00:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

Why does the opening paragraph claim there were ten victims? Boiler Bro Joe 12:23, 15 December 2006 (EST)

It may be because of the linkings to other deaths. - Chris as I am Chris 17:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference term

I've seen Suffolk Ripper, Ipswich Ripper and East Anglia Ripper used to describe this person(s), should there be a redirect from these pages? Yorkshiresky 14:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep as is at present - could be multiple persons according to the latest reports, plus that's just the media searching for a suitable tag. Rgds, - Trident13 14:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, best to wait see and if any of these terms stick. — Matt Crypto 14:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The BBC is using "Suffolk Strangler" (albeit with quotes) in this article. Another to go on the list if one is being maintained. Tevildo 23:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This will have to renamed

It can't stay as it is, seeing as there's just under three weeks left until 2007. What would be a better name for it? --Majorly 15:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Suffolk prostitute murder investigation perhaps? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Or even better, the name of the killer, if they've found him by then. --Majorly 15:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"2006/2007 Suffolk murder investigation"? That would work (if it continues until next year). Or "Ipswich Ripper". Has a good ring to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.159.221.97 (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

It's an invalid name for Wikipedia as it has a forward slash. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not invalid. Face/off. --Majorly 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the first body/bodies were discovered in 2006, does it matter that it's got 2006 in the title? The Buncefield fire still had firefighters at the scene at the start of the 2006. It's called: 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire Escaper7 20:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just something simple like Ipswich Murders, which redirects here anyway? RHB 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, or perhaps Ipswich prostitute murders or even 2006 Ipswich prostitute murders. "Serial killer" is problematic -- there's no evidence (available to the public) that it's one killer or many, whether the same killers killed all five (the police haven't linked them, although it's obviously likely), and there's a few who say it's in fact a "spree killing". "2006" and "investigation" are problematic because the investigation will continue into 2007. "Murders" is better than "investigation" because the topic is ultimately about the murders, not just the investigation. — Matt Crypto 14:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Ipswich murders. --Vsion 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It must be renamed

The title doesn't provide any information at all about the fact that this is five murders within two weeks, all prostitutes. This is a serial killer investigation, no doubt, and the current title doesn't reflect that at all. 2006 Suffolk serial killer investigation would be closer to the mark, or 2006 Suffolk prostitute murders. The current title is almost useless. Budgiekiller 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

2006 Suffolk serial killer investigation sounds best. --Majorly 23:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, thanks for your reply. Anyone else interested in making this change? The current title really could relate to any investigation of any murder in Suffolk this year. What we're dealing with here is five bodies found within a few miles of Ipswich, all prostitutes, all within a couple of weeks. We must refine the title. Budgiekiller 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, it ought to be changed to "2006 Suffolk murderS investigation", indicating more than one victim was involved...perhaps even "2006 Suffolk serial murders investigation". I would say, however, that I am somewhat hesitant to use the term 'serial', as I am uncertain as to whether there is enough evidence (to state conclusively that enough of the killings are linked) for them to qualify as 'serial'. I would agree that the title, as it stands right now, is a bit on the vague side, though I don't know that we need to label the killings as 'prostitute' killings. Just my two cents. -Grammaticus Repairo 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just passing through casually, I was interested in this as I am a UK citizen, and I agree about a rename. 2006 Suffolk serial killer investigation sounds best to me, but any of the options being discussed above would be suitable. Blood red sandman 07:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go for a rename if nobody else objects. Budgiekiller 08:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Suffolk Strangler is better, as that's what the UK media is calling him now. There's no point using a year in the title, especially since the investigation (unless we're lucky) is likely to carry across more than one year. --Dweller 08:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can assume that all five women were strangled yet, but until we get anything more, we really do need to stop renaming it! Budgiekiller 08:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that's a fair point. I'll go along with that. --Dweller 08:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Serial killer

The BBC and others are calling the murderer a "spree killer" rather than a "serial killer" now - should the title be adjusted to reflect this? I am assuming a serial killer is someone more planning, predetermined, slower, methodical than a killer who works so fast? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.108.145.10 (talk) (11:45, 13 December 2006).

I've just read an article which said that, "A series of murders such as this do have to be distinguished, though, from the spree killers."[1] — Matt Crypto 11:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate, especially when you consider the definition of spree killer here. Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton were spree killers, Peter Sutcliffe and Harold Shipman were serial killers. I suspect it's just a case of the media looking for something "new" now that "serial killer" is such a familiar term. Nick Cooper 12:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google News search on had over a thousand hits for "serial" and three for "spree", so I think we should stick with serial for the moment. Besides, the terms seem subjective and as such I don't think there's a right answer. Budgiekiller 12:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We could be changing the name nearly every five minutes trying to keep up with what various media call the case. Leave it as is unless/until there is lasting major information that would indicate reason for a name change. Aleta 14:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I originally used the title "Ipswich suspected serial killer", although we would have to drop the "suspected" now. I prefer "Ipswich serial killer" or "Suffolk serial killer". Regrettably, we have to consider the serious possibility that this person's activities will continue into 2007, or he may go on to attack non-prostitutes, we should not have to change the title if this happens. Starting a title with "2006/07" is clumsy. Fortunately, there has not previously been a serial killer in Suffolk or Ipswich, we do not need to distinguish this person from any other. PatGallacher 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We also don't know if it's one or more people acting together. I think the previous "murder investigation" was better in that regard, since there's very little known for certain about who is behind the killings. — Matt Crypto 19:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

An expert on BBC News earlier on defined a serial killer as someone who kills at least three people over a period of at least thirty days. So the second requirement is probably to close too call at present but may become clear through forensic examination or if he strikes again. Rrsmac 22:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Some useful links

Theres plenty of stuff on the BBC site referencing this, including international reactions. I've pasted a couple of links below. I'd do it myself but I'm busy with work tonight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6171469.stm - profiles
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/6175797.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6173633.stm#map (with non google map overlay)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6176087.stm (international reactions)
Thanks, RHB 18:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mixed response

Firstly, I wish to point out this is not my opinion, I am deeply sadened by the happenings. I just wondered if the point should be mentioned that some people think that it is only to be expected that the target is sex workers, maybe not as far as murder, but some peoples opinion is that the girls have put themselves in danger. Chris as I am Chris 18:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there citations for that opinion? (Not that I'm surprised to read it.) If so, maybe it needs to be included for NPOV? Maybe not though - the article isn't otherwise discussing causes of the abductions/killings. Aleta 19:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because the cause is not yet known, and no doubt will get added at some point when it is known. --Majorly 19:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised to hear this at all, but when all's said and done, the girls may have 'put themselves in danger' but I'm sure nobody would suggest that therefore they deserved to be murdered. I'm not sure that being a sex worker is just cause for serial murder in a civilised society. However, if you're trying to summise why a psychopath would feel justified in killing prostitutes, this isn't the precedent.

Bottom line is that it's our duty here to report the facts, not to hypothethise as to why someone or some people have killed a number of women, let's wait until the Suffolk Constabulary have something more concrete than our conjecture. Budgiekiller 22:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Defenetly not wiki material till they catch him and his lawyer gives a statement. But as a personal opinion I don't think he's on a noble quest to rid the streets of immorality. It's just much more convenient and safe to kill woman whose jobs nature involve standing in secluded areas and being freindly to strangers which offer a 'conversation' at 3am. 11:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ellas fueron putas, no?

Isn't that the translation of "prostitute" into Spanish? "La puta"? 204.52.215.107 21:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your point is what, exactly? Budgiekiller 22:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe s/he wants to make a Spanish version of the article --Bnynms 18:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

$Insertformulahere$

I think it should be left to a native speaker of spanish, 'puta' is not a correct translation of "prostitute" it is a spanish swear word closer to "whore". Anyway why are you asking this on this discussion page?! Also I would say "eran" rather than "fueron". Angryafghan 17:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Links to other crimes

Could there be a little more information here? Why are the police linking these unsolved crimes to this case? What similarities are shared? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.145.13 (talk • contribs)

The links between this and the Atlantic City murders seem incredibly weak: the murders are the strangling of prostitutes between 20-40. Based on that, you could link it to any number of similar serial killers across the world. Sum0 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't mean to sound like a snobby Englishman, but this seems to be one of those "Fox-news" news stories which to be honest, sound absurd. I think it should be deleted. Dave 19:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said below, this is not press speculation, a police spokesperson stated on the record that they will be investigating this; Fox News is just the source for this statement. Whilst I agree that having a "links to other crimes" section seems tantamount to investigative reasoning in the article, if this section is here at all, then the Atlantic City link should be included. However it is a fact that at the current time, police are considering links to other crimes, and that that includes the AC murders (I can't speak for the East Anglia ones as I haven't read the cited source, but I have for the AC one). Guinness 19:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC) - (p.s. I'm a snobby Englishman too)

A few things

That image from the BBC website needs a detailed fair use rational, the supposedly related crimes are pretty much every unsolved murder in that area in the past 10 years, and including three from the US? Isn't that just conjecture? I'm sure there have been murders in the EU countries recently. Thanks, RHB 00:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A quote from the cited source of this information: "Ipswich Police spokeswoman Shelly Spratt said contact with authorities in Atlantic City "is an avenue we will go down."" While any connection itself may be conjecture by the police, the fact that they have publically stated they are going to follow it up is noteworthy (i.e. it is not conjecture by WP editors). Guinness 12:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had doubts about that section too. We might wish to evaluate its inclusion again later on, depending on whether there continues to be any notable suspicion of a connection. — Matt Crypto 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Naturally, as things change, the page will need to be updated so that it only contains relevant facts. What people forget is that this is really a WikiNews article, not a WP article. The reality is that details of the ongoing investigation should go there, and only settled facts should be here. However, people seem reluctant to use WN, and invariably there is as much and often more current information in WP than in WN. Guinness 13:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any great problem with writing WP articles that are updated in tandem with the news, even if that means including the occasional ephemeral fact that we subsequently drop. We're just aiming to write the best encyclopedia article possible now. A WP article is complementary to WikiNews in that it summarises all the information about a news story up to that point. A news article will focus on an update to that story, or a particular angle on that story. — Matt Crypto 13:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Prostitution Legalization

This case has prompted calls from different media outlets to legalize prostitution and has been cited as a reason to do so. This should be mentioned, using appropriate citations, in the article. LuciferMorgan 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Johanna Young date

I guess that the 1993 date was take from here, but I remember the year being 1992 and this is supported by this Guardian article written in Februrary 1993. -- Phildav76 08:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ipswich Ripper

This was once a redirect and now contains almost duplicate info as on this page. Any object to reverting back to a redirect? --Majorly (Talk) 22:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, we dont want duplicate articles, SqueakBox 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Very smart redirect. Makes it easier to find this article now. LuciferMorgan 03:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Reliability of The Sun?

The Sun is described as a tabloid newspaper. If this means the same thing that it means in the U.S., then I'd say The Sun's reliability is questionable. Especially so in the case of the implied claim that cannabis use leads to heroin use, which is a typical propaganda claim used here in the U.S. without scientific credibility.

Could a more reputable source than The Sun be found? If more reputable sources refuse to cover a topic at all, might it not be considered non-notable? Kasreyn 23:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Such stuff can easily be deleted, I just removed the bit about cannabis as completely irrelevant, SqueakBox 23:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Strangulation, Asphyxiation, or Compression of the Throat

The Suffolk Police have never used the expression "strangled" in regards to these murders, shouldn't we be using the language they use? For one of the women, the cause of death is officially Asphyxiation, for the latest to be identified it is Compression of the Throat. Granted, this basically means much the same as strangled, but there is obviously a difference in the method used in each case or else the cause of death would be the same. I think we should take info from the Suffolk Police website rather than The Sun's for what it's worth. Jcuk 01:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Be as precise as reasonably possible. If there are quotes from the police, that's the best we can do. Aleta 02:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I went back and deleted references to strangulation. If that isn't what the police said, we shouldn't say it. (There are multiple ways to asphyxiate.) Aleta 02:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not true! The Police refer to strangulation of the 3rd victim here --Ninevah 04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the bbc website refer to strangulation. The police statement can be found here --88.107.151.80 13:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ipswich Ripper"?

I have been hearing with increasing frequency the killer(s)being referred to as a "Ripper", any information on whether s/he inflicted any injuries upon the bodies that would warrent for such a name?--Nicole M. 03:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just a name the UK tabloids have come up with. There've been tons of "Ripper"'s over the years with varying methods of killing victims. LuciferMorgan 03:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Australian Media

"In Australia, the media has referred to the killer as the "Red Light Ripper"; in reference to Red-light districts, where prostitutes frequent" One Australian newspaper has called a titles article 'Red-Light Ripper Feared', apart from that the media in Australia refer to the killer with the same names the English press has. What is the point of that reference being in the wiki??

Renaming

Would it be possible that we could discuss possible suitable renamings rather than just doing it without any consensus? The new title is clearly unacceptable as it could refer to any murder in Ipswich in 2006, and there must have been more than this recent series. The title should reflect the multiple nature of the discoveries. Budgiekiller 08:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "2006 Ipswich murder investigation" is an improvement. It's better to be too general than to be specific yet possibly incorrect (see my comments above about "serial killer"). — Matt Crypto 08:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not specific enough about the fact the multiple murders have been committed, but that's just my opinion. The other problem with continually renaming the page is that people fail to fix the double redirects, it's just sloppy. Budgiekiller 09:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's bad form to rename without fixing the double redirects. — Matt Crypto 09:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is unlikely that there have been any other murders in and round Ipswich in 2006. Those mentioned in the article as being possibly conected are likely to be the latest ones in the area. It is a relatively unpopulated rural area and the murder rate in the UK generally is forced up by gang murders in the major cities.Cliff 09:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No other murders? The fatal stabbing on 9 Dec is probably being treated as murder, I should think. Bluewave 09:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, while Ipswich isn't exactly crime city central, there is usually more than one instance of murder a year there. That's why the name should probably reflect the multiple deaths. Budgiekiller 10:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps to make it a touch more specific we could include the word prostitute in the title as, I believe, it has been confirmed by Police that all five victims were prostitutes? Budgiekiller 10:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one way we could go (I suggested Ipswich prostitute murders or 2006 Ipswich prostitute murders above). (We'd have to wait until the 5th body is identified as Annette Nicholls). — Matt Crypto 10:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The fifth body has now been confirmed as prostitute Annette Nicholls. Perhaps we could discuss a rename again?! Budgiekiller 11:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend NOT using the term 'prostitute' in the title, as although so far it appears that this murderer is targeting prostitutes specifically, that could turn out to be a mistaken impression (see Peter Sutcliffe for instance). Also, I have noticed that at least one editor apparently objects to the term per se, preferring 'woman working in prostitution', presumably on the grounds that she feels there is an implicit and unwelcome value judgement in the word 'prostitute'. I don't happen to agree myself, but I see no point in possibly causing some sort of edit dispute over it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guy Hatton (talk • contribs) 11:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Given the current facts, this would not be a mistaken impression. Five murders, all prostitutes. All I'm after is a more specific, factually accurate title that reflects the nature of the multiple prostitute murders. Budgiekiller 11:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

...and given that there is no reason to believe yet that the killings have stopped, I think it's unduly presumptuous to think that changing the title will actually aid precision in the long run. My suggestion would be that the title stays exactly as it is until we know that the series has come to an end (or until it becomes eg. '2006-2007'). Guy Hatton 11:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, sorry - forgot to sign the comment Guy Hatton 11:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A rename discussion is needed. I suppose we should list the suggestions; I've made a start (not all mine): — Matt Crypto 11:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The title is currently incorrect because it states "murder", not "murders", so at the very least it should reflect the fact that more than one murder investigation is taking place. That is indisputable and cannot change in the future. Budgiekiller 11:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that 'murder investigation' is standard usage even when multiple murders are involved, so I don't think there's a compelling case for a pluralisation. Guy Hatton 11:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As discussed above, this isn't the only murder investigation in Ipswich in 2006, so the title needs to be changed. I take your point about singular 'murder investigation', but most new name suggestions have dropped "investigation", so pluralisation would be essential if any of them are selected. Budgiekiller 11:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, and one which I confess I had overlooked. I'm still not convinced that a plain 'Ipswich murders' title will work either, on the same grounds, which brings us back to the 'prostitute murders' issue. To be honest, it now seems as though the previous 'Ipswich serial killer investigation' title was better than any of the current options. I think it's important at this stage that the on-going nature of the subject is reflected in the title in some way, which is why I would like to retain 'investigation'. It should also be borne in mind that it's bad for WP functioning to have an article's title constantly in flux, so I hope some broadly satisfactory solution can be found soon! Guy Hatton 11:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Particularly when the double redirects aren't properly fixed...! Budgiekiller 11:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for article name

1. 2006 Ipswich murder investigation (current))
2. Ipswich murders
3. Ipswich prostitute murders
4. 2006 Ipswich prostitute murders
5. 2006/2007 Ipswich murder investigation (when we get there)
6. Ipswich sex worker murders
7. Ipswich multiple murder of women
8. 2006/2007 investigation of the murder, widely speculated to be by a serial killer or killers, of five women working in prostitution in Ipswich, Suffolk, UK (just kidding...)

• Vote for CURRENT, reasons given above. Guy Hatton 11:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Ipswich prostitute murders gets my vote. Budgiekiller 11:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• I would vote against anything with Prostitute in the title, because it is making judgements about the victims. So, of the 4 above, I would have to go for the CURRENT. However, I don't much like this either, and would prefer some variant of "Ipswich serial murders" (though I understand why others object to 'serial'!) Bluewave 11:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is the word "prostitute" making a judgement against the victims? I don't think it is. It's just the word everyone has been using to describe the trade practiced by all five victims -- which is a link emphasised in the reporting of the case. — Matt Crypto 12:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I hesitate to get in an argument why I voted one way or another...but...firstly, I think the title should reflect the notability of the article. I believe the events are notable because there are 5 linked murders and that this is more significant than the fact that the victims were prostitutes. Secondly, I believe that labelling someone as a prostitute does make a judgement about them. The term conjures up a particular image of their lifestyles. However, when I read more deeply into their backgrounds, their tragic lives don't really fit the picture presented by the label. Thirdly (and linked to the second point) it does rather soud like a tabloid headline rather than an encyclopaedic article. Fourthly, prostitution is not the only thing that linked the victims. As one example, I believe they were all victims of drug addiction. Incidentally, there is some evidence that drugs were a feature of the killings (but not sex). So, why would people propose "Ipswich prostitute murders" rather than "Ipswich drug addict murders"? (Though I would equally dislike this too!!) Bluewave 13:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your response; I don't really want to get into an argument either. We're probably not going to find any name for this page that's going to be agreeable to everyone. The current title is not bad (apart from the "2006", which will be out of date in a couple of weeks). — Matt Crypto 13:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• "Serial killer" was problematic because there's we don't know, and the police haven't asserted, whether it's A) one killer or many killers, B) definitely a serial killer (as opposed to a "spree killing"), or C) that all five women were killed by the same killer(s). I advocate "Ipswich prostitute murders" because it's accurate for now (any name may have to change if new events take place), specific enough, and fairly concise. — Matt Crypto 12:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• I dont see prostitute as problematic except for the fact that if non-prostitutes are murdered (which has been suggested could happen now that most prostitutes are off the streets) it would mean another title change. I'd go for Ipswich Murders, simplest and least problematic. We can stick a 2006 in there if it really matters. RHB 13:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, what about Ipswich 2006 multiple murder investigation which could be changed to reflect the year(s) if need be. Jcuk. (I forgot to sign in again!) 88.107.151.80 17:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• That's getting closer... interesting that the BBC show tonight (including Suffolk Police representatives) said "he" all the time and referred to "him" as a "serial killer"... Budgiekiller 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• #3, "Ipswich Prostitute Murders". It's clearly the best title. It isn't restrictive as to date (2006 is about to end), it specifies these murders rather than any other murders that might have occured in Ipswitch, and "prostitute" is in the title because the girls were prostitutes. That isn't a judgement, it's a a statement of fact. Vidor 00:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• #3, "Ipswich Prostitute Murders". short and to the point. I suggest "Ipswich Serial Murders" if it there are any more victims that are not prostitutes.--Nicole M. 02:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Some general thoughts. Firstly, the Suffolk police have not said that the five were all killed by the same person. Secondly 'Serial killer' is an American phrase and I prefer the British term 'mass murderer'. Thirdly, to use an un-politically correct phrase, let's call a spade a spade: if someone is a prostitute, say so, rather than using the euphemism 'sex worker'. Sam Blacketer 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Being American, I fail to see how the American origin of the phrase "serial killer" is relevant, since it is in use on both sides of the Atlantic and is most popular, AND is the classification Wikipedia uses. Also, "mass murderer" isn't as accurate, because that describes people who kill a large number of people at one time, such as Richard Speck (who killed nine nurses in one session) and Charles Whitman (who climbed that tower in Texas and shot all those people). Serial killers kill people one or two at a time over a long period, as is the case here. Vidor 18:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Would it not be more appropriate, given that this is an article about a British topic, to use British terminology? I understand that is usual Wikipedia practice - see the debate below about British vs. American date style. This isn't an article about the sniper Charles Whitman. But I do say again, the Suffolk police have not said that the same person killed all five dead women. Sam Blacketer 18:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Although "Ipswich Prostitute Murders" is short and to the point, it can also be construed as being highly offensive to the sex workers. "Ipswich Murders" is also short and to the point, and does not contain offense. Dave 18:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Regarding American vs. British terminology, it's most important to use ACCURATE terminology. "Mass murderer" involves killing a large amount of people all at once. I invite you to read the Wikipedia article on mass murder, which draws precisely that distinction. I mentioned Charles Whitman because he's a perfect example of a mass murderer. If the Ipswich killer had killed all five of those girls at once, he'd be a mass murderer, but he didn't, so he isn't.-----Regarding "prostitutes" v. "sex workers", calling them prostitutes is not offensive, it is (again) accurate, because they were prostitutes. This is not a judgement, this is a fact. There is no offense to be had. "Ipswich murders" is less precise and informative. Not to mention that "sex workers" is a more vague term that could be applied to strippers and such. Vidor 20:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
      • ould it not be more appropriate, given that this is an article about a British topic, to use British terminology? -- Yes, it would, but your assertion that "serial killer" is the American term for the British "mass murderer" is absolutely incorrect. Sounds like you need to do some basic reading on the topic, Sam. See Jack the Ripper for instance, including the list of reference books by British authors at the end, all of which use the term serial killer instead of mass murderer because serial killer is one after another and mass murder is all at once. DreamGuy 01:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Personally, I'd stick with the current. The broadcast media (BBC, ITV and SGR, the local independant radio station) uses the terms 'Suffolk Murders' and 'Suffolk Murder Investigations', but I feel these are too generic for these connected incidents.

The BBC is using the term "Suffolk serial killer", this strikes me as the best term, I suggest moving it. PatGallacher 00:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For all this talk of prostitution, which undoubtedly is one of the common factors for all of the known victims, there are other common factors that could be used if a convenient headline-grabbing abbreviation were required. Prostitution, heroin addiction, female. Or, perhaps the method of killing, once that is confirmed. Or some other common factor that hasn't been released to the media at this time. It might be that once the perpetrator is convicted, and his or her motives understood, that the most significant common factor will be known. Unless there are other encyclopedia-worthy murders in Ipswich in the remaining days of 2006, surely '2006 Ipswich Murder Investigation', or some variation thereof, is most appropriate. Alasdairmacdonald 13:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Map

The current map showing the locations does not look as though its scale is correctly shown. The distances are greater than the map suggests. This needs checking against the OS map for the area. (I might have time to do later today if nobody else does it first.) Bluewave 09:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have done a quick edit of the map. This can probably be improved but is less misleading than the original. I measured on the OS 1:50000 map, and took the straight line distance between the A12/A14 junctions, east and west of Ipswich as a reference. The distance between these points should be 10.75km. Google maps can be checked for the same thing. Bluewave 11:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It was my bad, thanks for making the changes. I amended the .svg file using your image and reinsert it into the article, so that others can choose to modify it with vector graphics. --Vsion 02:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks better than my quick hack. (And not just you, by the way. One of the maps on the BBC site is still showing a completely wrong scale.) Bluewave 10:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add the location of the red light district to the map?

Significance

I don't see the significance in this article. The media might be paying a lot of attention to it, but that doesn't mean it is notable and encyclopedic. What about all the children that have died due to drive by shootings in Los Angeles? They are also all linked (all from gang members) much like these murders with past murders, yet I don't see a page for those gang shootings. And what about... and.... and also....

Bottom line, I don't see why this is important enough to make an article out of it. It seems to be another case of murder to me, just in a series. --Lan56 09:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That a lot of people are paying attention to it is the exact reason why it's notable and encyclopedic. On what grounds do you think an encyclopedia should cover murders? — Matt Crypto 09:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess 'notable' in that it's grabbed people's attention because it a rare case where some non-fiction murder are playing out more like a fictional serial killer novel. It's 8/10th of the way to being a plot in a James Patterson book. Whether or not it's encyclopaedic... TarquinSidebottom

Wikipedia includes coverage of a lot of serial killers: see, for example, List of serial killers by country. This article is of similar significance to many of those. Bluewave 09:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the entire UK is talking about it and it's already raising questions in the papers about issues such as the legalization of prostitution and drugs and the best way to deal with both as a social problem. Because the UK is such a densely populated place, and because murder (and especially serial murder) is relatively rare here compared to the US, this kind of thing can have a major impact on cultural and political attitudes.Bedesboy 10:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been the leading, or nearly leading, news story in the national UK news for some days now. That's pretty dang notable. --Dweller 11:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Lan56, I see what you are saying as an argument to create articles on more murders, not to get rid of this one. Aleta 15:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's not all that significant. I mean, thousands of people are murdered each year. Why should five murders in Ipswich be given such great importance, especially on a large-scale news website like Wiki? The Gonz 02:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There were only 765 homicides in England and Wales in 2005/6 and that includes the 52 victims of the underground bombings.--Moonlight Mile 05:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Chubby man/ blue BMW?

I deleted "police are looking for chubby man driving a Blue BMW" thinking it's probably vandalism. If I'm wrong, and it's merely poorly written, someone please put it back better-written & with a ref. Aleta 18:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That was in the papers today. I believe the significance is being downplayed now, though (Not been mentioned on national or regional BBC TV news). In all honesty, I'd say to keep it removed until we can cite the Police, there are journalists crawling all over town, trying to get their own exclusives or early lead. -- Ratarsed 19:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly it is true that "Lou" one of the girls still working the Redlight district of the town gave a televised interview saying one of the murdered girls was last seen getting into a blue BMW, which was driven by a chubby guy. Whether you can infer from that, the police are looking for said guy, I'm not sure. Jcuk 19:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this they know who he is and he is a suspect, SqueakBox 17:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is going to sound pedantic, but Suffolk Police currently say they have no suspects. They have people in whom they are interested in talking to. To the layman this might seem much the same, but I think the difference is a "suspect" is someone whom they would caution before talking to, whereas someone helping them with their enquiries would not automatically be cautioned. Again, I think we should use the language the police (rather than the mass media) are using. Jcuk 22:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Something in Suffolk Constabulary article?

I've put this on the talk page for the Suffolk Constabulary article, but it doesn't seem as if that talk page gets much traffic (seeing as, er, I only just created it)... is it worth putting a section about this case on the the Suffolk Constabulary article? It's the biggest case they've had to deal with for ages. MBerrill 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see the appropriate talk page. Budgiekiller 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper editorials

Are those considered encyclopedic? They are certainly the very opposite of NPOV. Aleta 23:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV means that we must present what the various opinions about a subject are & they must be presented as opinions. So we present facts about what opinions exist & who holds these opinions rather than presenting opinions ourselves. So these editorials add significantly to the article & show clearly what impact this case is having on British politics. MGSpiller 22:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Miss Alderton was three months pregnant.

Do not know where to fit this in.

from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/6185169.stm

Df2 09:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps in the timeline, and/or with the details of the girls? MBerrill 15:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, it's been put in already. Silly me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MBerrill (talk • contribs) 15:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, I put it in yesterday. Chris as I am Chris 10:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Date Format

Will whoever keeps changing the date formats to American stop, as this is a British article. Chris as I am Chris 17:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Dates are (should be) be wikilinked, which means they'll be localised to British/American/whatever format as necessary. — Matt Crypto 17:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

When I checked, half were American, and half British. Chris as I am Chris 17:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you set your date prefs in Special:Preferences? — Matt Crypto 17:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its just someone edited it in a way it wouldn't change to the preferences, I have edited the dates now though. Chris as I am Chris 18:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the article, and the dates are variously in MDY, DMY, and YMD formats all mixed. What is proper British format so we can all agree to be consistent? Aleta 18:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The British system goes Day/Month/Year. Dave 19:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Aleta 19:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Working in prostitution vs. prostitute

Someone has again gotten rid of many (all perhaps) of the instances where "prostitute" was used. I do not see anything wrong with the word prostitute. It implies no value judgement. "Woman working in prostitution" even uses essentially the same term, but is far longer with no increase in information. I think this is bad form. Opinions of others? Aleta 20:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted this, as the previous editor seems very clearly to be working to a personal agenda. Nick Cooper 20:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the revert. It is women who have been murdered although the fact that all of them were engaged in prostitution is certainly relevant. They were addicted to Class A drugs, which is relevant but not defining? Hence while both are relevant it does not negate the fact that these were women who were murdered: not prostitutes, not addicts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ms medusa (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

I've put it back again. The fact that all the victims have been women is well established from the first sentence. There is no need to be wordier than necessary to state their profession. It is, of course, relevant that they were all female. It also seems highhly probable that the fact they were prostitutes is relevant. To rephrase it accomplishes nothing. Aleta 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont doubt that it is relevant (as is their drug addiction), but many women engaged in prostitution consider the term "prostitute" offense. I concede if there is consensus around the term "prostitute" and looking around the rest of wikipedia it seems to be a term in common use, nevertheless I would regard it as offensive.Ms medusa 00:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Working in prostitution" can mean several things (pimp, madame, &c.) and therefore is ambiguous. All of the victims were prostitutes. If you can think of a different word which means "prostitute" and isn't offensive, then please let us know. Until then, I suggest that we follow the official Wikipeida policy on this one.Guinness 14:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The rule I've tried to follow is that any time I'd use the word "plumber" in a comparable (but obviously hypothetical) case, I'd use the word "prostitute". I really don't buy the idea that "prostitute" carries any intrinsic value judgement (unlike the word "whore", for example), and "woman working in prostitution" is just suboptimal writing, just as "woman working in plumbing" is much worse than "plumber". — Matt Crypto 00:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a serious point of discussion here, and it is not about people working to "personal agendas". The non-tabloid media in the UK has generally avoided labelling the victims as prostitutes. Matthew Parris, writing in the Times has made similar points to Ms medusa. Even the Wikipedia manual of style says "If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they qualify other nouns. Thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays; and so forth." I think that "working in prostitution" rather than "prostitute" is a good interpretation of this guideline. I have some sympathy with the "plumber test". However, if Gemma Adams had been a plumber, would the section have started "On 2 December 2006, the body of Gemma Adams, a 25-year-old plumber...", or would her occupation only have been mentioned later in the paragraph? Bluewave 10:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If some lunatic was murdering (only) plumbers then it would be notable and worth mentioning early on. --Dweller 12:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it would, however women in prostitution are extremely common victims for serial killers, so the notability is lessened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ms medusa (talk • contribs) 13:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Guinness 14:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Try this article [2] with a quote from a criminologist

Looks good for the first part, however I would argue that someone's life is not less valuable (and ergo their murder less notable) just because they are a prostitute. Guinness 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say their murder was less notable, I said that the fact that they were in prostitution was less notable. A serial killer who only murdered plumbers that fact would be highly notable as they are a group which are not commonly targetted by serial killers, in fact I cant think of a single serial killer who only murdered plumbers, but I can think of several who only murdered those in prostitution.Ms medusa 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In a UK context that would seem to be three or less out of 28. Hardly an overwhelming trend. Nick Cooper 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy that. If you look at the list of serial killers by country, for the 28 listed for the UK, only five killed prostitutes, but in two cases they accounted for a minority of their victims overall. That's not "extremely common" by any stretch. Nick Cooper 15:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

...and how many targetted plumbers? Besides those are only the ones that have been caught...if you look at the murders of women in the UK you will find a very high proportion of them are women in prostitution - most of those murders have never been solved..Ms medusa 18:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, bottom line is that they're all referenced as prostitutes in the global press and by the Suffolk Constabulary, and if we're writing an article that is likely to be discovered by those who are interested in its contents, and without evidence to the contrary, we should keep using the word. Let's get over it and move on. It's 100% clear they were all prostitutes. The use of the word prostitute in this article is purely objective. This is not the land of PC, it's somewhere where we should write articles with a common understanding. Budgiekiller 21:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

innocent til proven guilty?

Should we be saying as a fact that all these women were prostitutes? Were they all convicted of prostitution? Maybe we should say "Police say ___was a prostitute" BobTrout5th 15:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We are as certain as it is possible to be that all five women were working the streets in the Red-Light area of Ipswich. To say "We cannot say they were prostitutes because none of them were convicted of prostitution" raises problems because prostitution is not a prosecutable crime in the UK. 81.174.149.183 15:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted this uinilateral edit, as the evidence that they were prostitutes is overwhelming. Paula Clennell was even interveiwed by a TV reporter days before she went missing. Nick Cooper 15:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've by no means read all of the sources for this article, but the ones I have read, and other sources not cited here all say they were prostitutes. The fact that "Police say ..." is clearly a verifiable and notable source (albeit by way of reputable news and media sources). Therefore, for WP's purposes, we can be certain that it is a fact. And the above comment is correct too, prostitution is not a criminal offence in the UK. Guinness 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

media coverage

I disagree with the claim that media didn't take an interest in this story until Alderton's body was found. I remember seeing quite a bit of coverage on BBC News in particular, on the Saturday following the Dec 8th discovery of Nicols' body (prior to the Dec 10 discovery of Alderton). Perhaps I'm just splitting hairs here... Also, while it is unfortunate that there has to be so much controversy surrounding "prostitute" and that it DOES often imply judgement, I don't think there is any way around it without sounding ridiculous. The media has not particularly shied away from using this term (not by any means), and using a bunch of qualifiers and going around our elbows to get to our behinds sounds wishy-washy and confused. I do agree that it is relevant that the women WERE prostitutes because there is speculation that these are a sort of divine-retribution carried out by a crazy person, and particularly because of the effect these cases have had on the sex trade in Ipswich (women staying home, cops warning possible victims, etc.) If they were all schoolteachers, we certainly would have made a big deal about that, as well. Whirlingdervish 18:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The earliest BBC News website report was on Tania was 7 November, a week after she was last seen and eight days before it was reported on that missing 15 November Gemma had gone missing that morning, some two weeks before her body was found. It was basically more than a month between Tania goign missing and the first body being found (Gemma's). The fact is that all sorts of people go missing for all sorts of reasons, but rarely as a result of murder, yet this was a story in the news even before it was known that it was, and to suggest otherwise is misleading. Nick Cooper 18:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor point: while the story did not become a major news event until the discovery of the third body, the discovery of the second body (Tania Nicol) was mentioned on the national BBC news (as about the second or third item). I'll update the article. 81.174.149.183 19:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As a casual viewer of BBC East news, I can remember seeing Tania Nicols disappearance mentioned several times during November. At least 2 or 3 times before the second disappearance, after which both disappearances were mentioned in subsequent editions of the programme. Alasdairmacdonald 13:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

similarities to other serial killings???

Perhaps there should be a little section on the similarities with this murder spree and others in the past. For instance Jack the Stripper, there's allot of similarities with that case in that there was a serial killing of prostitutes, 6 to be exact. There bodies, naked of-course, where on occasion dumped in water, as was the case in suffolk. Also the method of murder is strangulation?? am i the only one seeing the similarities. Also this Murder inspired the film Frenzy, which is also known to have inspired serial killer Joel Rifkin to have murdered, especially by strangulation. Perhaps its just me but i see that this suffolk murders could have been inspired by this. Though wether it has or it hasnt i still feel that there should be a section simply devoted to the similarities to other serial prostitute murders.--Fabio 02:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

Not stable. As a rule of thumb, it's probably best to wait until information isn't changing rapidly before nominating. The only thing that would hold it back otherwise is the remaining citation needed tags and fair use rationale on the photograph. Re-nominate when the article is stable. Noclip 04:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper editorials

These article links aren't needed, as the prostitution issue is covered in the "Coverage of related issues" section. It's just merely echoing something already established in the article, and makes the article very clumsy. LuciferMorgan 09:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction within the article

Theres a contradiction it seems, though Police haven't confirmed the suspects identity he is named later on in the article, I'm gonna revert it. Its just a wasteful use of making a new section, If they're more suspects then they should be added in the timeline, shouldn't they? 82.47.146.193 11:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. While the police may not have confirmed it, the media seem pretty sure who it is; see BBC News: [3]. — Matt Crypto 11:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead and add a citation to the article. Budgiekiller 11:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Should a note be added that he's stating his innocence in order to maintain neutrality 82.47.146.193 11:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and his interview in the Sunday Mirror yesterday. Budgiekiller 11:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been careful to cite sources and say that "media sources" state the name. There's also a ref to the Sunday Mirror' article, in which he states his innocence. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you vote for a block on this site to potential vandals by that I mean newly registered people and anonymous IPs, I think it should in case of vandalism. Any admin about? 82.47.146.193 11:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Said an anonymous editor :-) I'm keeping an eye on it. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol, got a user account prefer to use anonymously 82.47.146.193 11:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The place to ask, by the way (it's not a vote), is here. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need semiprotection at this point (if I understand you correctly). — Matt Crypto 11:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the word 'vote', I meant request,I know what I meant 82.47.146.193 11:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Arrest and contempt

Slow down! A man has been arrested, that means proceedings become 'active' with respect to contempt of court laws in the UK - these apply to Wikipedia as much as any other media. That severely restricts what you can say.

• Until his name has been confirmed by the police, (not by a 'source' telling Sky News, and an editor citing that as a reference), nothing can be said that might prejudice his trial.
• The other possible way to confirm that naming is by an editor checking with Suffolk Police - an enquiry I'm sure they won't be too keen to entertain.
• Best to stick to basic facts until the name is confirmed: ie Name, time, place, where held; very little one can say in fact.
• Resist the urge to start a separate article on the suspect
• Remember - newspapers who take risks, have deep pockets and in-house lawyers, Wikipedia doesn't, so better to tread carefully, and resist editing or adding sections re arrest until all the facts are clear. Escaper7 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't stress about it: BBC News are quite happy naming him without equivocation. — Matt Crypto 11:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And they have policied on that, their slogans great 'This is what we do', what naming suspects without hinderence to his feelings! 82.47.146.193 11:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in the least bit stressed about it as you patronisingly say. I'm just pointing out the law. Escaper7 11:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if it came across as patronising, I didn't mean to, but I don't think there is any real legal risk here in naming the person who was arrested. — Matt Crypto 12:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No problems. Re the article, when the police do confirm his name, the screw tightens further in respect of what can be said. Irresepctive of risk, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so in my view we should be aiming for the highest editorial standards - even if they are higher than other areas of the media. Escaper7 12:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he wasn't trying to patronise you, WP:AGF and all that... Budgiekiller 11:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with WP reporting that "The BBC state(s/d)" or "Sky says/said". That's WP doing what it does, reporting what secondary sources have said, as long as it's cited. Any statement on here that "The man's name is...", if uncited, is effectively original research. Is there any policy or guideline that says "reporting a police statement is more reliable than reporting a media statement".? Tonywalton  | Talk 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The story has moved on a bit, but see Stewart Gull's own comments in respect of contempt: [4] Although Gull didn't name him in the latest presser, the "jigsaw effect" makes it easy to identify the suspect. Escaper7 12:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an interview with the arrested man in the "Sunday Mirror" Barrison 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's [[this reference Tonywalton  | Talk 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That was published before proceedings became active when the legal position was different. The Mirror, probably wouldn't get away with publishing that now; but it's still being shown, along with the recorded interview on News 24; and the pictures and content from his Myspace account. It's a tricky one, but I still think it's best to stick to the absolute known facts. In my opinion, he'll probably be named when his solicitor has interviewed him. Then if his solicitor thinks contempt is an issue, he or she will raise it with the police: Basically anything that could prejudice a fair trial. That said, if you volunteer to be interviewed by a Sunday paper, maybe that changes the legal situation. Escaper7 13:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

BBC News 24 is displaying images of the suspect's blog. Should we link to it (assuming it is easy to find). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.26.4.35 (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

I'd suggest not. This bloke hasn't even been charged yet. Let's not make assumptions about his notability, let alone his guilt, just yet. And why should we contribute to yet more load on youtube's servers? Tonywalton  | Talk 12:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the press has decided he is notable (picking random example - he is the top "world" story on www.smh.com.au). On the other point, I think YouTube could cope :). 193.26.4.35 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Appeals

With regards to the last statement made by the Officer in charge of the enquiry when he said about issuing appeals etc. because the case was 'active' and to avoid Contempt of Court if there was another person in the same scenario missing (i.e. she was a prostitute) would appeals be issued by police or is it the way I heard it? 82.47.146.193 12:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you meant that bit about "ie she was a prostitute". The police would naturally issue appeals if another person (prostitute or not) was reported missing - after all there's currently no proof that these 5 were killed by the same person/people, and no proof that the man that's been arrested killed any or all of them. For all anyone knows the killer(s) might still be out there. Also another missing personmight be completely unrelated to this case. I take what he said as meaning "no more appeals to the public for infromation regarding these 5 at present". I rather doubt that the Suffolk Police have shut up shop quite yet. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Tabloids they may be...

But British Tabloids don't tend to make stuff up, they usually have some sort of lead they aren't Weekly World News yes they have immensely obvious biases and use inflammatory and somewhat manipulative language (e.g. "Bondage Beast", "perverted S&M obsession") but they can contain news which should be reported upon such as the names and descriptions of these other suspects. --GracieLizzie 13:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes British tabloids do make stuff up, but more than that, they get things either distorted or plain wrong a lot more frequently than other parts of the media. I do think we should wait until it appears somewhere more credible first before we start relaying stuff about Stephens'ssomeone's alleged "perverted S&M obsession". — Matt Crypto 13:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the S&M isn't Stephens it's this mysterious Scotsman they're talking about. I still thin the information about him, Danny Burrows, Andrew Purdy, the "American named Gary", and the fact that Stephens was one of a list of men may be considered notable information. Especially if this means Stephens is not the only suspect. --GracieLizzie 13:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Stephens, oops, my mistake. I don't know what others think, but my personal opinion is that we shouldn't include anything that rests solely on a tabloid quoting from an anonymous source. It's probably best to try and corroborate it from other sources first, which should be possible if the story is credible. — Matt Crypto 13:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I do see what you mean about this, and perhaps we should wait to see if anyone else reports on this information. While I doubt this is completely made up you may have a point about creditability, I wouldn't put it past a tabloid to print the names/descriptions that some locals may have mentioned they think could be the murderer but who aren't necessarily considered very likely suspects by the Police for example. --GracieLizzie 14:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As per my comments above, the media will play the story differently from now, and more so as soon as the name of the suspect is confirmed by the police; that's why Gull said (on Monday) the press conferences will be stopping. He can't talk publicly about a case he's investigating, other than basic facts. I can't think of any circumstances where you could talk about a suspect's past in any depth once they've been arrested. It's the arrest that activates legal proceedings. That's not to say that some newspapers might not try to push things to the limit. But contempt is a serious issue, and I don't think any editor would want to jeopardise such a huge case by obstructing justice. Again, I think an encyclopaedia should adopt the highest standard. Escaper7 14:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Can the /expleteve deleted/ Press not READ?

Sigh. Sky news have just gone through some rigmarole about how it's unclear whether Stephens is currently employed by a supermarket chain or not, as his myspace website says (and I quote from Sky on the telly) "working at Tesco ... untl they sacked me". If they actually read it it says "...untl they sack me". The sort of small joke that anyone might make on a personal web page (or come to that, down the pub). Nothing like trying to make something quite innocent-looking seem suspicious. Think I'll text them and point that out! Tonywalton  | Talk 13:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilink Tom Stephens

I've reverted the Wikilink to Tom Stephens at least twice. If you search for "Tom Stephens" on Wikipedia - it diverts to this article. Good move. If you Wikilink Tom Stephens then it re-directs to the very same article so I'm not sure why it keeps getting bracketed. Everything there is to say about the alleged suspect should be said in this article - given that's very limited (see the section above on contempt) Escaper7 17:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely. I unlinked him earlier - if he is found guilty, or notable by some other means, then he'll get an article, I'm sure. Budgiekiller 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ps: what's the feeling on the use of the Stephens MySpace image? How do we know for sure it's the man being held, or the right Tom Stephens, I'm not saying it shouldn't be there, but it's the sort of thing that might benefit from a discussion beforehand. Escaper7 17:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Mirror newspaper showed a photo of the man in the myspace profile along with an interview. It's the same man alright.

==MySpace link appropriate?== I've previously had MySpace links removed (from an unrelated article) by another editor as not being appropriate encyclopedic links. I'm not sure my own position, but I thought I ought to raise the question. Aleta 19:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Nevermind... I see the deletion with the "account deleted" note - so the point is moot. Aleta 19:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)