Talk:Ipswich serial murders/Archive 1

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. &mdash; 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. -- Majo  rly  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. &mdash; 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? -- Majo  rly  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. -- Majo  rly  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. -- Majo  rly  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. &mdash; Matt Crypto  14:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would oppose Ipswich prostitute murders and 2006 Ipswich prostitute murders. At the moment it's still not clear whether these five women were murdered as prostitutes, i.e. whether the killer targeted them specifically as prostitutes. That's still a matter of investigation, and I don't think we should jump the gun (awkward choice of words, I admit) on that option. A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 01:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefer Ipswich murders. --Vsion 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We can't have "ipswich ripper" as anything but a redirect page, considering that this "guy" isnt even a ripper, he's a strangler. DanCrowter 20:25, 18 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. -- Majo  rly  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." &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. -- Majo  rly  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)

$$Insert formula here$$
 * 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)
 * A related French term is putain - it comes from the common VL ancestor puttus, rendered feminine of course ... John Riemann Soong 00:35, 21 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

See also http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_headline=two-more-victims-of-suffolk-strangler%2D%26method=full%26objectid=18275364%26siteid=64736-name_page.html

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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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)


 * Bit late now, but for the record "tabloid" in the UK doesn't have the same connotations as in the US. Generally they're pretty reliable. Sum0 22:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Presumably you mean UK tabloid means more reliable than US tabloid? (sorry but the conversation appears to have lost its way...!) Budgiekiller 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While British tabloid doesn't have quite the same negative non-news connotations as American supermarket tabloid, The Sun could hardly be described as a (consistently) reliable source. Apart from the Daily Star, it is as near to a US supermarket tabloid as you'll find in the UK. Fanx 15:47, 19 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"). &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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). &mdash; 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): &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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). &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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)
 * Actually, it's not that simple. Years ago, in the UK 'mass murderer' was the only term applied to what is now called a 'serial killer' (eg: The Moors Murderers, etc). As far as I recall (and I'm only in my 30s, so was still a kid when Peter Sutcliffe/Dennis Nilsen were 'active') it's only been since about the 1980s that the UK has begun to apply the term 'serial killer', and the distinction made between 'mass' and 'serial' killing. In fact, look at a lot of source material online (,, ,  ; including dictionaries - see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mass+murderer) and you'll find the terms still being used interchangably. As for the even more defined distinction between a mass murderer and the term 'spree killer' - that's an even more 'recent' arrival as far as the UK is concerned anyway - personally, I've only started hearing it since this case! Note even the WP entry in mass murder acknowledges the confusion in usage: "This is an ambiguous term, similar to serial killing and spree killing". Having said all that though, I agree that the term widely agreed on nowadays for a sequential killer is 'serial killer', and so I vote that the article should have a related name (see below). - 82.153.100.215 03:12, 19 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)
 * Since all five deaths have now officially been linked by police, and until and unless there are further developments, I generally agree PatGallacher - I think the article should be titled 2006 Suffolk serial killings,and I believe the year of origin is important to date the beginning of the investigation. (And hopefully, there will be no more related murders into the new year. We await further developments re: the man currently held in custody.) - 82.153.100.215 03:12, 19 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)

For the moment (while it is still an investigation) leave it with the current title. In the longer term, leave the word prostitute out of the title - it has already caused much offence where it has been overused by sections of the media (BBC included). This case is notable enough to be known simply as the Ipswich murders - without reference to the year, or serial (or spree, or mass) murder. No reference should be made to Suffolk either - these killings were highly localised on Ipswich, and a very small part of the town (at least as far as the locations the women and the currently detained suspect are concerned). Fanx 23:21, 21 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?


 * Ipswich2006 redlight.png BBC site shows an area bounded by West End Road (on the West), Portman's Walk/Alf Ramsey Way (south), Portman Road (east) and London Road (west). Of these, West End Road is the only one large enough to feature on the current map. My best attempt at superimposing the red light are on Vsion's map would be as attached. Maybe Vsion would be kind enough to make a better job of this again...Bluewave 15:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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? &mdash; 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)


 * Wikipedia is not a "news site." Nick Cooper 15:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing for writing articles on murders. In fact, I am arguing against it. I was giving the example of the gang shootings to try to get an answer as to why these Ipswich murders are of more significance, considering, as I said, these murders have an article yet the gang shootings don't.

In addition, I feel that just because it is getting a lot of attention, that alone should not be the reason it should have its own article. That doesn't answer the reason why it is significant enough to get the article. We are not a media outlet looking to fill people's interests in what stories are hot and ignoring what isn't, we are an encyclopedia.

For example, in regards to this article, why should, "Suffolk police arrest a man under suspicion of murdering five women near Ipswich, United Kingdom" be written on the front page news section? If that gets front page attention, and its own article, shouldn't we give the same attention to each and every criminal that is captured in the world? A previously average person is getting front page attention from an encyclopedia for possibly murdering four other previously average people. Doesn't sound groundbreaking to me. Kind of makes cures for cancer or discoveries of ET intelligence seem less important.

Bottom line, I feel it lacks significant and unique information to get its own article. --Lan56 01:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Attention shouldn't determine whether or not an issue is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. There is a reason certain serial killers and their respective sprees are included in encyclopedias and others aren't and that reason is longstanding cultural relevance. Jiggz84 06:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you come across as being more than a little disingenuous about this. The "bottom line" is that this issue is one that is of great significance in the UK and - going on past examples - will remain a major part of British criminal history. I would put it to you that British Wikipedians are by far a better judge of whether it deserves coverage here, than those thousands of miles and an ocean away, in precisely the same way that I'm sure you would expect a purely domestic American issue to be primarily the province of American Wikipedians. In comparative terms, what you are doing would be akin to a Brit arguing that the Beltway sniper attacks page shouldn't exist. Nick Cooper 15:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said Nick Cooper. The fact that enough people are interested in contributing to this article proves it should be here. If Lan56 thinks that an article about some drive by shootings in LA should have an article, then maybe Lan56 should start one. This is a user generated site after all.

Murder in the UK is relatively rare in comparison to the US - we get the impression that drive by shootings by LA gangs are quite a common occurrence. Maybe the reason that no one has written an article about them is that they have not been particularly inspired to do so. This article is about a possible serial killer in Ipswich; it's like finding a Lion in the Arctic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.230.67 (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm not even for the Beltway Sniper Attacks article either. That too is just another article about average criminals and crime. Perhaps I could let this go, until I saw that this news story received front page mention. Perhaps that is a different topic however. It seems as if this argument is going nowhere. I still feel it is insignificant for an encyclopedia, but already this argument is turning into the average less-than-civil Internet argument. For example, the argument "teams" are starting (ex. "Well said Nick Cooper"), assumptions are being made about the thought behind comments posted here (ex. "I think you come across as being more than a little disingenuous about this"), and it is becoming a ganging-up argument (ex. "If Lan56 thinks that an article about some drive by shootings in LA should have an article, then maybe Lan56 should start one"; if you feel I should, address your suggestion straight to me; I consider talking figuratively behind my back where I can clearly see it to be less than civil and insincere in terms of suggestions). --Lan56 22:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "That too is just another article about average criminals and crime". This isn't average in the UK. A series of bombs killing 35 people in London gets a lot more coverage than one in Baghdad, and if one went off in downtown LA you'd expect it on the front page wouldn't you. Or would you be arguing that it was an average everyday kind of thing. The last serial killer case of a similar nature in the UK (at least as far as I'm aware of) was the Yorkshire Ripper 25 years ago and his murders took place over a 5 year period. These murders all took place within a month and 5 bodies were discovered in just over a week. I don't know about downtown LA but this is far from averges for the UK. Jooler 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I chose my words very carefully and I stick by them, moreso since you have clarified your position as being against the documentation of murders en masse. I also find your position even more bizarre, given that only a few days ago you were adding to the list of assassinated people page, which is, of course, basically a list of people who have been murdered. However, the fact remains that this particular series of murder is a British domestic issue, which British Wikipedians - and clearly a wide range, not just a few "enthusiasts" - deem worthy of inclusion. I'm sure there are plenty of dometsic American issues (obviously not murders in the US, since you don't seem to care about them, either) over which you would feel affronted if a Brit turned up and questioned why you or other Americans think they are worthy of inclusion. Nick Cooper 08:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The list of assassinated people is composed entirely of noteworthy figures, as per the meaning of assassination ("Assassination is the deliberate killing of an important person, usually a political figure or other strategically important individual"), such as JFK, al-Zarqawi, several Hamas leaders, and other major figures. Notice how Average Joe isn't on that list or any list containing deaths under any category, and neither is Mr. Smith from the apartment above me. I am willing to defend each and every edit I have made since you seem to feel this is relevant information.


 * Additionally, contrary to what you have stated, I don't descriminate in terms of countries or cultures. Whether article X is an American, British, Australian, Iranian, etc... issue makes no difference to how I feel about its contents. If Tony Blair was assassinated, I would add him to that list mentioned above. --Lan56 08:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You may feel that, but it seems to me that it is very relevent. Assassination is just murder for (broadly) political reasons, and I would suggest that in some cases the victims are only made noteworthy by the fact that they were assassinated in the first place. Many murders or series of murders are equally noteworthy because of either the perpetrator, the victim/s, the manner they are carried out, or their effect of the wider community. They can change social attitudes, laws, and - as a result - history. This case has already widened separate debates about prostitution and drug misuse that were barely taking place previously, and which ultimately may have far-reaching consequences.


 * Secondly, you seem to be missing the point. It wouldn't matter if every single American felt the same way about murders being included in Wikipedia; if British Wikipedians think that British murders should be included, then that should be up to us. Nick Cooper 14:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Guys/girls, the bottom line is that it's headline press in the UK and as mentioned before we (in the UK) are not used to mass killings (e.g. Columbine, Washington sniper etc etc) in short periods of time, particularly in a part of the country that is considered pretty peaceful. The article is now slowly shuffling off the bottom of the main page, so let's all just agree to get on with each other.  After all, it's nearly Christmas!  Budgiekiller 18:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that lan56 is a moron. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.202.168 (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC).


 * No, Lan56 clearly has his own opinions on the subject, but he shouldn't think they take precedence over the vast majority who don't share them. Nick Cooper 11:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not make this into a (false) British versus American argument. Lan56 and I are both American, but our opinions on this matter differ. Aleta 21:17, 21 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. &mdash; 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? &mdash; 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)

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: . &mdash; 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). &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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:  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's someone's alleged "perverted S&M obsession". &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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.
 * Yep. I've also seen that photo in several press reports. &mdash; Matt Crypto 19:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

==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)

Sexual assault
For each murder, it is pointed out that the victim was not sexually assaulted. Why even mention sexual assault? Do we assume murderers are rapists unless otherwise specified? 71.60.184.35 20:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In a case like this we do, so it should be left in as an unusual feature of this case, SqueakBox 20:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else noticed the police is stirring all that Ipswich scene? furthermore nobody points out all these addicts were involved with pregnancy's and children.80.57.243.100 14:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh? Furthermore, eh? --Dweller 14:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a little unusual for somebody to attack several prostitutes and not sexually assault them. Often, serial attackers of women are profiled as gaining pleasure from their dominance over their victims or as using them as an outlet for rage of some kind. This usually includes sexually assaulting or otherwise brutalizing them.

As far as serial killings go, I think that it is actually quite unusual for 5 prostitutes to turn up dead without a scratch on them and without having been sexually assaulted.

perfectblue 16:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Special constable
We need a source to confirm or not the veracity of the statement that Stephens was a special constable, SqueakBox 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, something like that needs a source. Because it could be read as saying the murderer was a policeman, which in any case would need to be verified.
 * The fullest source is in The Guardian at http://www.guardian.co.uk/suffolkmurders/story/0,,1975091,00.html This article gives a lot of background on Stephens, including his early life, family and friends, and his relationship to the street prostitutes in Ipswich, along with revealing his employment as a Special Constable with Norfolk Police in Norwich from 1992 (states age 23 & d.o.b. 1969) to 1997. I'll add the cite, although I see a cite from Sky News has already been added which doesn't give the dates or location.Harveyspeed 01:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Prostitute label
Should it be stated as fact? Masybe "According to police" or "alleged"? BobTrout5th 20:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Even though the evidence is circumstantial, it is overwhelming. All drug addicts, all taken from the same area, at the same time of night.  Paula even gave an interview saying she'd get into a car with a stranger.  The suspect identified all of them as prostitutes and his 'friends'.  As well as police saying, before her body was formally identified, Alderton was a known prostitute.  Friends and family have said the girls were prostitutes.  What more do you want, a contract of employment?
 * See discussion above. As I've stated before, I dont think the term "prostitute" is appropriate, however I dont think that there can be any doubt that they were involved in the prostitution industry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ms medusa (talk • contribs) 21:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Sorry but this is becoming boring now, they are universally identified as prostitutes, the current prime suspect has identified them as such, all major press ditto, the police ditto, how many more sources are required for us to stop this debate? Budgiekiller 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that some people here won't be happy until you resurrect the victims and they all sign Affidavits confirming that they were prostitutes. Until then, as I said earlier the police are themselves a verifiable and notable source.  Anything they state publically as fact can be taken as such. Guinness 11:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that any of their family or friends have been reported as denying that they were prostitutes. Equally, if the police thought that somebody who wasn't a prostitute had been murdered they would probably put out a warning that he might attack (even if accidentally) anything in a skirt.

perfectblue 16:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * At the end of the day, I believe the consensus is; that they were prostitutes meets WP:VERIFY. Guinness 17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there are two different points at issue. Some people have asked for more evidence that they were indeed working as prostitutes. Personally, I think that the evidence is overwhelming on this point, with reputable sources such as the BBC being unequivocal. However, the second point is the objection that some people have raised to the phraseology "X was a prostitute" as opposed, for example, to "X was working in prostitution". I dislike the "X was a prostitute" version because "prostitute" then appears to be the defining attribute of person X — it implies that their whole existence was defined as "prostitute". I have cited, above, not only some journalists, but also the Wikipedia manual of style, in support of this view. It says that "terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they qualify other nouns". I appreciate that the consensus of contributors here does not agree with me, and have therefore refrained from editing the article to suit my personal views. Nevertheless, I wanted to make sure that other contributors have at least considered my arguments and not dismissed them by association with the much weaker argument about evidence of prostitution. Sorry if some people find this discussion boring, but I think a boring discussion is preferable to an exciting edit war. Bluewave 09:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you could persuade me that the majority of sources used anything other than "X was a prostitute" then I wouldn't argue against you. However, 1) They clearly don't have a problem using the term.  2) I agree with comments below that it is common to say "X is a "  3) As I said elsewhere on this page, "X was working in prostitution" is ambiguous. 4) It seems to me that you think that "prostitute" is solely a pejoritave term.  Whilst undoutadly some people use it that way, the fact is that people who use that term in such a way, will simply switch to the new term as it comes into common use (c.f. "whore").  Unless you are suggesting that WP editors (and their sources) are using it that way, I believe we should stick with that term, and what's more, I'd strongly argue against you if you thought that was the case. Guinness 11:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So if they were all plumbers, you'd argue in favour of "all five women were working in plumbing"? Budgiekiller 09:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got some sympathy with the plumber argument. However, I think the main problem is the one raised by User:Dweller above: "if some lunatic was murdering (only) plumbers then it would be notable". So it is difficult to make a fair comparison of 5 plumbers versus 5 prostitutes. Secondly, I would argue that describing someone as a plumber simply describes their 9-to-5 occupation, whereas describing someone as a prostitute can be taken as describing their lifestyle, personal moraility, etc. Bluewave 09:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting that this argument is specific to prostitution? Sounds a bit PC to me.  If people wish to interpret the word "prostitution" as a lifestyle commentary, that's their problem.  Budgiekiller 09:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Eeeek, what's happening to me? I've never been accused of being PC before! I must be suffering from a shortage of real ale in my bloodstream. However, I think that people do interpret the word "prostitute" as a lifestyle commentary and that is insulting to the victims and their families. Bluewave 09:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, but Wikipedia is here to be a repository of factual information, and prostitute is fact. Budgiekiller 10:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

MySpace page
Did anyone save a copy of the suspect's MySpace page before it was pulled? If so, could you add a screenshot to the article? -- ChrisO 22:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There you go: Image:Tom Stephens myspace.png —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jw6aa (talk • contribs) 23:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

I have a html version saved if anyone wants that. 203.214.100.159 08:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)nadnerb

"Possible motives" section
This whole section needs references, and sounds like speculation. I have deleted one senstence, marked a number of places for citations, and tagged the section as needing references. Aleta 23:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed - this whole section seems very un-encyclopaedic as well as being unsourced for refs. Besides which, any discussion of detectives' investigation of motives should surely be a sub-heading of the "police investigation" section? - 82.153.100.215 02:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't read these comments before I did it, but I have now removed the entire section as I agree with you both. Guinness 11:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Operation Name
Is the name of the Police investigation Operation Baize (as stated) or Operation Sumac (see http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1973871,00.html)? AJRG 00:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Observer/Guardian, The Times (http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17909-2507692,00.html) and The Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=423148&in_page_id=1770) all refer to Operation Sumac, and I've seen/heard no references to 'Operation Baize' thus far. I'd be inclined to change the reference, unless anyone can substantiate the other name - 82.153.100.215 02:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While this is obviously a very recent event and so many pages have not been indexed, Googling Operation Baize finds 0 results, Sumac about 43. Similarly no meaningful results for a Google news search for Operation Baize but Operation Sumac comes up with results. Taken together with the above, I've changed it to Sumac. If someone can confirm it is Baize and all the other reports are wrong with a suitable reference, please correct it. Nil Einne 03:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Images
The page is looking a little cluttered because of the images. Is there really a need for an image of Norfolk captioned as "north of Suffolk" when that's evident from the first image of England/Suffolk? The gaps between headings and texts don't look too great. Any thoughts? Escaper7 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with you. I think the first two, locating Ipswich, can go too.  That sort of info should be available from the Ipswich article.  The first useful/relevant one for this article is the one with the locations of the bodies.  You have my vote to remove the others. Guinness 14:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the maps; I think they are useful, and that we should not make people unfamiliar with the area have to look at two additional pages to figure out where Ipswich is (and where Suffolk is). Going along with the concensus so far, however, I went ahead and removed the map showing Norfolk.  If we aren't going to show Suffolk's location, it seems silly to show Norfolk's.  I do not think that we should have the MySpace screenshot there.  I'm suspicious of the fair use rationale for it, and I don't think it contributes significantly to the article.  I think I'll remove it (at least for now unless someone is really convinced of its utility). Does anyone want to justify its use? Aleta 18:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I put it there per a request in talk. I think it adds more to the article than just the picture as the picture is included in the screenshot anyway. Jw6aa 20:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, if people are unfamiliar with Ipswich and it's location, then they can look it up in WP's Ipswich page. That is precisely what wiki links are for. Guinness 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the MySpace page violates copyrights and does not meet fair use. I've disputed its copyright status.  --Aleta (I can't log in right now for some reason.)  65.140.99.53 00:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Wright
Can somebody please provide a source for the name "Stephen Wright" otherwise I am very quickly going to revert it as it doesn't meet WP:VERIFY either. Guinness 17:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For the next few minutes you are going to have to turn on Sky News or BBC News 24 for verification, but no doubt it will be on the internet accessible via Google News within very soon. I note that Sky are now calling him "Steve Wright" 193.26.4.35 17:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And sure enough it is now at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/6192085.stm. 193.26.4.35 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, however, for future reference, kindly indicate that this is the case in the Edit Summary. I was sorely tempted to simply revert that edit.  Thanks.  Guinness 17:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Bloomberg Canada was the first one I found reporting in on the 'net here. It says once again Sky is the source perhaps when an internet source for Sky comes online which should reference them instead? --GracieLizzie 17:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Important note on identification: The Press Association wires are naming the second suspect (still locally) as Steve Wright - it's probably just a contraction of Stephen, but it might be worth bearing in mind as it could be interpreted as two different people. PA will be the trusted source for most of the British media. Escaper7 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * BBC Five Live noted earlier tonight that he actually was baptised "Steve Wright" rather than "Stephen". -- Arwel (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The BBC Ten O'Clock news and BBC Breakfast (Wed) referred to him as Steve Wright - it's not so much an issue of accuracy, but identity. In other words, if there is another Stephen Wright in the same area. Escaper7 06:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The BBC are calling him Stephen here so I am going to change it back

Bad internet jokes
These are entirely inappropriate here and it is a disgrace the section wasnt reverted immediately. lets stick to being an encyclopedia and show respect tot he families of the victims, SqueakBox 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Suffolk police links
I think these two links from Suffolk Police should be placed high up the article, the first is an a comprehensive summary from Suffolk Police: the other, a general update about second arrest (pre-dates the local naming). I don't have time to add or format them, or check whether they're already in place, but no better source of info, than the police. Maybe they should be placed in external links since this article doesn't have one. Any help appreciated, Escaper7 18:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment
Wow! This is amazing in such a short time, I am currently writing an editorial on this, as a call for action to protect women, so I shall be watching this carefully. Congratulations.Mgoodyear 22:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For balance you should probably include Joan Smith's column from today:

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/joan_smith/article2086711.ece although I disagree with virtually everything in it. Also it is critical that give the women involved a chance to have their say, eg English Collective of Prostitutes. --Mgoodyear 22:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't see anything in that article on the recent murders in Ipswich, so I don't see it as relevant. It may be of some relevance to the prostitution article, however it appears editorial in nature and as such contains (non-neutral) point of view, and therefore wouldn't meed WP's criteria for inclusion (refer to WP:NPOV if you're interested). However, on behalf of all editors who've contributed to this page, thanks for the complement. Guinness 22:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. We need to guard against this article becoming a political/moral platform for people who want to debate the perceived pros (pardon the pun!) and cons of prostitution, legalisation/regulation thereof, etc. This is an article about specific murder cases and the investigation into them (and hopefully, its successful conclusion), not about prostitution. - 82.153.100.215 00:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I agree with you. The article currently mentions that the issue has led to a rise in debate about related issues like prostitution in the UK. It also includes a section with editorials which from what I can tell are basically discussing related issues raised by the caee, not the case itself. This appears to be the same thing which the above editorial is doing. So I personally don't see any reason to exclude the above editorial per se. I'm not giving an opinion on whether the way we handle the related issues is good or not but IMHO given the way it's currently handled we should include the above editorial Nil Einne 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh, right, I forgot about that section. I guess if we're going to have the "newspaper editorials" section, then it could be included there.  82.153.100.215 is right that we should avoid engaging in political debate, but I guess the fact that it has encouraged such a debate is relevant to the article.  I'm not entirely convinced that the entire "related issues" section is notable enough for inclusion though, but not enough to specifically argue against it. Guinness 01:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)