Jump to content

Talk:Peter Sutcliffe/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Small errors

I was reading this article and noticed two continuity errors in this otherwise excellent write-up.

First is in the 1976 section, the paragraph:

Due to repeated tardiness Sutcliffe lost his first driving job in March, 1976 and did not find another until October. He attacked Marcella Claxton (aged 20), another prostitute, in Roundhay Park in Leeds on May 9. He struck her with a hammer and left her with 25 stab wounds.

This section refers to "another" prostitute, even though none of the previous victims listed had been identified as a prostitute.

The second continuity error is in the 1977 section, in the sentence:

Jayne MacDonald (aged 16) was not a prostitute, and her death suddenly made every woman a potential victim.

Again, the statement that since she wasn't a prostitute, her death suddenly made every woman a potential victim doesn't seem to be supported by the previous text, since only three out of the eight attacks listed were identified as prostitutes, and one of them was identified as a mother of four, which at least in the reading would imply that every woman was already a potential victim at that point, not so suddenly.

Excellent article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.7.6 (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2005 (UTC)

the point is that the killer killed a non prostitute, suddenly enlarging his victim base to everyone.........

Lincolnshire Poacher 14:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've attempted to address this last point, by adding 'in the public perception', thus (I hope) making the point that the effect of the MacDonald murder was to bring home to the public what was already fact: that the perpetrator of the crimes was not just a prostitute killer, and that indeed any woman could become a victim. Guy Hatton 09:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The first point, however, about Marcella Claxton being another prostitute, has not been addressed; none of the prior victims are identified as prostitutes. The article also needs to explain why and when Stucliffe was called the Yorkshire Ripper; it is alluded to in the text, regarding the hoax telephone call, but the chronology mentions the "Ripper squad" before this. There needs to be at least a token mention and explanation of Jack the Ripper, the historical figure, if only along the lines of "... Jack the Ripper, the infamous 19th Century serial killer of women". Also, I want cake and I want it now and if anybody doesn't like it they can go to the prison place! [1] [2]-Ashley Pomeroy 13:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added a link to a Guardian article about the arrest of a man suspected of sending the hoax letters and tape. Although this is a 'current event', I'm presuming that it is not sufficient to warrant adding the {current} heading to the whole article.Guy Hatton 10:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The section dedicated to the Yorkshire Ripper was effectively made redundant following revision of Yorkshire Ripper. My thanks to whomever contributed this information; your work was integrated to the best of my abilities in the aforementioned article. --Raj Fra 04:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added a couple of details regarding attacks made on Sutcliffe during his time in prison. I have tried to keep it as neutral as possible and I hope that this doesn't detract from the overall article. As far as I know, there have been three serious assaults on him, only one of which was covered in the article up to now. I also added a couple of links to back up the entries, although if anybody can supply links from a more respected source then maybe we could add them instead.

The source you're using, (Keith Brannen's Yorkshire Ripper Web Site), is probably the most reliable online account at present. Guy Hatton 12:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Broomhill is a leafy suburb of Sheffield beloved by John Betjeman Broomhall is the red light district and this is (unsurprisingly) where Sutcliffe was arrested.Dave59 21:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm wrong.Sutcliife picked up Olivia Reivers in Havelock Square, Broomhall (I used to live there, heard about the arrest the next day, and assumed it had happened "on site". The dangers of "local knowledge") and drove her to Melbourne Avenue in Broomhill. Broomhill is however definately not, as stated in some accounts, an area famous for its prostitutes. Dave59 21:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My best mate's dad knew Sutcliffe, they used to meet in the pub sometimes, he said that one curious trait was that Sutcliffe rarely smiled, can someone inform me how I could put down the source of this information in the correct fashion.

Not sure there's a suitable way of doing this is within Wikipedia. You need to be able to cite reputable sources within the article, not just hearsay, with the utmost respect. If you'd like to discuss this further, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talk page. Cheers! Budgiekiller 22:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Early life

In this section (as in many other media reports of Sutcliffe) "a series of menial jobs" is qualified immediately by "including a stint as a gravedigger". Now, why is this particular job of any greater relevance than any of the *other* menial jobs? Or has it just been carelessly or unconsciously included because someone perceives that "dead body" is a common feature of graves and murders? As far as I'm aware, there's been no suggestion that Sutcliffe's job as a gravedigger influenced his later behaviour, so this bit of information is probably irrelevant, possibly even POV. 132.244.246.25 (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I will research my YR book collection to draw up a list. Phildav76 (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Although the Wikipedia article doesn't mention it, the relevance of the gravedigger's job was that this is where Sutcliffe first claimed to hear voices that ultimately would 'instruct' him to begin killing. He claimed that the voices originated from a headstone. Sutcliffe gave considerable testimony about this. Perhaps this should be worked into the Wikipedia article but not in the Early section. Please read this article [3] --Berean Hunter (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Followup quotation;
"Sutcliffe, whom had worked as a gravedigger, had claimed that 'voices' emanating from the gravestone of a deceased Polish woman had ordered him to kill prostitutes. Further, Sutcliffe told the hushed court that the voice he had heard was that of God." Published on 25 May 2005 | Source: New Criminologist [4] --Berean Hunter (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I've worked this into the article under the '1981 arrest and trial' section, 3rd paragraph with references. --Berean Hunter (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Prison and Broadmoor Hospital section - rumours refuted

The following claim..

"Reports suggested that Sutcliffe received nearly £200,000 in compensation for the attack, but West London Mental Health Trust, which runs Broadmoor Hospital, issued a statement on 18/01/08 refuting these rumours and stating that no compensation had been paid in relation to this incident."

needs a citation. I've been trying unsuccessfully to locate a source online. Can someone assist? Thank you...--Berean Hunter (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Map

For greater detail, a large-scale version of the map (below) could be used. - Gobeirne (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Sutcliffe/Archive 1 is located in West Yorkshire
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
7
7
8
8
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
class=notpageimage|
Yorkshire Ripper locations within West Yorkshire (Victims 6 & 9 are off this map to the south west.)

Good map

Good work on the map! I'm in favor of using it in the article. Well done. Berean Hunter (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Conforming to WP:Profanity

In the last paragraph of the Broadmoor Hospital section the quote needs to be preserved until a citation can identify how this was presented in its published form.

WP:Profanity states

"...when quoting relevant material from external sources, rendering a quote as it was originally spoken/written trumps our style guidelines. If necessary, you may indicate that the blanking was in the original quote by saying so in some way outside of the quote, for example by using "[censorship preserved]" or "[sic]"."

Until we have a citation to prove otherwise, it needs to remain as the author wrote it to conform to this.

Thank you, Berean Hunter (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This source [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1943730/posts Free Republic] has the censorship intact..in fact, every source that I've found on this so far has them. According to WP:Profanity, when the original source has the ***'s in them, you are supposed to use them as well...else remove all the quotes with them. Berean Hunter (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of mother's death incorrect?

The "1979" section would seem incorrect by it's wording..:

1979

Almost a year passed before he struck again; during this time his mother died on 8 November 1979. On 4 April 1979, he killed Josephine Whitaker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.1.36 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Movie is planned?

see this.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read Peace's novels...how close (accurate) is it in comparison to real-life events? They are apparently going to skip the second novel, 1977, which is interesting...⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It is part of triology. It may be there. Should this be added in main article?. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Apparently part of a quadrilogy...1974, 1977, 1980, & 1983 are the books. It is listed in the main article under Popular Culture section as "fiction". The fancruft that I just clobbered on the Talk:David Peace page does not make it look like it has that much accuracy to it. More info would be good but I don't know if adding it to the article would be good at this point...it may be good to wait to make sure the project doesn't get cancelled and it is more of a sure-thing. Looks very ambitious..and despite what looks like inaccuracy, could turn out to be very good.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It is also listed under Further Reading in the article. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, If i find any information about this. I will add them there. :) --SkyWalker (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter Sutcliffe (race driver)

... of the 1960s, at Le Mans and elsewhere. Born 1937,Foto. Some linkfixing needed. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why move an article on what is more likely to be a more well known person to another name when this racing driver doesn't even have an article? We don't change article names just because someone else has the same name, unless there are two articles. The359 (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Not only that, to move it without proposing it on the talk page is completely inappropriate. People will not know to look for Peter William Sutcliffe. This is what disambiguation, disambiguation pages and heading redirects are for. I can't find an article about Peter Sutcliffe, race driver. The link designated on the Sutcliffe name disambiguation page is circular, back to the name page. I plan to revise all of this movement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There is now Peter Sutcliffe (race driver). -- Matthead  Discuß   10:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Fred West for a discussion that I think applies to this article equally. --John (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There should definitely be a reference to the Peter Sutcliffe musical sketch by Chris Morris! Tris2000 (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference (bottom of Broadmoor sec)

Can someone help me sort this I keep getting it wrong. I have tried to follow the way the other references work but for some reason whatever I try, I get it wrong. A gentle nudge in the right direction-- or to fix it then tell me what it should be-- would be a great help. The link works, just the citation doesn't look right in the refs section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 07:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Modus operandi & motive

Those fields are in the new infobox, can anyone think of short 3 or 4 words to describe each of those?--EchetusXe (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

hmm, doesn't seem to matter, when you type something in it doesn't show up anyway.--EchetusXe (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure when those fields were added to the infobox, but it wasn't done with prior discussion by the project. Meanwhile, even if it did work, identifying the motive of a serial killer is a dangerous thing to attempt. They don't kill for revenge, money, or status. Serial killers as a whole tend to kill out of uncontrolled compulsion, be it sexual, control, or both. My guess is that it would be fringing on original research. I'm equally as skeptical about condensing an MO. They vary as widely as the number of killers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wildhart on this..--Judo112 (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits by huashi3483 (小帅)

把源码贴在这里改，不要影响原文的版面： 小帅的更改




Sutcliffe was convicted of murdering the following 13 victims:

Date Name of victim Age at death Body found Location on map
30 October 1975 Wilma McCann 28 Prince Phillip Playing Fields, Leeds[1] 1
20 January 1976 Emily Jackson 42 Manor Street, Sheepscar, Leeds[2] 2
5 February 1977 Irene Richardson 28 Roundhay Park, Leeds[3] 3
23 April 1977 Patricia Atkinson 32 Flat 3, 9 Oak Avenue, Bradford[4] 4
26 June 1977 Jayne MacDonald 16 Adventure playground, Reginald Street, Leeds[5] 5
1 October 1977 Jean Jordan 20 Allotments next to Southern Cemetery, Manchester[6] 6
21 January 1978 Yvonne Pearson 21 Under a discarded sofa on waste ground off Arthington Street, Bradford[7] 7
31 January 1978 Helen Rytka 18 Timber yard in Great Northern Street, Huddersfield[8] 8
16 May 1978 Vera Millward 40 Grounds of Manchester Royal Infirmary[9] 9
4 April 1979 Josephine Whitaker 19 Savile Park, Halifax[10] 10
2 September 1979 Barbara Leach 20 Back of 13 Ashgrove, Bradford[11] 11
20 August 1980 Marguerite Walls 47 Garden of a house called "Claremont", New Street, Farsley, Leeds[12] 12
17 November 1980 Jacqueline Hill 20 Waste ground off Alma Road, Headingley, Leeds[13] 13

End here

Can you explain what you are tying to do with the above edits to the map and the changes that keep been inserted into the article. There are 2 events which do not fit on to the map and are currently deliberately commented out so that they do not appear and cause confusion. The alpha marked events that are being inserted but what are they there is no explanation of what these are. Please discuss what you are attempting to achieve/show by these edits. Thank you. Keith D (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
222.190.109.120 were enlarging the image in order to maintain his BBS and paste Wikipedia to his BBS article The Yorkshire Ripper website 包括袭击和谋杀的地点图片 2. This is abusion to Wikipedia so I rollbacked his edits and moved his "enlarged map" here. Also, his paste his imaginary "next victims" location z on the map, it's improper to Wikipedia. -222.35.82.46 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Wilma McCann - Prince Phillip Playing Fields, Leeds." Multimap.com.
  2. ^ "Emily Jackson - Manor Street, Sheepscar, Leeds." Multimap.com.
  3. ^ "Irene Richardson - Roundhay Park, Leeds." Multimap.com.
  4. ^ "Patricia Atkinson - Flat 3, 9 Oak Avenue, Bradford." Multimap.com.
  5. ^ "Jayne MacDonald - Adventure playground, Reginald Street, Leeds." Multimap.com.
  6. ^ "Jean Jordan - Multimap
  7. ^ "Yvonne Pearson - Arthington Street, Bradford." Multimap.com.
  8. ^ "Helen Rytka - Great Northern Street, Huddersfield." Multimap.com.
  9. ^ "Vera Millward - Manchester Royal Infirmary." Multimap.com.
  10. ^ "Josephine Whitaker - Savile Park, Halifax." Multimap.com.
  11. ^ "Barbara Leach - 13 Ashgrove, Bradford." Multimap.com.
  12. ^ "Marguerite Walls - New Street, Farsley, Leeds." Multimap.com.
  13. ^ "Jacqueline Hill - Alma Road, Headingley, Leeds." Multimap.com.

Peter Sutcliffe was not acting under the duress of a mental illness at the time-span of the killings

--Tofuman900 (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)The evidence in the photos inextricably shows that this man was a necrophilliac. Putting down his excuse as being a tool for Gods Will both feels and is in practice very POV.

Do you have a reliable source for that? – ukexpat (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

British vs. American English

Should the article read so that there are no Brit.-Amer. ambiguities? There are several words used that are not in common usage in the United States. Even though this horrendous crime took place in the U.K., a "Yank" reading it has to do a bit of research to understand a few of the meanings. Maybe this is a good thing, i.e., a bit of learning.Georgeghodgesiii (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is about British subject matter so per WP:ENGVAR Br Eng should prevail. I'll take a look at it.  – ukexpat (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Full moon influence?

Is it significant that he murdered an average of about 5.5 days on either side of a full moon?Georgeghodgesiii (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly in Sutcliffe's twisted mind, but for the sane among us, no. – ukexpat (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving "High Court decision" to earlier section

At the end of the "broadmoor" section it says that Sutcliffe has applied for a fixed tarriff, and that it had been declined. two sections later that is repeated, but in more detail.I am moving the "decision" section up to improve readability/context. --IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Other victims

I have just been reading the book Wiked Beyond Belief, in which it is suggested that more victims of sutcliffes' killing spree exist. Can we not include this, wothout the danger of biasing this article. I would add it myself, but computers a bit laggy at the moment.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless this theory is supported by more than one source it probably warrants no more than a footnote to the section dealing with the number of victims. – ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I know there's the books wicked beyond belief, as well as serial killers, which details numerous serial killers, where Sutcliffe is mentioned to have been interviewed for other murders and attacks. --Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The table of victims has "references" of the form

<ref>[http://www.multimap.com/maps/?zoom=15&countryCode=GB&lat=53.8178&lon=-1.5428&dp=904 "Wilma McCann - Prince Phillip Playing Fields, [[Leeds]."] ''Multimap.com''.</ref>

As these are not references to sources for statements but rather pointers to a location, and as there is already a map showing these locations together, are these links actually adding anything other than more code?  pablo 10:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

They're all badly formatted too. I'm taking them out. They make the article look as though it is better referenced than it is.  pablo 20:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
There is now no links to maps so you can locate the places. You need to have {{coord}}, in place of the multimap links, adding for each of the locations so that you can get to map sources for each of the victims. Keith D (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sutcliffe's new name

Since he is now entitled Mr. Peter Coonan, would it not be more fortuitous to move said article to the title Peter Coonan, per Wikipedia:BLP?--Zucchinidreams (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he is well-known by that name, so per WP:COMMONNAME, we should stick with Sutcliffe. UK newspapers still refer to him as Sutcliffe rather than Coonan. "Peter Coonan" already redirects here should anyone search on that name. Rodhullandemu 20:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. Thank you very much for the quick and accurate reply.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Are the precise grid references for the murders necessary?

I am thinking of the poor reader when I say that it must be incredibly difficult to skip like a dozen rows of numbers which are external links. Those external links should be turned into footnotes for each one of the murders, and perhaps the footnotes could display victim locations as well. That whole table stands to be simplified.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

They were originally in footnotes until a user removed them. I put them back in the table so as not to loose the information, as I think it is important to be able to locate where these were, especially as the location map does not show them all and is not really a good for locating them. You can move them into footnotes if you want. Keith D (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I would, however my account has not been on Wikipedia for ten days yet.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a pain in the arse having to deal with auto-confirmation popping up for trying to add links.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
That may be so, but removing external links simply to make life easier for one editor for less than 4 days (the time taken to receive auto-confirmed user status) is not really a good basis upon which to plan the style and content of an article. GwenChan 16:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wearside Jack

A paragraph on John Humble should be in this article, in my opinion. Anyone else agree?--Zucchinidreams (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? The bare bones are in the 1979 section, and the detail in his own (linked) article. To expand here really would overload the article with irrelevant detail, IMO. Rodhullandemu 17:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but some of the Wearside Jack tapes caused a distraction for police: they focussed on Sunderland rather than the Leeds area where Sutcliffe was based, so a small section is relevant, is it not?--Zucchinidreams (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
It already has a small section stating exactly that – "Based on the recorded message police began searching for a man with a Wearside accent, which was narrowed down to the Castletown area of Sunderland. The message was much later revealed to be a hoax. The hoaxer, dubbed "Wearside Jack", sent two letters to police in 1978, that boasted of his crimes. The letters, signed "Jack The Ripper", claimed responsibility for the murder of 26-year-old Joan Harrison in Preston in November 1975. On 20 October 2005, John Samuel Humble, an unemployed alcoholic and long-time resident of the Ford Estate area of Sunderland (a mile from Castletown), was charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice for sending the hoax letters and tape. He was remanded in custody. On 21 March 2006 Humble was convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison." It needs no more. GwenChan 18:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Overcomplicated

Some of the technical information on the article is confusing, and, as an average wikipedia reader, it is very unnecessary that the full dates for some of the trivial events in Peter Sutcliffe's life are added, such as him buying a new house. Wouldn't something like: The sutcliffes bought a house in (whatever year). look better? I don't see how such info is relevant.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how it complicates things, dates are not really technical things, they just allow you to pin things down and to relate things to other things that may be happening. Keith D (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand you point of view. However, other people who are skimming for references on wikipedia may find that dates of things that are non-notable in Sutcliffe's life, might look better under a note in the article. My concern is that this article will become unnavigable, which is not something I want to happen, obviously. Thanks.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that you are wrong - the page is supposed to be encyclopedic, not written for skim viewing. GwenChan 15:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
It is wikipedias policy, per wikipedia:cite that very in-depth versions of information be placed under notes. This is also basic logic- only 5% of people or less would search for Peter Sutcliffe and want a precise honed in look at every single bit of his life. I've tried to create a notes section to deal with that.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Cite does not say that, you need to read it again. As for "logic" and "5%" please link the research you are taking that data from. You are mistaken in your understanding of the project if you think we are simply providing a biography-lite for passers-by from Google: this is an encyclopedia! GwenChan 16:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
If you care to go to the missing manual page, you will find an Alexa chart that shows that google is a fourth ranked site, meaning it will be used by the general public, which includes a large amount of non-experts, and that google, for approximately 90% of the time, links responses for words very closely to wikipedia. If someone hits im feeling lucky, they will generally come across wikipedia, and, cogito ergo sum, will want simplicity in their engine, not a convoluted set of exact days, as per WP:Not.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quite frankly, that is absolute rot and conjecture. I'm not going to keep beating my head against a brick wall over this: please discuss all further changes to the style and content of the article here and gain consensus for them. GwenChan 16:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I really suggest that you read WP:Talk and WP:Civil before you contribute to a talk page. I, and possibly any administrators who come across this page, hopefully would assume good faith for your remarks. Saying things such as "rot and conjecture" makes commentary seem WP:POV- I am telling you this as a friend, please practice good wikiquette in the future, and please don't make any personal attacks, okay? Thank you.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. GwenChan 17:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't wikilawyring, and I suggest noone with a fair mind would suggest that I was doing anything other than trying to say that you can get yourself into trouble by using potentially agressive language such as banging my head against a wall, and I don't want to see such an experienced editor do that to himself. Thank you very much. Please assume good faith in the future.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Accusations aside, the object here is to write an encyclopedia- and achieve as many Featured Articles as possible; to do so, the articles should contain all relevant information; this necessarily, IMV, requires some depth ad detail. If you compare the article with those on other serial killers, I think it holds up well to the prevailing standard. Removal of sourced information without consensus IS vandalism but if you can't agree here, I'd advide some form of dispute resolution, maybe beginning with seeking a third opinion. Rodhullandemu 17:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's ok, however info. can be more transparent in the notes section. A notes section is for dates like when x bought their house. 0.1% of people are really interested in that. Thus, WP:NOTABILITY comes into play. People must consider that before editing in a counter-productive way of just cluttering up the article. The info. is even less likely to stay if it's written down for minor events, because any wikipedia editor could stumble across it and edit it.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability is a policy and applies to what articles should be included whereas relevance is a step further and is an essay offering an opinion as to what should be included in articles. It can sometimes be a fine line determining the fine line between useful content and trivia, and that is usually open to editors' discretion and discussion. I agree that once sourced information makes its way into an article, clearly some editor has thought it relevant enough to include, and so it tends to stay. However, major changes tend to be regarded with some suspicion, and constructive discussion is to be welcomed.. Rodhullandemu 23:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well the over-complication is WP:NOT anyhow.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT is vast. I think you'll have to be more specific than that, because we are not mind-readers here, despite our other skills. It would help if you presented your arguments in plain language, without resorting to citing generalist policies. We're supposed to be collaborating to produce an encyclopedia here, not picking the flesh off of tiny chicken bones piece by piece. Rodhullandemu 23:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
My argument would be the following; a) Wikipedia is a free-for-use source. If a source is free for use, we should keep it free-for-read, also, to be accountable editors. b) Information must be kept clean, as wikipedia benefits intuitively from closing down irresponsible information- such as the Obama children's route to school- which brings me onto c) Wikipedia is open, and a person who is "bitten" by torrents of info would find their browser overwhelmed.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
My experienced opinion is (a) that a source is free does not absolve it of the responsibility to be complete (e.g. The Bible or Encyclopedia Brittanica 1911), although it's not clear what you're trying to say here; (b) Again, unclear, because we do not censor sourced material to pander to special interests, although we do take steps to protect minors. (c) This article is by no way the largest single article we have, and is within normal limits without there needing to be a split of content into separate articles. Modern browsers are not that inefficient at dealing with large volumes of information, and given that over 98% of internet users are using (between them) IE8, Firefox, Chrome or Opera, this is an argument that just will not run. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make, but browser performance is the least argument you could possibly make, and yes, I do have a degree in Coputer Science, and have worked for Netcraft. Rodhullandemu 00:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I listed the article for peer review

The reason that I did this is because I think it contains historic content, as I noted in it's review. Anyone with an interest in history, especially those who have recently edited this page, are welcome to contribute.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Link? It helps us find our way around, however experienced we are here. Rodhullandemu 23:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Here you go [5].--Zucchinidreams (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that you misunderstand the peer review process. Peer review is not about forcing controversial or major changes in an article's style or content, which should instead begin in discussion here. GwenChan 12:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary info clean-up

I understand that detailing serial killer victims is improtant, but in my opinion, the exact names and ages of the victims are really not relevant. I've written this here just to confirm how I will be editing.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is valuable information and should be retained - there is no reason for it to be removed from the article as it is available in the public domain. Keith D (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I just think that if the ages of the victims are stated with impunity, the casual reader, for whom Wikipedia caters for, may be inconvenianced. It seems (to me) that a D.O.B (Date of Birth) classification for the victims who survived would be much neater- you could work out the date of death of the victims by just listing the date that they died.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I am confused by what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting replacing the age of the victims by the date of birth? If so does that not make it more complicated and we probably do not have the birth dates for them all in sources. Keith D (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I was saying, or trying to say, that notes of the ages of people killed by Sutcliffe would Wikify the article. After all, very few casual readers would wish to know the exact dates of "trivial" attacks by Sutcliffe. Wikipedia says these would look much better under inline citations. Some murdered victims have relatives, so I think one final good idea would be to put in notes directly after any mention of people who are now living comes up. I can't afford a lawsuit!--Zucchinidreams (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
How are "the exact names and ages of the victims" not relevant? If this is a confirmation of how you will be editing, I would suggest you stop and think very carefully before hacking at articles. The 1980 section now reads: "They were Bandara, attacked in Leeds on 24 September, and 16-year-old Sykes, attacked in Huddersfield on the night of 5 November." Who?? Malinga Bandara? Eric Sykes? It is going to take considerable time and effort to clean up your "clean up." GwenChan 15:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I will write up the names. Exact ages should really be in notes. Does anyone, even experts, need to know that. My guess is no, as per WP:Cite. Getting rid of such clean-ups will only take a minute, so is not really a matter of time, you can press undo, that's all.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
NO! Exact ages shouldn't be in the notes! They should be in the article where I and any other reader can find them. Please desist with your edits to this article until and unless you can find consensus for them on this talk page. GwenChan 16:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
If the articles info becomes too long to comprehend, then it violates WP:NOT. I did not believe refactoring minor overcomplications would be controversial, and as you can see from Wikipedia:Manual Of Style, over-long articles are bad!--Zucchinidreams (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I would not class this article as being overly long by any stretch of the imagination, as an example Manchester is not considered over long and is three times the size of this article. Keith D (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Imagery

There needs to be a photo of Peter Sutcliffe in prison. The photo at the top is out of date, but it does capture Sutcliffe at his most memorable physical look in the public mind. Could a recent photo-mugshot be added under the image from when he carried out the serial killings?--Zucchinidreams (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The current image is free for use under CC Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0. I think it highly unlikely that there are more recent, free for use, images of Sutcliffe in existence. GwenChan 12:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
[6]. What about this?--Zucchinidreams (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
What about it? Do you own the rights to the image? Can you prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under an acceptable free license? Can you prove that the image is in the public domain? If the answer to any of those questions is "yes" then it is a good image. If you cannot, we'll stick with the free for use version we have, I guess. GwenChan 12:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I also found this; [7].--Zucchinidreams (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Same reply as for previous image. GwenChan 12:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
This image is from a forum. How on earth can it not be free-for-use?--Zucchinidreams (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
If you need to ask that question, then I'm afraid you really should hold off adding new images until you understand the concept of copyright and how it applies to the use and re-use of media and information on Wikipedia. The rule-of-thumb 3 questions I stated above are fundamental to image use policy. GwenChan 12:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The image will be fully described as linked to all appropriate copyrighters, and every single source will be listed, don't you worry about that.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Fully describing/linking the copyright holders and sources does not make an image acceptable for use. Some image randomly found on a forum is unlikely to have such information available in the first place, anyway. GwenChan 12:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You have my assurance that I will e-mail the people involved. I have tracked down the website and will be requesting fair-use. I will hold a debate on this page of course, about the images inclusion.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright owners of the images, should you locate them, are required to email explicit permission and licensing details to permissions-enATwikimediaDOTorg GwenChan 12:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

{Outdent) The use of fair-use images is not allowed for living people as there is an ability to obtain a free to use image, see point 1 of our non-free content policy. Keith D (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that on reflection, the guidelines support the picture I've found, and as soon as I can, I will add it. The link is at the bottom of my user page if anyone else wishes to do it, just notify me that you are going to do it, so the pic isn't included twice! Thanks.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree – it is a poor quality photocopy/scan of a creased, translucent newspaper page, with no indication of its provenance other than it appears to be a police booking photo. It does not meet the threshold to replace the cc-asa-3 image in use presently, even though it is more recent, and especially as it is only being proposed 'because' it is more recent. GwenChan 18:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I think there are clear photos somewhere. (I hope there are, because then the police have severely undermined their authority, if all of their mugshots come out this crinkled.)--Zucchinidreams (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I am getting a little concerned that the article is beginning to rely heavily on the web-site http://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen for its information, with little back-up from other sources. Has anyone any opinion on this site? Keith D (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

My two cents here; the website is quoting from several major and respected Sutcliffe books. I didn't immediately use formatting and books for my link, but I thought that as the info was 95% correct, it deserved adding, and there is no wikirule against the addition of text-based sources- you just need casual evidence for your edits! Thanks!--Zucchinidreams (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I was querying the reliance/reliability of this particular web-site, does it meet WP:RS? Keith D (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I would say that paraphrasing storngly researched and resourced author's works meets wikipedia:RS, at least to as high an accuracy as any other source, anyway.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Photofits

I found images of photofits, and the quality is as good as one can get, really, when working with black and white printouts, IMV.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mugshot used for the prison and Broadmoor Hospital section

I hope you like it.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No. As explained very carefully above, this image cannot be used. It is not a free image, you do not have any permission from the author or copyright holders to use it, and your uploading it under an improper license was not a sensible action. "Duder" whoever that might be did not take Sutcliffe's booking photo. GwenChan 22:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly there is no copyright violation going on with this, the mugshot image that was deleted. It is fair-use.[8]--Zucchinidreams (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is NO fair use on Commons.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The image is appropriated. It's on a license. Read the license, okay.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no license on http://www.nndb.com/people/700/000110370/ that I can see.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Plus, some guy called "Duder" saying you can use it a license and permission does not make. Also, there is no justification for fair use here either as there is a correctly licensed image in use already, the subject is living, and on top of that Broadmoor have in the past made legal threats to the press about their pictures being used. Start listening to the other users here and stop cowboying. GwenChan 22:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the other image, I've just slapped a CSD tag on it. It appears in the Daily Mail 6 months before it was uploaded here.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Good catch. GwenChan 22:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The image stil appears on the servers for wikimedia, so, to my mind, the first image deserves to stay.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The first image we talked about was on Commons and came from nndb.com (it said so on the file page), Commons has no fair use allowed, and it is unlikely that a photo of a living person could ever be used under fair-use on English Wikipedia. Commons admin "Martin_H" has deleted it. The other photo taken in 1981, I haven't deleted as I do not wish to be "judge and jury" - if I tag an image, I let another admin delete it, a second opinion never hurt anybody.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The mugshot is not old enough to qualify for free use on Commons under {{PD-UKGov}}. Hence, its use here must be justified by a Fair-Use rationale. In the absence of free images of Sutcliffe, we must rely upon the FUR. I seriously doubt that anyone with an image of Sutcliffe would want to donate it free of copyright, or fee, so in the absence of such, it seems we have to rely upon "historical importance" to justify a fair-use rationale for a living person. The image we had could IMO, be justified on that basis, but it would need a strong defence. But it's not an image that Commons should host. Rodhullandemu 00:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are all the pictures on this page being reviewed?

I don't know why it is that the pictures are being taken down, but perhaps the links ought to stay so we can FUR them. It really sucks that people can't assume good faith and be constructive, rather than pursuing a socrched earth policy agianst this article. I don't want to be in the position where we do not possess a single photo of the subject of this article.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

  • It's a legal issue; there are two problems than can seriously impact our work here: coypright and libel. Neither is negotiable, as far as I'm concerned, and it's no defence to say it's ok there; why not here?. The law isn't strictly concerned with "good faith", and neither are our image copyright policies, which are somewhat stricter than general US law. This is to ensure that the Wikimedia Foundation can resist legal challenges, however unlikely they may appear to be, by (a) using free images whenever available and (b) providing a defensible use for non-free images. Rodhullandemu 00:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll give you one reason, WP:NOTCENSORED. The pic. should stay. Stop playing to the gallery. I highly doubt that you have read the rules for server compliance in pics in Florida, where wikipedia's servers are. The rule of possessing a free standard use license is enforced by the Mail. I know it because I read the section where it states that the image has no copyright. Check the source. LOOK AT THE DAILY MAIL'S WEBSITE, IT, NOR ANYONE ELSE, CLAIMS COPYRIGHT ON THE PICTURE!--Zucchinidreams (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright is implicit, not explicit. They do not have to claim copyright, by publishing they automatically gain copyright. For example have a look at donating copyright material - this page shows the only two ways to use copyright materials on Wikipedia (not including FUR) - one is for the originating web site to send to Wikipedia an e-mail explicitly donating the copyright (in which case the talk page will get an OTRS ticket), the other is for the web site to put a suitable license on each page that they donate - just like Wikipedia does at the bottom of every page with its Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License message  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. This page has not been singled out - I tagged six other copyvio pictures yesterday, nothing to do with Peter Sutcliffe.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A request for comment on Rodhullandemu's behaviour

His behaviour has been monotonous and of a consistently POV and unreliable tone. --Zucchinidreams (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Article talk pages are intended for discussing articles, not users, and it may be that you were looking for this. In fact, raising this request here not only appears to be a personal attack, but an abuse of process intended to circumvent the usual requirement for two users to certify. As an Administrator, it is my duty to uphold our policies, particularly copyright policies. If you don't think I'm doing the job properly, this isn't the venue to challenge that, and I invite you to withdraw this ill-founded request. Rodhullandemu 16:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I rescind my commentary, and I apologise for this accidental abuse of process, I am sorry.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This statement should also be archived so people don't fall into the same trap, IMV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zucchinidreams (talk • contribs) 01:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:86.156.155.95

Can someone monitor this article so more vandalism by this I.P is not added in?--Zucchinidreams (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Normally such vandalism is seen by the vandal fighters, using Huggle, Twinkle, etc. We cannot guarantee 100% reversion, the odd one does occasionally slip though. In this case the IP is now blocked for a while - this wasn't the only article that he vandalised.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a vital question

If the website NNDB has a picture of Mr. Sutcliffe, and allows me further to create software to do with him, and I create software with his photo attached, can I be an owner of the picture?--Zucchinidreams (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

In short, no. I think this would be considered a derivative work of the original, and would not create a new copyright. But I don't see how we can't use a fair-use image here, considering that due to his incarceration a free image is unlikely to be available. Rodhullandemu 15:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Skipping the fair-use option for now - to do suitable derivative works, there would have to be a suitable Creative Commons licenses on the NNDB web site that would allow that - typically the two options would be CC-BY and CC-BY-SA - however if one of those licenses existed for that picture then it can be used here or Commons without changing it. (The other four CC options do not give a suitable license for Wikipedia use). With regard to fair-use, I wouldn't like to judge that one - what's to stop some visitor taking a photo, with his permission - is that allowed? - I don't know. Any fair-use could only be used here, and not on Commons. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
WRT to later images of Sutcliffe during his incarceration, they are taken by government officials or journalists and are not free of copyright, because of their obvious commercial value. Visits to Sutcliffe will be monitored, and photography strictly controlled. Compare this with the situation of Myra Hindley; the most common image is her mugshot on arrest, and a later one taken in prison, are both copyright. They are too recent to fall within {{PD-UKGov}} and I note that the appropriate Commons category] is empty. I still take it that these images can only be justified on grounds of fair-use related to historical importance, and the "standard" images of Hindley and Sutcliffe appear to satisfy that test as far as I'm concerned. I agree that that excludes them from Commons. Rodhullandemu 01:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
You are quite right, cameras are not allowed - I just looked it up (http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/adviceandsupport/keepingintouch/takein/).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a massive shame that there isn't a pic of Sutcliffe. Is it possible to write a pictures needed section on Wikimedia to ask for such pictures? I'm sure that fair-use pictures do exist, for Sutcliffe's image has changed enough that such pictures would not always be reproductions of copyrighted photographs- at least I believe that to be the case. Thanks, --Courageous (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
There is the {{Reqphoto}} template that can be used on talk pages to add the article to an appropriate needs photo category. Keith D (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
This page has a Template:WPBiography at the top - there can be a "needs-photo" parameter - use like "needs-photo = yes".  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of the "Early life" section, does "teaching" need to be written as a link to the article on teaching? I think this is overuse of the linking function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.128.27 (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What the press knew

'He also appeared to know details of the murders which had not been released to the press but which he'd actually gained from his local newspaper...' Needs re-wording, I think. 109.154.29.174 (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Dubious statement

"English serial killer Peter Sutcliffe, the "Yorkshire Ripper", was arrested in Sheffield, ending one of the largest police investigations in British history."

This is a rather ridiculous statement. Why do you think it takes up to two years to bring murder cases to court ? A large amount of "police investigation", finding witnesses, scientific testing of evidence, etc, occurs after the suspect has been arrested. An arrest certainly does not "end the police investigation". It may well end "the police man-hunt", but if that is the case, then that it what the article should say. Eregli bob (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

In the third paragraph, Sutcliffe's murders are described as his "reign of terror". Although I don't disagree that this was true, it does not sound very NPOV. Could anyone suggest a suitable replacement? I can only think of "his murders spanned over 5 years" but, again, does not sound very encyclopedic. Wallhead3004 (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hoax phone-calls

'The hoaxer appeared to know details of the murders which had not been released to the press but which he had acquired from his local newspaper and pub gossip.'

How could the local newspaper publish details that had not been released to the press? 86.184.142.75 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Why was Sutcliffe Committed to Broadmoor?

Don't know if this goes here,but he wasn't mentally ill, after all. He obviously killed people because he was obsessed with death to the point of needing to masturbate over his victims, as proven by what he wore when he murdered them and by his interference with their corpses immediately after the attacks. Why then would he be sent to a mental asylum? Nothing about his attacks suggests he was suffering from mental illness, they suggest a cold, calculating attacker who had strange sexual compulsions for corpses. The article should point out better that Sutcliffe was not mentally ill at any time during his murder spree.Ananagram (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

erm - para 2 - "claimed to have been guided by the voice of God, which he said he heard while reading the tombstone of a Polish Jew while working part-time as a gravedigger" and para 4 "diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia" provide a couple of clues to this mystery. pablo 16:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
: Pablo, that paranoid schizophrenia diagnosis was never accepted by the majority of psychiatrists who worked with him.Ananagram (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The diagnosis clearly was accepted or he wouldnt be in Broadmoor, and he is there because he is considered a paranoid schizophrenic♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.murderuk.com/one_off_Ian_Kay.html
    Triggered by \bmurderuk\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.murderuk.com/serial_peter_sutcliffe.html/
    Triggered by \bmurderuk\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Consecutive or concurrent

I changed the detail of the sentence in the opening section from "consecutive" to "concurrent" as I think it's incorrect. I can't find a source for PS having been handed down consecutive sentences and I suspect that were that the case it would have at least been mentioned in the BBC report referenced. It's much more likely that the sentences were to be concurrent - i.e. served at the same time.

Kev (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

grammar

Shouldn't the centance "West Yorkshire Police were criticised..." be "West Yorkshire Police was criticised..." ? Isn't West Yorkshire Police 3rd person singular ? I'm not native in English but find this against what I've learned. Would decicive form "the West Yorkshire Police" make any difference ? All seriuos explinations appriciated. Boeing720 (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Should Other Possible Victims be Added to this Page?

A former detective and cold case investigator has claimed www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2582486/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-killed-five-women-killing-spree-cold-case-detective-claims.html that Sutcliffe that five more murders bear the hallmarks of ripper killings. Maybe these could be added as the police are apparantly trying to bring additional charges against Sutcliffe to ensure he never gets the possibility of release.--Corkiebuchek (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Re-direct to "Yorkshire Ripper"

Ladies and germs, I suggest we redirect this page to "Yorkshire Ripper." This is what this man was known as when he committed his crimes.

Any comments?Ananagram (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Page should not be just redirected rather it should be moved to retain attribution history for previous edits. May be you could start a move discussion if you feel the page should be renamed. Keith D (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
That be the name he was given before he was arrested and identified, but that is really irrelevant. What is relevant is what he is called by the reliable sources now and I suspect that that is "Peter Sutcliffe".--ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
@Ananagram: I note your comment, but propose a slightly different suggestion below. --ℕ ℱ 16:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed page move

I propose that the page should be moved to Yorkshire Ripper Murders. The rationale for this is that the murders themselves rather than the murderer is what is notable and what the article should be focused on. We should not have articles about people who are only known for one event per WP:PERPETRATOR. This would be consistent with the treatment of Moors Murders and Soham Murders. I'm commenting here to allow other opinions to be expressed. Moving too boldly can start to get messy. --ℕ ℱ 16:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, he wouldn't warrant an article otherwise. J3Mrs (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose move as the rationale is incorrect on two counts. First, WP:PERPETRATOR states "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:"...well, this article already exists. Second, under the bold title For perpetrators, #2 "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." in which case this article is correct. Sutcliffe has already had substantial coverage so that cat is already out of the bag. This isn't about one event...there was more than one event which is consistent with serial killers. Moors and Soham murders are not a valid precedent here but Crippen, Gary Ridgway, Patrick Mackay, Colin Ireland, Dennis Nilsen and any of the 530 other articles in Category:Male serial killers would be. While being opposed to a move, I would not be opposed to having a spin off article that focuses on the details of the murders themselves. This is somewhat similar to Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel murders (although the latter includes a larger set of murders beyond the canonical five).
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is reasonable to interpret WP:PERPETRATOR in the way that you have done - what you are effectively saying is that it doesn't matter whether you have articles on murderers vs murders, as long as you get in first with the murderer's biography article than that is fine to have both. In fact I think it is giving a clear direction that where we can have an article about a notable set of murders, and the murderer is not already well known enough to have a biographical article about them for other reasons (this is what I would interpret that as meaning, not simply that you had created it first where they were only known for the murders), then in this case it is preferred to have an article only about the notable crime, rather than an article with a biographical focus on the individual. Contrary to your analysis I don't think there is anything "unusual" about the motivation for this series of crimes - it wasn't the political assassination that triggered a war, which is really what that clause is aimed at. Sutcliffe had substantial coverage, but not for anything other than the notable crimes. You state that the Moors murders are not a valid precedent, but you haven't said what you think the fundamental differences are. I would argue this case is very much in point, and is much closer to the current example than is Jack the Ripper which as an unknown character, for which no biographical article can be written, and where the persona was the subject of myriad fictionalizations over a very long period of time. I do not believe that the persona of Sutcliffe has been or will be the subject of fictional works and create cultural influences in anything like that way. --ℕ ℱ 23:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Despite its title, the article which has some biographical material, is largely about the murders, a change of title would reflect that. Sutcliffe was only known as the Yorkshire Ripper until he was accidentally apprehended and he is known for nothing else. J3Mrs (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't agree with the page move. I'm in favour of stand-alone profiles for notable people. The distinction between the person and what they have done is inconsistent with the fact that we don't have articles on the musical efforts on a singer, as opposed to the singer themselves. I do believe that the opposition to stand-alone profiles is driven by certain idnividuals' desire to prevent potential growth of further infamy/notoriety, although that point is personal opinion and I would ask that you mainly take note of the consistency case I make above. Tom Green (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
In fact, in many cases a person's work will be notable, whereas they won't be. In this case it is clear, Sutcliffe wasn't a notable person since he was known for only one set of crimes, and despite the naming of the article it is clearly about a set of murders rather than being a biography of a person. The naming would reflect that and be consistent with examples such as the moors murders. --ℕ ℱ 23:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I would also prefer to keep it as it is. Calling the article "Yorkshire Ripper murders" would not be completely objectionable, but to me it sounds a bit sensationalist, implying that there is still an air of mystery about the events, possibly glamorizing their perpetrator, or at least implying that that name is vastly better recognizable than the killer's actual name, which I don't think is the case. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
My point is that the article isn't a biography of Sutcliffe, which would be glamorizing him to some extent, but it is an article about a group of murders, which unlike Sutcliffe were notable. --ℕ ℱ 23:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
It actually seems to be both (and of course Sutcliffe is notable: he has gained vastly more coverage than the great majority of people who have bio articles in WP). W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Peter Sutcliffe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Peter Sutcliffe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Sutcliffe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Victim pages

There needs to be more information about the victims. I'm surprised to see they don't have their own individual biographies, or even own pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.13.154.31 (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, the list of victims and locations, together with the map, now been removed wholesale as "unref". This section had been tagged as unsourced since December 2017. I would have thought this was a key feature of this article, and I'd be very surprised indeed if there were no sources available. Presumably some of the victim's names are already sourced elsewhere in the artcile, but the murder locations are not? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The list of names of victims seems to have been added first, on 20 January 2005, by User:Violetriga here and then the map added by User:Phildav76 on 21 March 2006 and 13 June 2006. I think Violetriga is still active and so may care to comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
On balance I think that it's correct to remove the details as being unsourced, but I would consider them to be an important part of the article. Hopefully they can be restored by using a reliable source which I agree is likely to be available. violet/riga [talk] 11:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks, Violet/riga. No recollection at all where they may have originally come from? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Sadly no, though this might be useful. violet/riga [talk] 16:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Violet. It might be a place to start, but we can't use it as a source here, of course. I'm not sure if User:Phildav76 is till active. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"Sex workers" in the lead

The lead section now says: "Sutcliffe had allegedly regularly used the services of sex workers in Leeds and Bradford.... the public were especially shocked by the murders of women who were not sex workers." But the statement is supported by Roger Cross (1981) p. 144, and Cross habitually uses the word "prostitute". Does this matter? Also should we link sex worker. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits (by an IP) that changed 'prostitutes' to 'sex workers'. Whilst prostitutes are sex workers, so are strippers, cam girls etc. The use of sex workers in the article could lead to ambiguity, readers possibly thinking strippers had been murdered. There have been similar reversions on other articles by other editors after changes by those who wish to use a more PC term.--John B123 (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
That's a very good point. I did not know this had happened elsewhere. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: clear consensus not to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

– Although this article title has not been previously nominated, an unofficial nomination in 2015 (Talk:Peter Sutcliffe/Archive 1#Proposed page move) did lead to a discussion with one "Oppose move" vote against the proposed title Yorkshire Ripper Murders. Some editors, who would be amenable to downgrading Sutcliffe's status as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, may prefer an alternative qualifier of a generic nature, Peter Sutcliffe (serial killer).     Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

For the record, among the 58 entries at the above-mentioned Category:English serial killers, 4 are main headers of articles delineating events such as Bradford murders, 5 are redirects such as Joanna Dennehy redirecting to Peterborough ditch murders, 43 do have main headers without qualifiers, but the sole direct primary topic among them is in fact Peter Sutcliffe (there is also one indirect primary topic which has Fred West assigned primacy over three other men named "Fred West" at the Frederick West disambiguation page). Finally, 6 entries do have qualifiers: there are three "(murderer)" and one each of "(infanticide)", "(baby farmer)" and "(serial killer)".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggest adding link in TV section to ITV miniseries: This Is Personal: The Hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper

Michaelecyr (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Caught by chance by 2 police officers who had set out that night to harass prostitutes

The case is a bit like someone robbing banks when banks are already being harassed by the police for committing a far lesser crime themselves, and the police catching the robber by chance when 2 officers decide to further harass a bank for the lesser crime it is committing only by chance to find the far more serious criminal the robber inside the bank with a gun and mask etc.

(i.e. unique to how bizarre police prejudices involving prostitution or other aspects of society that they disagree with).

The 2 police officers who caught him have always been open that they had set out that night to catch prostitutes, and had merely found him in that endeavour. It was not just "old fashioned policing" (the checking of his car number plates etc) as if often stated.

Given the shocking nature of police prejudice all along in the case, that final irony needs to be mentioned I think.

Some IRA bombings in London during The Troubles might be another type of example. Checkpoints were set up as a deliberate preventive measure, but police manning them (driven by existing prejudice) would stop all black motorists and allow some other white motorists through (no IRA bombers whatsoever being black of course and so possibly allowing them to slip through and carry out their attacks). The police certainly were filmed stopping black motorists (and allowing white ones through) at such a pre 9/11 anti terror checkpoint just before the Bishopsgate bombing in London - though it isn't known if in point of fact that was a factor in the successful IRA attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien (talk • contribs) 21:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Age wrong

Your automated updating in the info box seems not to be working. Sutcliffe turned 73 yesterday. Valetude (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I've changed "df=yes" to "df=y" and it now seems to work? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ann Rooney

Why isn't Ann Rooney mentioned? Peter Sutcliffe confessed to attacking her in 1992 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.171.21.194 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

After conducting some research, it appears that her attack was deemed to have been from someone else. One particular website said that the size of the hammer used to attach Ann Rooney was different than the one used by Sutcliffe. If you have additional information to support including Ann Rooney in the article, please feel free to share the source. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Relationship with Jimmy Savile

Jimmy Savile was a frequent visitor after Sutcliffe was imprisoned, and there has been speculation about a prior relationship between the two, with one of the murders (Irene Richardson) committed near Savile's flat. Savile was interviewed during the Ripper investigations. Should we mention this? -ProhibitOnions (T) 09:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Alleged raising

The phase "Raised Catholic" appears in the article. This is in the fake source given, Yallop, but not true. Sutcliffe's father was a non-catholic. Peter Sutcliffe junior went to a Catholic school and a non-Catholic school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4E9F:D101:69DB:65E7:7705:19B1 (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Peter Sutcliffe was married in a non-Catholic building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4E9F:D101:69DB:65E7:7705:19B1 (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Peter Sutcliffe went to Cathingley Manor secondary school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4E9F:D101:69DB:65E7:7705:19B1 (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

What Yallop (2014) says in his book is this. It says "the children were brought up in the Catholic faith"? I think we can agree that the book by David Yallop is WP:RS? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do you describe Yallop's book as a " fake source"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Peter Sutcliffe was married in "Clayton Baptist church". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4E9F:D101:69DB:65E7:7705:19B1 (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that must be Clayton, West Yorkshire. It's mentioned e.g. here. Also not included at Sonia Sutcliffe. Could be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Years Active

Should the years active not be before 1975 because he committed murder as well as other attacks that he was or is the prime suspect in but never been charged before 1975. In February 2022 Yorkshire Ripper: The Secret Murders program talk about before the 13 murders he was convicted of and in 2022’s The Ripper Speaks: the Lost Tapes he talks about other crimes including murder before 1975.
https://www.channel5.com/show/the-ripper-speaks-the-lost-tapes
https://www.itv.com/hub/yorkshire-ripper-the-secret-murders/10a0680a0001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazza20006 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Should be reciprocation with The Stockwell Strangler article

The Stockwell Strangler article on Wikipedia says that he (Kenneth Erskine) saved Peter Sutcliffe from a Broadmoor attempted murder attempt. If the source is accurate it should be in both articles, but if not true then it should be in neither article of course. Certainly it being in one article but not the other isn't right whatever truth is decided about it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Erskine#Incarceration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Sutcliffe/Archive_1&oldid=1257921982"