Talk:Steve Wright (serial killer)

Merge?

Apologies for not stating my reasons at the start. This page is mainly a duplication of the main article section on Wright. The page does not fulfil the Independent notability criteria as Wright is not known outside the sphere of these murers and is only fringe speculated to be involoved in others. If at some future date Wright become notable for other killings or for becoming a reformed character then Wright may warent a seperate page. Until that time though Wrights is only notable due to these murders and a disparity of information is created unecessarily by having seperate articles. In the future If Wright Is notable the Information can be split out, but at the moment Wright Is not Independently notable enough.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No Serial killer is known outside of their killings. And I plan to edit down the section on Wright in the Ipswich Murders article because it is getting to long. Million_Moments (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Many other serial killers, such as Myra Hindley and Ian Brady have their own profile articles, despite a separate article on the case in general - Moors murders. This case is no less notable, and this article being merges with the case article would make it very long. Lradrama 12:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Other articles should not be used as a precidence as each article should be considered on its own merits. Roy whiting does not have his own seperate page and is a well known murderer.

Interesting the person who proposed the merge should have said why. We chose to split this article from Ipswich Murders so I don't support the merge as the Ipswich article is getting quite large. Million_Moments (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! I recall the debate(s) that resulted in this article finally being separated from the main article, so what's the point of just reverting it back again? Due to the huge amount of media coverage, Wright certainly is notable. Lradrama 17:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide evidence of notability outside of this case.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Since when were Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Brady, Rose West, Harold Shipman, Fred West or Ian Huntley ever notable outside their cases? This proposed merge is wholly unnecessary. The fact is, that Wright has become famous for his killings, just as have all the others. Lradrama 18:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As above, no serial killer is notable outside his killings. This case was large enough to justify this article, it recieved worldwide attention. Million_Moments (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Harold Shipman is an exceptional case as he is famous and the murders are famous because of him as for the rest I believe they should be merged back into the main article. This page is just anoher fork creating information disparity. All of the above articles listed except Harold Shipman should be merged back into their main article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the consensus at this point is to merge. The above are just a few examples, most people couldn't even tell you that Seung-Hui Cho carried out the Virginia Tech Massacre but he still has an article. Perhaps a wider discussion about the notability of serial killer articles needs to take place such as those that took place on Wikipedia:Episode to sort out when episodes should be merged into articles about seasons and when they shouldn't. All these people after all do meet the notability guidelines afterall. Million_Moments (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course they all meet the notability guidlines! That's why they deserve their own articles. This whole discussion needn't have taken place. Suggestions that the above articles and this one should be merged are silly. Just read this. To avoid wasting other people's time and our own, I suggest we close this discussion rapidly. Lradrama 15:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Any discussion is not a waste of time unless it is patently frivolous. This discussion adresses a serious issue concerning the article and is not "wasting other people's time". All discusions which are serious are a good thing as they claify the current concensus regarding articles. This is particlally important regarding biographies to comply with BLP guidelines. If concensus is to retain two seperate articles and BLP and notability guidelines are satisfied then two articles should be retained. The discussion should not be dismissed just because it is deemed pointless. Articles can also be merged into one even if BLP and notability guidelines are met by the indiviual articles, as it may greatly enhance the quality of the indivdual articles by having one article with for example less information disaprtiy.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. Both articles are of good quality, and this one will carry on to grow and develop especially. Can we not just give it time? It helps maintain consistency with other articles in the subject area. Why deviate from others, when both articles fulfil both policies? Lradrama 20:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make clear again that one of my main objections to merging this is the size of the current size Ipswich Murders article. According to Wikipedia:Article size guidelines, articles should start to be split once they reach 60kb. Now the split has been fully completed by the editing down of this section the article is now 53kb, which is still quite long. The only logical place to split this article was at the Steve Wright biography section. I and other editors have been working hard to imporve this article to get it to GA and though real life has kept me busy recently you can see from the article history that it is regulary expanded. I would also like to say that I initially disagreed with the Wright article split in the first place, but now with the article at the current size and this article having become established certainly feel it shouldn't be merged back. If you can suggest other ways we may split the article I am open to your suggestions. It should also be noted that the article will gain in length if the appeal is approved. Million_Moments (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Million Moments has made some excellent points there. And yes, I can also see that this Steve Wright article has developed well, & there is still room for more development. If this merge took place, all the development that could take place on this separate article, would instead be injected into the main article. A very large (and continually growing) section in the main article would not do any good in the slightest. (I have also made some minor tweaks to the article, and split it into sections, and just looking at it --> it would be the biggest subsection in an article ever! The way it is now, with it's references and things, is fine. I still strongly believe this article should not be merged). Lradrama 09:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well no-one seems to want to talk about this anymore. Seven days with no comments. Can I declare it closed? Lradrama 12:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

11 days later - I'll take that as a yes then. Lradrama 08:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Prostitutes or sex-workers

The sources currently used in this article predominantly use the word "prostitutes", which is standard British English. I'm not sure that the argument that "sex workers is a more respectful term for his victims" is strong enough to allow wholesale replacement. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, unless there is some consensus on terminology that I'm not aware of. The lede of Prostitution includes the sentence "A person who works in this field is called a prostitute, or more inclusively, a sex worker." I'm reading that as "'sex worker' is a broader term." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

There has been recent movement amongst sex workers to use the term "sex workers" rather than "prostitute" as the term "prostitute" refers to the person as a whole instead of the work that they perform.

Here is an article that backs up that thought:

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/sex-workers-prostitutes-words-matter-95447 Marikaroby (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This article, this entire site, is not here for the benefit of sex workers. Looks Like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have some policies relating to terminology, but such policies are arrived at via community consensus, and are not determined solely by sources external to Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Where may I find the community that has determined this terminology is appropriate? Marikaroby (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know this is, and always has been, the default position. If you feel strongly enough and think there is enough movement for a change, you might raise it at a higher forum. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I support the continuing use of the word "prostitutes" in this article as per the majority of sources. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED to appease the views of sex workers who think the word "prostitute" is disrespectful or objectionable to them. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

An anon IP editor has again removed the word "prostitute" here, but no rationale is given. I suspect that between 1992 and 2002 the police were quite certain that these murdered may have been linked as all the victims were prostitutes. But perhaps it's not needed in the section heading. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead says "He is currently serving life imprisonment for the murder of five women who worked in Ipswich, Suffolk." I'm not sure that the phrase "five women who worked in Ipswich" is sufficiently accurate. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)