Talk:Ipswich 2006 serial murders/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Ipswich 2006 serial murders

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Timeline - 22 November 2006 entry

I'd like to see the entry 'Stephens' house is searched by police' revised to remove the name Stephens as has been done (very elegantly) in the section discussing the arrest of suspects. Replacing this text with something along the lines of 'Police search a house in Trimley St Martin' would achieve this. However, I haven't made this change as a) I'm pretty new and not confident enough :-) and b) I wonder if there should be any reference to it at all - it seems that the only information that there had been this search came from the man himself in his News of the World interview and I think (but not sure) that the police denied having carried out any searches before the two high profile ones in December. --Sunshinesnowflake 14:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1 May court hearing

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 (amended to 1400hrs BST)
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 15:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Escaper2007 09:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Victim articles

Just as the case with the Moors Murders victims, when this case concludes (and if it does), I think it would be a good idea if each of the five victims had their own article, with categories for English Murder Victims and what-not. Lra drama 12:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Bold text on dubbed nick-names

I've put bold on nicknames such as Suffolk Ripper and the other examples, because the case and the person responsible are more often referred to under these nick-names than the '2006 Ipswich Murder Investigation'. This is for recall and recognition. Lra drama 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

relevance

Is this paragraph truly necessary:

On 17 December, British newspaper the News of the World reported that police were investigating a senior officer from another force after Paula Clennell named him as one of her regular clients in an interview with detectives. She also revealed that the officer was also a regular client of one of the other victims. At the time of the interview, Gemma Adams's body had been found and Tania Nichol was missing. DCS Stewart Gull, who is heading the investigation into the murders, is quoted as saying "Regardless of whether he's a police officer, I am not going to be drawn on a particular individual. He won't be treated any differently because of who he is. This is a murder investigation".

I think it is just media rubbish used to sale papers and holds no real importance with regards to the rest of the article.--Lucy-marie 21:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The same i think is true of the relevance of this statement: Police state that Anneli Alderton was three-months-pregnant.

I think the statements should be removed regardless of them being cited as they add nothing real to the article other than add a feel of tabloid trash.--Lucy-marie 21:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename?

It's now 2008, the investigation (which was more a 2007 thing anyway) has ceased and the accused is now on trial. It's not so much of an investigation, rather a series of events. A lot of new information came out today, the first day of the trial.

I suggest renaming the article to something more relevant, but I am not sure exactly what. Blammermouth (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree, don't forget to move the redirects when you do. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What about something like 2006 Ipswich murder case? Aleta (Sing) 20:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Or "Ipswich murders", similar to the Moors_murders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blammermouth (talk • contribs) 20:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I support Ipswich murders we can change again if necessary. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

er... it created an awful lot... [1], is there a bot that can sort that out? Blammermouth (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see with this name, is it seems to imply that the article is about all the murders that have ever taken place in Ipswich, which is clearly not the case. Aleta (Sing) 21:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it wasn't all the murders in the Moor either. If anyone does change agin please change the 20 or so redirects from the what links here page,. I have just changed them all and woul;d not appreciate having to do so again. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

...A good argument for making sure there is consensus before making such changes... :) Aleta (Sing) 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ipswich prostitute murders. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Late to the party (as always) but the rename is poor. As per Aleta it's not about all Ipswich murders, and unless there's a "Ipswich murders" epithet being used in a similar way to Moors murders then this is plainly badly implemented. Redirects are simple to fix. Getting a useable and effective title takes time and consensus. Let's try to take that on board now and work for a more adequate description. One of the original titles at least suggested the fact that the murder "spree" took place in 2006, or the fact the victims were all prostitutes. I'm not suggesting that either title is more or less correct than the current, but at least they define the events more accurately than the current title. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ipswich prostitute murders was one I thought of, but for personal reasons and a slight bias, I decided not to suggest the prostitute word. My bias is that I'm from Ipswich, and I knew two of the women before they ever got into that particular life. They were prostitutes for a few years at most maybe... Before that they were all fairly average people. 82.28.19.131 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The BBC seem to be referring to "Suffolk Murders".[2] "Ipswich murders" is OK. I think "Ipswich prostitute murders" is poor because it is being judgmental about the victims. The BBC and much of the press are very careful to avoid that sort of attitude. Bluewave (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Suffolk murders makes more sense because there's a good chance the victims weren't all killed in Ipswich. Sure they all may have been picked up in Ipswich but their bodies were found outside the town. I'd support Suffolk murders. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Times seems to be using similar terminology "Suffolk murder victims".[3] Bluewave (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, I would favour Suffolk murders but think that the other reasonable option is that we leave it as Ipswich murders as a working title until there is some sort of clear "media consensus" on how the case is being described. However, we definitely shouldn't be inventing our own title (eg Ipswich prostitute murders) that has no currency in citable sources. Bluewave (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Suffolk murders is worse than Ipswich murders, as it implies all the murders ever in Suffolk! It may be a convenient short-hand for the media talking about a relatively current event, but I think we need to have a title that distinguishes the specific series of murders we mean. If, however, Suffolk murders is a commonly used term, we should redirect it to whatever name we do choose. Aleta (Sing) 14:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should use Suffolk murders eiyher. We don't get many murders in suffolk but their are others. Ipswich murders is ok but we might want to make it a little more specific. I also dislike the the idea of using prostitute in the title but it is the easiest way to distinguish this murder investigation from any others. Million_Moments (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably doesn't help or mean anything but just for completeness, the interwiki links show titles as follows:

German Wikipedia - Murders in Ipswich 2006
Spanish Wikipedia - Murders in Ipswich
French Wikipedia - Murder of prostitutes (as a subsection of the Ipswich page)
Dutch Wikipedia - Murders in Suffolk
Finnish Wikipedia - Ipswich murders

And my Japanese is not so good as to translate that one. Nothing groundbreaking but interesting perhaps to see what some of the rest of the world think. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ipswich 2006 serial murders? I am not comfortable with my earlier suggestion of including prostitutes in the title. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote for that. Million_Moments (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That does sound like a reasonable suggestion. Aleta (Sing) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to leave it be, at least for now. There is no certifiable name for this case really, yet. Blammermouth (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

BBC news have dubbed it the 'Suffolk Murders' several times: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/7256402.stm . I don't think what it is currently the title works that well, if anything the words are around the wrong way. Starting with 2006 would make more sense than Ipswitch. Also 'serial murders' doesn't sound right, it's not a term you often hear. Best I can think of is '2006 Suffolk Murders'. Norman22b —Preceding comment was added at 19:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think we need to rename this page Steve Wright, after all, he's the killer, and the case is now closed. Peter Sutcliffe's page is not called "1975-1981 Yorkshire and Lancashire murders" or similar. Most people will search for Steve Wright on wikipedia, not 2006 Suffolk serial murders or similar. DarkPassenger (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Sutcliffe and Brady are the only 2 living murderers from the UK who deserve their own articles and that we absolutely should not move this article to Steven Wright. Happy editing, SqueakBox 17:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No move I think the existing name is fine,Steven Wright does not deserve the page being named after him. How or why such things are chosen by a collective society I cannot answer. Those who are looking for information will look for it via Ipswich / Ipswich murders /the murders in Suffolk / etc. which this name will lead them too. Just some thoughts. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

People searching for Steve Wright will be directed to Steven Wright (disambiguation) where they can get a link to the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(remove indents) well it seems he had a page all along with the wikilink to his name. A bit of a repeat IMHO, but it is what wikipedia does, expand. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 17:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Other "related" crimes

This edit by User:Blammermouth is a bold and good one. Before anyone decides to go reverting, let's discuss here. At the time it was conjecture, now it's almost instantly dismissible. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Are possible connections still being investigated? If not, then it's good to have the section removed now. Aleta (Sing) 21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I had thought about it doing so the other day and thought I was perhaps being too bold, but I fully support this removal. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It was (relatively) easy tabloid journalism early days but as far as I've understood this case, nothing more has been made of it for a year. Good move. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is OK, especially as the whole section was merely speculation, which is not what an encyclopedia should include. We can perhaps give all this specualtion and rumour a mention in a sentence or two, saying how the tabloids have manipulated the case by ways of public interest if others want. Lra drama 20:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The rewards

The article mentions a couple of times a 'bounty' for information on the killer. It is unknown if these rewards were ever collected. I wonder if they should remain in the article. Are these rewards significant to the article? Yes, there was huge public interest which is evident anyway, but were these rewards consequential? Blammermouth (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that it should be cut down to one line, and is it all in the media section that seems a bit odd. But keep it, as it demonstrates the way people reacted to the crimes at the time, that they drew attention and that people wanted them stopped. That's not something you can automatically assume as murders happen all the time where the police struggle to get attention for the crimes. Million_Moments (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Evening Star account

The local newspaper, the Evening Star has a running commentary of the proceedings day by day. [4], I wonder if any of the statements could be worked into the article? Blammermouth (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

I am aware the article name has changed numerous times, but I think the current words are correct just in the wrong order. I personally think the article title sould read 2006 Ipswich serial murders rather than the current wording.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean we should name the article based on the time rather than the place? Blammermouth (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think 2006 Ipswich Serial Murders reads better than Ipswich 2006 serial murders. If the place is what the article is to be primarily named then I suggest perhaps Ipswich serial murders (2006). The year appears to be in the wrong palce it appears not be how it would normally be said in speech. It is just my opinion, anyone else got any thoughts?--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ipswich serial murders (2006) sounds fit for purpose. This is my preferred option. Blammermouth (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if either of you are going to move it you must fix the double redirects, not leave it for someone else to do. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Accused's Wiki Page

Is there a reason for the deletion of the article for the accused? As his 'back-story' is now being revealed in court I was hoping to add this biographical information but the article has been deleted.--John Gibbard (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerns regarding possible contempt of court detailed on the accused's Talk page.--John Gibbard (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody's daughter

Perhaps the charity "somebody's daughter" should be mentioned somewhere. it was created because of these events. http://www.ipswich.gov.uk/Somebodys+Daughter.htm Blammermouth (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Move

As he has now been convicted should this artice be moved to "Steve Wright (serial killer)" or something like that? PatGallacher (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have started a page up, in a seperate artic, called Steven Wright (suffolk serial killer)...Screechy 19:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but why bother to have a separate article, as they are likely to contain much the same content? PatGallacher (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly should not be moved to Stephen Wright and if you move it to Suffolk 2006 serial murders move the double redirects too. We do not need a separate article on Wright. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this article should stay as it is. It is about the murder case in general. A seperate article is needed about Steve Wright, as with most cases like this, e.g. Ian Brady and Myra Hindley both took part in the Moors Murders. Lra drama 12:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, Steve Wright (serial killer) would probably be an appropriate name. Adambro (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

all in a name

Following on from User:Blammermouth point about the name one search has thrown up "Stephen Wright, from Ipswich, has been charged." [5]. It is an obvious question but do we have a definite name with references. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 20:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This [6] for instance. The BBC[7] call him 'Steve'. There's actually few sources that state 'Stephen' or 'Steven'. Blammermouth (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So where to now, which is his real name and also - if different the one he preferred to be called by. Registrar of Births? Maybe we should just point out the differences? Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 21:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that whatever the judge said (".... Gerald James Wright, you are sentenced to.....") is most likely legally correct. However, we're not sure of that detail at this time. Blammermouth (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea; Court records will show at some point. Thanks. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 21:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, lets not try to split hairs here. The media refer to him as 'Steve', so I think that we should use this name until otherwise informed. Blammermouth (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem here, never was, just interest. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 08:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of this offends me

Some of the subjective comments really piss me off to be honest. Let's be neutral about this all the way. I knew two of the young women, before they got into this lifestyle, and I'll say that while they were nowhere near perfect, this is not what they deserved. Be that as it may, what has happened has happened. It is of no consequence what they did for a living. Let us not judge the dead, especially if they were vulnerable for whatever reason. I will also state that the evidence against the defendant is circumstantial at best. Because the jury found him guilty does not make it so. Given another 12 jury members, the results could have been different. I am not defending Mr Wright, nor protecting him. What I will say is that the jury's decision does not make every circumstance in the case fact by default.

I'm appalled by some of the relatives reactions, as well as media, to reintroduce the death penalty in this case. As stated, the evidence is circumstantial at best. Just because the jury decided 'guilty' (press pressure, family pressure, scapegoating all spring to mind) does not make everything heard in the case fact. As the defence stated, there is "reasonable doubt".

Please understand that I am not defending the accused, but I am however attacking the prosecution and the jury. The evidence was inconclusive. Do not base your opinions and thoughts on what has just transpired, but consider the appeals to come. In many peoples minds, while the evidence does not prove NOT GUILTY, it does not prove GUILTY either. There are just grounds for retrial. Blammermouth (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume that you were not in court to hear all the evidence - as opposed to the evidence the media reports - nor were you in the jury room. If you have issues with how the British jury trial system works, I suggest you take it up with your MP, not Wikipedia. Nick Cooper (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have issue with the fact that jury decision is taken as fact by both WP and media. You are taking my words out of context.Blammermouth (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Subjective comments in an article should be removed. Sorry I seemed to have missed them, are you saying you have read something like "their lifestyles led to the events". If so remove it, or bring it here for discussion, there is no place for such in wikipedia. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 08:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am formally withdrawing from Wikipedia, and removing all my contributions as far is possible. Blammermouth (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Do rattles thrown out of prams make a noise, if there is no-one there to hear them...? Nick Cooper (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am confused, not sure where this has come from. WP and the media took the facts because that is what they are. Right or wrong they exist as facts. If an appeal takes place and is successful for Wright that that also will be a (some may well find offensive). Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 14:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

When a court of law finds someone guilty, it is normal for the media (and encyclopedias) to accept the verdict as fact (unless some critical new piece of evidence comes to light that was not available at the trial). For a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove their case "beyond reasonable doubt" and that is presumably what happened in the case. I think it would be quite inappropriate for an encyclopedia to question such a verdict unless there was other reported controversy surrounding it (but I don't think there is in this case). Bluewave (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really express myself the way I intended to initially. I think the way I behaved after I made comment has nullified my point. It was late and I was not of completely sound mind (so to speak). Please, lets just move on. Blammermouth (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve/Steven Wright

Some people say Steve and some people Steven, what's his name?.

And please, how can we find his birthplace and some information about Wright? to create his article. Ahmed987147 (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see all in a name. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 08:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

WE don't want an article on him, it is a bad idea. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see some biographical information about him here tho. Earfetish1 (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of which is contained in this article. At this point there really is little purpose having a separate article, as it would contain much of the same information. Blammermouth (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There should be an article on him. There is an article on all the other murderers that have a whole life sentence. This should be no exception. 81.79.195.174 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And in any case who said we don't want an article on Steve Wright? I think that here should be as there is one for Levi Bellfield and other murderers Franny-K (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see final decision, and the sandbox for the bio bit for Steve Wright. Please assist if you can. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 19:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

web links

just ran a web link test on the page and found 11 links that no longer work and 10 that have been moved and need a redirect already! already, as they have been moved. If people want a good article they will need to be sorted to begin with.Ho Hum Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 21:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Herein lies the problem of citing online sources... Offtopic, but I wonder if there should be a way for WP to cache sources. Blammermouth (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

just done a few web links, replaced - renewed and removed one. [8]and hit the refresh button for more to do! Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 19:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of images revisited

Now we have established acceptable fair use criteria for the image of Steve Wright, would it be acceptable to use the *widely available* images of the young women killed? Press all over the world have used the same handful of images over and over. Personally, I think it would be acceptable to use low-res images such as that of Wright. I invite discussion before any action or inaction is taken. Thanks. Blammermouth (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

agreed I feel that it would be acceptable, it adds to the information - the down side on a practical point is the size of the article... Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the images, but I think they break the page layout. I've uploaded very tiny images in each case, so hopefully fair-use won't be too much of a hurdle. Blammermouth (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorted fair use. Million_Moments (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we should address the page layout. The images spill over into the next section. How can we rectify this? In my mind, we can either expand information on the women (difficult), add breaks (ugly), or re-jig the layout (fairly big task). Which is the most suitable option, or is there another? Blammermouth (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

as a gallery at the end of the section, not the best I know but...Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) —Preceding comment was added at 23:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could photoshop them into one image? Blammermouth (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it looks fine! Million_Moments (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The images of Anni & Paula spill over into the 'Police investigation' section. Just from a design point of view, it irks me. Blammermouth (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(remove indent) I have both

Well when I look at the page it is honest to goodness absolutly fine. Could this be due to different screen resolutions or internet explorer programmes? I have a widescreen moniter set to 1680 by 1050 and am using IE whatever the latest version is...Million_Moments (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at it in IE6, and you're right, it works fine. Must be Firefox with the issue. Cheers. Blammermouth (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

*is relieved she wasn't just seeing things*Million_Moments (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do hope there is a solution to make the article look the same in both Firefox and IE though... Blammermouth (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(remove indent) I have both open at the moment and you are correct IE spaces the individual articles out, whilst firefox bleeds over into the next section. I will ask at help desk, they are always good at this type of thing. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 10:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Made a big change to layout, if people not happy please revert. It is a solution of sorts, though maybe a blunt one, it does though work in both firefox and IE. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 13:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine. It looked good before in IE but it's important to have a layout that works in firefox cause that is a very popular browser. Million_Moments (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

I've added this article to the list of articles to be peer-reviewed. While it's a fairly 'young' article, I think it has potential for being a very informative piece. Blammermouth (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I think with a good peer review and some elbow grease it's got a shot at FA. I don't often work on the article so I can say this arrogance free - it is a very well written article! Million_Moments (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Final decision

I know this question has already been asked, but as yet, no clear conclusion has been arrived at. Do we, or do we not, create a separate article on Steven Wright? As yet, this article has no biographical information on Steven Wright, which not only means it is not fulfilling it's potential as a very good encyclopedia article, but it does not follow the trend of other serial killer articles. Look at the example I gave in the Move discussion above.

I think this article about the case in general should remain as it is, but I think it might be a good idea to create a separate article on Steven Wright, as a biography. We've heard enough on the news to fill a book as it is...this article may get to big if the biographical information is entered into here. Lra drama 09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wright's only claim to notability is as a mudererer. The details of his murders are already in this article but the questions of exactly how he committed the murders and why he comitted them remain unknown. So, I would argue against having a biographical article on the grounds that it would only contain non-notable content or stuff already in this article. Bluewave (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is currently not enough notable information on Wright to warrent his own article and that the current information we have on him is suitable here. Million_Moments (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the two last editors, at some point the information about his life maybe known and these events become more important within society. Until then this page does a good job of informing about him and the actions that lead to the life sentence. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 15:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so should we stick with what we have here for now and maybe add in a little biography section? And then maybe do an article when more things about him are revealed. OK, I like that idea. Thankyou for the replies. :-) Lra drama 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(remove indent) I agree, The best article for his bio is ref one [9]in the info box. A start could be made from there, but I would like to see other references from other soucres as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmund Patrick (talk • contribs) 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

first draft for Editing at User:Edmund Patrick. please have a look, make changes - very wordy at the moment. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 19:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Opps!! wrong address - sorry User:Edmund Patrick/Sandbox. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 20:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That is good, but could you hold off adding it until you've got references? If somebody starts reviwing this for GA status now I believe it will pass or perhaps be put on hold barring minor changes, but before it could pass if it included that paragraph it'd need references! Million_Moments (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

biography now in article for all to still work on. I'd like to think it is a good start. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 20:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

BBC Biography of Wright Million_Moments (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(remove indent) an interesting link, well worth referencing his bio back to. the joys of referencing - two sites say surnames were a coincidence and this one says she took his surname. Worth keeping a look out for another reference. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Verdict

There are quotes from many of the relatives concerning the verdict. I added an important one as some of the family members did call for the death penalty and I think this should be added. We don't want all the quotes, but there are also quotes from relatives who seem more satified with the verdict - should perhaps one of these be included for the sake of neutrality? I think it should, my problem is more thinking of a way to write it! this sky news article has many quotes from family members. Million_Moments (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Added it. I didn't want to use the word satisfied because none of them said it, but I can think of no alternative. Million_Moments (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve Wright Biography.

Dear Rambling Man, thanks for the sterling work, always worth another pair of eyes and some brains to have a look. I did not link to the village or Norfolk as they were wikilinked in the info box. I would prefer them in the bio but is the rule first mention has the link. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 20:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, as always. I'm relinking the village/county as it's far enough into the article to warrant it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah The wonderful days of St. Edmund. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it! I've got a little more copyediting to do... one word of advice, try to stick to British English if you can! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

it's the dyslexia showing through, and the fact that my brain travels quicker that I can word process. But many thanks for the tweeks, I have a person or two at work that does that for me. Still to work out setting British English as the default for wikipedia. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture request

You may know I live in the area. Please advise of any photos that may be beneficial to either commons or this article. I have a camera and mobility. Suggestions of photos are welcome, because opportunities will be missed. Please tell me what areas would deserve a photo. I'm prepared to go take the photo, if someone tells me where. And as long as it fits in with my time of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blammermouth (talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm just trying to figure out how we'd fit in more pictures! I think a picture of the actual red light district would be informative, as would perhaps one where Anneli Alderton's body was found since the prosecution have suggested that it's location could indicate Wright did not work alone. Million_Moments (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Stephens

So a few days ago I added to the media coverage section how Tom Stephens was named by the media though never named by the police. An article on the BBC website also tells of how the court was told about Tom Stephens, why he was arrested and how he does not have an alibi for the murders either. The author of this article suggested that the QC was suggesting Stephens was a possible accomplice but this is subjective.

Anyway the point is the fact that Stephens was mentioned in the trial is notable information that should be included. However to make it make sense it will involve adding that he was the first suspect arrested and I know that whenever this has been done in the past it has been edited out. I suggest it is added as "never officially named by police at the time, but named by the media as..." like in the media coverage section so that Stephens can be talked about in the trail section.

Consensus?

Million_Moments (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

While the QC was obviously just doing his job, and we should in no way imply in the slightest that Stephens was in any way responsible, I fully agree he deserves mention in this case, given Tom Stephens is somebody else a dab page would be appropriate alongside any mention of him. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives