Talk:Eastbound Strangler

Prostitute vs. sex worker

TeeVeeed, regarding this and this, to repeat what I stated before, we do not use Wikipedia for advocacy. This is per WP:Advocacy. See the Sex worker article. Prostitute and sex worker are not automatically synonyms. Sex worker is the broader term. And just like Wikipedia has not banned use of the wording "committed suicide" in favor of "died by suicide," and is unlikely to any time soon, Wikipedia has not banned the term prostitute. There is no need for you editors to go around to Wikipedia articles and replace prostitute with sex worker, especially in historical cases. Here is an updated version of the "unlikely to any time soon" discussion. The "prostitute vs. sex worker" matter was also recently discussed at Talk:Prostitution.

Kieronoldham, Neil S. Walker, and John B123, I think it's time we take this to WP:Village pump (policy), just like the "died by suicide" matter was taken there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Also pinging SMcCandlish for his thoughts since he has been a part of the "committed suicide" vs. "died by suicide" dispute and is regularly involved in Wikipedia guideline and policy matters.

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay well thank you for responding since as I mentioned in the summary this is a slo-mo war and it should be discussed here. For this article though, Sex worker may be a better fit since I think that all of the victims were not known as prostitutes? Also, I made a mistake in my edit in that looking-back there was a reason to leave prostitute in article because that was the term used in the news ref. I don't know about this advocacy angle? But it seems to me that "prostitution" is pretty archaic? TeeVeeed (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)edit to add, the 1st time that the terms were switched by myself a few years ago, I collaborated with another editor to add "prostitute" back in the article one time because it agreed with the news ref. but the other uses of the term were left at "sex worker" (for a while anyhow).TeeVeeed (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the word prostitute. We'd have a PoV problem if it said whore, but not prostitute. Sex worker is a modern neologism and euphemism, and is also too broad (porn stars, pro dommes, sex therapists, strippers [no, don't call them "exotic dancers"; they're not exotic in any sense of the word], phone-sex operators, camgirls and -guys, and various other occupations all also qualify, under various definitions of sex worker). If this is coming up frequently, it should probably be discussed at WT:MOSWTW.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Well just looking at this case I really think that the broader "sex worker" applied, but I really don't understand the "advocacy" issue? Saying "sex worker" advocates the industry? From what I recall the victims were not all labeled as "prostitutes" or police were not sure. TeeVeeed (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The references and external link in the article, where they mention the women's occupation, use "prostitute" not "sex worker" except one that uses "hooker". Given this debate comes up on multiple articles, I would support this being resolved globally at either the Villiage Pump or at WT:MOSWTW. --John B123 (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I am more in favor of a article by article determination such as this article if we are using refs that say "prostitute" we may want to either stick with that term, or switch-out refs? But if it would clarify the terms usage it may be worth a more global request? I just don't know for sure what kind of universal standards could be applied? For this article there are a few reasons why as an editor I felt that "sex-worker" fit better, No pimps were involved as I remember it. Some had never been charged with prostitution. They were in the same area/found together but from the way that I recall at least one was a self-employed outcall worker and just different levels of sex-work and that was not their main employment. TeeVeeed (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems your concept of "prostitute" is a street worker controlled by a pimp? --John B123 (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

No that is one factor that makes me think of these women as self-employed business people, in their sex jobs if that was what they were even doing when they were murdered. I really do not know what "qualifies" officially, but being charged with prostitution as a crime would be another factor and all of these women were not and I don't think it was all of their's main source of income either? TeeVeeed (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

In which case, I'm at a loss of how your comments "No pimps were involved" and "self-employed outcall worker" justify the use of sex worker not prostitute. --John B123 (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

So this is a separate issue? this Where our ref said-a living person "self identified as a sex worker" but then our text said prostitute clearly a matter of WP:BLPTeeVeeed (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to do with WP:BLP, but your revision is certainly not in accordance with WP:BRD. --John B123 (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

WRONG I specifically am calling WP:BLP. Misleading statementTeeVeeed (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course if someone says they are a sex worker quoted in the ref we have been using for years, and then it gets switched out to "prostitute" that is the definition of WP:BLP that they have self identified as a sex worker. I do not get your point with that it is entirely different, and it is policy here? I'm going off to find this "death by suicide" thing. Is that what you guys are mad about? I didn't even know it was at the Pump. I did a drive by rv because it just made sense to me at the time that you could commit suicide and survive but Hartman died by suicide. TeeVeeed (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems you are interpreting WP:BLP to suit your own ends. BLP is concerned with things such as a person self-identifying as gay, not to resolve differences in terminology. All other sources refer to her as a prostitute. As for "death by suicide", like you, I wasn't aware of it until this conversation, and haven't read it. --John B123 (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Misleading misdirection again here. Misinformation where B123 says, "All other sources refer to her as a prostitute." That is completely wrong, misleading and incorrect.The source used three times in article says, "sex-worker" for Hill. She is never once referred to as a prostitute in the source quoted. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

No I was alarmed because I am under the impression that we go with what the source says and also yes if a living person identifies as one thing instead of another WP:BLP says that we go with that----I did not know it only meant "gay", or pronoun usage preferences I think I have seen that debated with religion as well, but that is WP policy--not "my" policy. Also----I absolutely did no advocacy in the suicide or this. My point in the suicide edit had zero to do with preventing suicide or conforming to AP standards, it just made sense to me at the time. I would tend to agree with Flyer22Reborn if I understood the advocacy issue involved, I do not want to do that here. Speaking of advocacy, I have edited this article with the sex-worker/prostitution switch not as an advocate of anything but trying to be encyclopedic, while I see that you are an advocate of prostitution articles.You would have a point about BRD but as I said it was a whole other problem even though the sex work term was also used there. I do not go all over WP changing sex-work to prostitution or visa versa. TeeVeeed (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

BLP doesn't just refer to sexual orientation, I just used that as an example. Religion is also included amongst a lot of other things. If somebody had self-identified as a Muslim, then you can't suggest they were a Christian, but you can say they believe in Islam. As far as I'm aware substituting Muslim with Islam isn't a breach of BLP. The same is applicable with sex worker and prostitute, unless by sex worker she actually meant a different form of sex worker such as a porn actress. --John B123 (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on prostitute vs. sex worker at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Prostitute vs. sex worker. --John B123 (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Based-on that discussion I am rv that WP:BLP edit that was disputed, thank-you TeeVeeed (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

There was nothing in that discussion that sex worker should be used in preference to prostitute. The article originally used "prostitute" and your changing to "sex worker" has been reverted several times. There is therefore nothing to support your changing it again. --John B123 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE/(Correction #1 concerning "original".) "Original" use was NOT "prostitute" it was correctly as per reference "sex worker" see page creation please [[1]]TeeVeeed (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What? There appears to be a consensus for the change that I made. So I am changing again. Feel free to dramatize if you must but this is getting annoying. TeeVeeed (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

And to respond precisely there appears to be a consensus that using different terms is fine so why insist on using "prostitute" uniformly in this article? The consensus agrees with siding with refs. In the BLP of Ms. Hill it is clear. There is no "one or the other" policy. I changed ONE prostitute to sex-worker based on the ref. so what is the problem here? TeeVeeed (talk)

The problem is that other editors disagree with you. Because you think sex worker is right doesn't make anybody else wrong. I find you remarks about dramatising offensive and your total disregard for other people's opinions contrary to the basic principles of Wikipedia. --John B123 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that other editors disagree with you. What do you not understand here? TeeVeeed (talk)

Apart from you, who is disagreeing with me? --John B123 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It looked to me like the consensus agreed on "no policy needed" first of all. Also if you read-through the discussion going with what the citations say is agreed. Also that "either" is generally fine. So why make such a fuss? I am making the change for the reason of BLP and citation to be more encyclopedic TeeVeeed (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, either is fine, so the original use of prostitute is fine. On this particular page the change to sex worker has been opposed so should be reverted to prostitute. You are the one who has been making all the fuss keep changing it against consensus on this page. --John B123 (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE/(Correction #2 concerning "original".) "Original" use was NOT "prostitute" it was correctly as per reference "sex worker" see page creation please [[2]]TeeVeeed (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to go with the wording of sources then all of these use "prostitutes" How many more do you need? --John B123 (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No you are incorrect. This is ONLY about Ms. Hill. C'mon now are you even paying attention? "... was identified by "self-described sex-worker" Denise Hill...[4]" and that "self-described sex-worker" is a quote verbatim from the source used.TeeVeeed (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

:UPDATE. Wrong. This is updated to highlight where misinformation is used to explicitly claim FALSE information. Hill is NEVER mentioned as a "prostitute" in article.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You need to change your attitude and stop your sarcastic remarks. --John B123 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we please stay on topic and not get personal here? This ref. #4 is used in article three times, and does not refer to Ms. Hill as a prostitute. [[3]] Are you confused as to if this particular person named in article was one of the murder victims? She was not, she was an alleged witness or interviewee.I am NOT disputing any other edit except that one for now. Please do not confuse this with statements/articles/references about the victims thank you.TeeVeeed (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the one getting personal here, you are the one making the offensive sarcastic remarks. --John B123 (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

From the reference you quote [[4]] Raffo, Tracy Ann Roberts, 23, Barbara Breidor, 42, and Molly Dilts, 19, all worked as prostitutes in the area. --John B123 (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE. Wrong. This is updated to highlight where misinformation is used to explicitly claim FALSE information. Hill is NEVER mentioned as a "prostitute" in article.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)TeeVeeed (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. edit to add This edit is what we are talking about--->[[5]]TeeVeeed (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC) But Denise Hill is the person we mention in article who you are disputing and that same reference names her as a "Self-described sex-worker". TeeVeeed (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

What were are talking about is your continual edit warring with other editors to change "prostitute" to "sex worker" at various places in the article [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] & [12]. Nobody has supported your changes, but other editors have opposed then. WP:BRD is clear that once a change has been reverted, the original text should remain unless agreement has been reached to change it. You have previously been warned at ANI for similar actions on other articles. I am going to revert one last time, should you change it again I will take the matter to ANI. --John B123 (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE/(Correction #3 concerning "original".) "Original" use was NOT "prostitute" it was correctly as per reference "sex worker" see page creation please [[13]]TeeVeeed (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

B123, you keep making this personal for some reason and you refuse to collaborate or even answer repeated questions about if you understand my point about if you even understand that Hill is a living person who is not referred to as a prostitute but a "self described sex-worker" in the source we use three times in article.You even tried above, to create a misunderstanding with misinformation that Hill was referred to as a prostitute in that source where she was not. I am left trying to figure out what your point is and looking in your summaries I see this edit [[14]] where you change "sex-worker" to "prostitute" for a reason of (paraphrase) keeping the term uniform in article. You have never raised that argument here. The source which we have both used, "mixes-up" the term in that article by the way. That is what I am asking for here because it makes sense. TeeVeeed (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else to state on this matter, but edit warring is not the way. In the case of this article, I think it's best to use "prostitute" for accuracy (since "sex worker" is broader) and consistency. Why unnecessarily change the text to "sex worker"? What need is there to have that vague term in this article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I admit I made a mistake if I blanketed the article with "sex work" v "prostitution" for "uniformity" which was an older agreement with some other editor's problem with it.I now see why that does not work here because of the BLP issue, and the Reliable source issue mainly. Also the entire Pump discussion editors say this and I agree with mostly all of that discussion. I actually learned and understood better after what Flyer22 Reborn said in summary to this edit between myself and Flyer22 Reborn "(Undid revision 931869748 by TeeVeeed (talk) How about we stick to what the WP:Reliable sources state and take it to WP:Village pump (policy)?" [[[15]] After all of this time those two things are exactly what I am trying to do and I still do not understand why my last edit is a problem for B123 despite changing my own editing choices actions based on better understanding? TeeVeeed (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

edit to add:

• Original use of reference, which is used in article three times, was correctly based-on the reference using "sex worker" on article creation page.
• WP:BLP concerns. See template at top of page
• Village Pump discussion roundly seems to agree that in this case "sex work" for the Denise Hill item, AND prostitution used elsewhere in article at this point should be applied explicitly due to sourcing. No policy regarding terms and no uniformity requiredTeeVeeed (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, BLP concerns are also something to keep in mind. But if reliable sources usually or always refer to the person as a prostitute and we do not see that the person objects to that term, it is better to use "prostitute" for accuracy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Denise Hill said what?

1. Denise Hill, identified another individual as the killer – a man named Eldred Raymond Burchell, who called himself the “River Man,” an apparent reference to Washington state’s “Green River Killer,”

• comment:This is the source being disputed because it uses term sex worker and not prostituteTeeVeeed (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC))

1. The foot-fetish theory reportedly led police, and 48 Hours, to an ex-con named Mark Hessee .... Denise Hill, an experienced prostitute, told police she had a close personal encounter with a foot freak at a Best Western the same week the bodies were discovered. "He was talking my shoes. He liked my shoes. But at this time I didn't know anything about the murders. But he was so obsessed with my shoes," she recalls. Denise says she even gave the john a pair of her shoes. "I got him the shoes. They were just like this color, same color," she says. But then the date went from strange to terrifying. "He was talking about some crazy stuff. He was talking about like really bizarre stuff like he's killed some people," she explains.
2. Denise Hill, 44, said that she met Mr. Oleson [Terry Oleson] around the time the victim’s bodies were discovered and that he told her he had “killed some people.” .... In a November interview, Ms. Hill said she called the police after spending a night with a man whose name she did not know in an Atlantic City motel in the neighborhood frequented by the women. She said that when she saw Mr. Oleson’s photograph in a newspaper several months later, she recognized him. And on Friday she found a ride from Atlantic City to see him in person. “I watched his nose twitch, his high cheekbones, his eyes, I remember those thin lips,” she said. “He’s the one I was with. He said he killed some people.”
3. Unnamed man: Denise Hill can't shake her memory of River Man. The acknowledged prostitute, who lives and works in this seaside gambling resort, was entertaining a client - a shoe fetishist - in November 2006 when the man blurted out a confession. He had killed people, he told Hill as the two partied on crack. He had killed women. Hill's john called himself "River Man," an apparent reference to a similarly named Seattle-area killer who strangled dozens of women - mostly prostitutes - in the 1980s and '90s and is now serving a life sentence.
4. Identity of the killer not mentioned: "She was very isolated," said Denise Hill, 43, who has worked as a prostitute for 12 years. "She seemed lonely."

I don't think what Denise Hill said is reliable enough to be included in the article.

Getting back to the original subject of this discussion, I would note all of the above references but one refer to Denise Hill as a prostitute not a sex worker. --John B123 (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

But the source that we have attached to the Hill statement only says "sex worker". Are those refs even used in our article? TeeVeeed (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

We only have that one statement about "river man" in the Investigation section of the article attributed to Hill. Taking that out of the article would solve the problem with the source we use there and the disagreement about what terms to use for her. TeeVeeed (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

With the sources presented above, John B123 has made a good WP:Due weight argument. Like I stated above, "Yes, BLP concerns are also something to keep in mind. But if reliable sources usually or always refer to the person as a prostitute and we do not see that the person objects to that term, it is better to use 'prostitute' for accuracy." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, how do we know that certain people are still alive? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I have been searching but so far did not find the info. on the "Eldred"/river man that we mention maybe the Press of AC has something, I do believe there was investigation about him and that they found disturbing things in his home after he died but I don't currently see it. Using "prostitute" with the source attached that solely says "sex-worker" would be WP:SYNTH. There is not a lot that is not connected to our article that speaks to this "river man" item that I can currently see.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

correction I was thinking of this guy Dennis Gaskill who died in jail awaiting extradition to NJ. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96_hrT5CZBATeeVeeed (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I would not object to taking Hill's statement out of the article. I have to agree with B123 that it may not be reliable even though we have that one source.TeeVeeed (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

In view of that I've taken the reference to Hill out of the article. --John B123 (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

_____

References

I met him

I know it was him.. he tried getting me in his black car with blacked out windows from the Irish Pub in 2007. He was really big, had a mustache and shorter hair. I’ve tried contacting Atlantic City police and FBI but no one has followed up with me. It’s obviously not a high priority 2600:6C60:5400:4BF:FDD0:D070:97DA:5DA9 (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)