Talk:Killing of Peter Connelly: Difference between revisions
Reverted 1 edit by 213.234.38.217; Again, talk pages are not a forum. (TW) |
→Name: rm trolling |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Revealing the name of the mother or the name of 'Baby P' is forbidden under the UK's (draconian) press censorship laws, but those laws do not apply to Wikipedia as it is not UK hosted. Should we post the real name of 'Baby P'? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.71.44.188|82.71.44.188]] ([[User talk:82.71.44.188|talk]]) 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revealing the name of the mother or the name of 'Baby P' is forbidden under the UK's (draconian) press censorship laws, but those laws do not apply to Wikipedia as it is not UK hosted. Should we post the real name of 'Baby P'? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.71.44.188|82.71.44.188]] ([[User talk:82.71.44.188|talk]]) 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
I say yes. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.212.16.30|88.212.16.30]] ([[User talk:88.212.16.30|talk]]) 07:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I say yes. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.212.16.30|88.212.16.30]] ([[User talk:88.212.16.30|talk]]) 07:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Would that help matters? Would that bring the baby back? [[User:Acmthompson|Acmthompson]] ([[User talk:Acmthompson|talk]]) 09:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
In theory I agree that it's pointless, but the baby and the parents have actually been named in the past on the BBC website, and the article is still up now. I don't really think it matters either way, but if the BBC are technically violating the court order, I don't see that Wikipedia have any loyalty to it. [[User:Sky83|Sky83]] ([[User talk:Sky83|talk]]) 09:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC) |
In theory I agree that it's pointless, but the baby and the parents have actually been named in the past on the BBC website, and the article is still up now. I don't really think it matters either way, but if the BBC are technically violating the court order, I don't see that Wikipedia have any loyalty to it. [[User:Sky83|Sky83]] ([[User talk:Sky83|talk]]) 09:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:49, 20 November 2008
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 November 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
People naming the the family concerned should be aware that the people they hurt the most are the siblings. Shame doing so are as bad as Haringey Council.
The case of Baby P (or Child A, as referred to by Haringey Council) has received extensive media coverage in the past few days (from BBC, the Guardian (links in article), and many other media outlets) and has sparked anger in the House of Commons, so seems notable enough of Wikipedia article. I'm not very confident at creating new articles, so I've made this very brief stub just to get the proverbial ball rolling - there's plenty of information out there, so hopefully others can help make an extensive article from it. Sorry it's so short at the moment! --saxsux (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Adding these sources to the article would help establish notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a feeling that this situation will continue to gain stories in the coming days and weeks, so it seems to be a perfectly valid article. If there is to be a debate over whether or not to delete it, I'll get my vote in early that it should definitely by kept. This will likely be on the level of Victoria Climbie. Sky83 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Dates
Whoops! I think I owe an apology to User:193.111.25.201 and User:Bnynms; I copied the infobox over from the Murder of Victoria Climbié and didn't change the dates properly. Guess I should've paid more attention to what I was doing... I'm adding the (now correct! :P) dates from this page into the article now. Sorry for wasting your time, guys. --saxsux (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Name
Revealing the name of the mother or the name of 'Baby P' is forbidden under the UK's (draconian) press censorship laws, but those laws do not apply to Wikipedia as it is not UK hosted. Should we post the real name of 'Baby P'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.44.188 (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC) I say yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.16.30 (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
In theory I agree that it's pointless, but the baby and the parents have actually been named in the past on the BBC website, and the article is still up now. I don't really think it matters either way, but if the BBC are technically violating the court order, I don't see that Wikipedia have any loyalty to it. Sky83 (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
This is more of a moral issue (something prehaps Wiki doesn't want or should get involved in). The UK courts protect the parents name for the simple reason of trying not to affect the other siblings more than they are already. Its not really draconian as using the parents name achieves nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw-wsh (talk • contribs) 10:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would urge against it. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy_of_names says:
Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.
Adding the name would achieve nothing, and would contribute very little to the article. --saxsux (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I've just reverted an edit that names the parents and lodger in the case, as the referenced source (the gutter e-tabloid http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1551 - "Uncovered: The Vile Mother of Baby P") should not be considered a reliable source. I think Wikipedia should only be a source of well-established facts, and not a portal to possibly defamatory sensationalist tabloid journalism. The majority of opinions expressed in this section so far agree with my thoughts that the individuals involved should not be named here, as does the guideline Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy_of_names - Oscroft (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- My reversion above has just been reverted without reference to this talk page, but it has been re-reverted - there might be an anonymous editor intent on a reversion war (I have issued a warning). If the majority opinion is to allow the people in question to be named here (with the risk of opening innocent family members to abuse) then I will happily acquiesce, but such a decision needs to be arrived at here, and not decided by anonymous editors. Does anyone have any more thoughts? Oscroft (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- They should not be named here, not only do well-established guidelines forbid this, but there are precedents too, such as Nevada-tan. All those who do know the names (most here probably do) should be vigilant for redirects. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the names belong in the article, but I'm not going to implement them. I am going to tidy up the grammar in the top of the article and work the "(name protected)" business into the actual sentences, though. --Roman à clef (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I tinkered with it more than I expected to, but it needed tinkering. In any case, I believe the article would benefit at least a small amount by having the names present. Can one of the wikilawyers out there confirm or deny whether they should or can be put in? --Roman à clef (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, there's a reference to the name of the lodger on the sky news site which is a tad more reliable. Also, a consideration: as it's mentioned in the talk pages, all a user would have to do to see the supposed names would be compare revisions - one of the joys of a Wiki, so may I suggest it's either put into the article or deleted from the history as the current position is that it's viewable but not displayed instantly. (My personal vote would be for deletion until the case is settled - less chance of backlash in case of issues and it doesn't materially add to the story.). The sky news article mentioned is here: [1] Basiclife (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with above. There does seem to be general consensus regarding the names on the web, but I'm not sure that they need to be hosted here 86.128.76.185 (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Naming the baby on Wikipedia is allowed by law as it isn't governed by British law. The name is publicly known and if we're going to post on wikipedia an article about a baby that was tortured to death and now is in a pauper's grave we could at least say the name that is known including on the Internet. There are even Facebook pages and group titles with his name in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.197.35 (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Category:British murdered children
I saw that User:EchetusXe moved the article from Category:British children to Category:British murdered children, but Baby P has, technically, not been murdered - the mother, boyfriend and Jason Owen were all found guilty of causing or allowing the death of Baby P, not of murdering him - so I'm not sure whether categorising the article as "British murdered children" is entirely appropriate. Does anyone object to moving it back into the original category? Thanks --saxsux (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- No objections, so I've moved the article back to Category:British children. --saxsux (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Name Change?
Following the Articles for Deletion debate, linked at the top, editors suggested numerous name changes to the article. I would like to initiate the name change debate. As I have spotted Victoria Klimbé has an article under her own name, keeping "Baby P" has to be an option, but I am aware others may wish to consider other names. Below is a list of suggestions from the top of my head, debate and suggestions are welcome!
- Keep as "Baby P"
- Move to "2008 Haringey Council Social Services scandal" or similar
- Move to "2008 UK Social Services court case" or similar
doktorb wordsdeeds 10:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
At this time, I think it would be inappropriate to designate the name of the article as anything other than what it already is. In the future, it might be possible to change it to something else, but at this point in time, the whole entire situation is known under the banner of Baby P. Once investigations have been completed and the outcomes of those are known, there could maybe be another debate to decide if the article should be renamed. I strongly oppose changing the title now though. Sky83 (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
See WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use the most easily recognized name, and be precise when necessary. I haven't come across one source that would call it the the scandal/court case/investigation of Haringey Council/UK Social Services. Keep it at Baby P but add either case or abuse case onto it. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would favour a move to a case name. Although the anonymity of 'Baby P' could be considered a case name, it is ambiguous, and it would still fall foul of WP:BLP1E. The controversy surrounding the case is real, and there are likely to be consequences on the publication of the inquiry. However, the infant itself is not notable and will never be, so the article should centre around the case. The simplest would be to rename it "The 'Baby P' case" or "The murder of 'Baby P'" in the same manner of Murder of Victoria Climbié. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that a different article name would be appropriate (as per WP:BLP1E). BBC News reports that neither the mother, her boyfriend or Jason Owen were found guilty of murder - their charges were of "causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable person" - so "Murder of Baby P" would be inappropriate. I think "Death of Baby P" or "Case of Baby P" would be preferable, but I'm somewhat unsure of the latter; the article doesn't just cover the case itself - there is substantial section regarding the aftermath (ie Government response, investigations, etc) - so maybe naming the article "Case" would not be entirely appropriate. On the other hand, the article regarding the death of Maria Colwell is just titled Maria Colwell, and doesn't seem to have met any criticism. --saxsux (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- As a passing editor just interested in looking at the article, I would say "Death of Baby P" would be the most appropriate. The article is not about "Baby P" but about what happend or was done to him and the subsequent events. The current title is therefore entirely misleading as well as being contrary to Wikipedia:Biography#People_notable_only_for_one_event and related guidelines. "Case" isn't enough because it was his death that sparked the media and government attention. This style of naming would also be consistent with "Murder of Victoria Climbié" which is a Good Article. The case seems so clear cut to me that, if no objections are made in the next few hours, I'll be bold and make the move myself. GDallimore (Talk) 14:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Clarification. I'm not saying it's clear cut that "Death of Baby P" is the right title, and that might need more discussion, but I think it is entirely clear that the current title is the wrong one as said by many people, including those in the AfD discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 14:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
editorial control
- This query was removed[2] because it also contained information that was covered by a UK court order. Now that the details have been remove, the query is still worth answering.John Vandenberg (chat) 20:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this page governed by British Law or fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.207.31 (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- This page, like all others, is governed by Wikipedia policies, however more importantly, editorial decisions by Wikipedia editors shape the article. We have policies on living people, and verifiability, and many others.
- "Fact" is always an imperative on Wikipedia, however not all facts are needed in order to describe the events in an educational format. The names of the people are being removed from this article in order to protect the living.
- British people are governed by British Law, and it is quite possible that British editors are found to be in contempt of court if they participated in the development of this article if it contravenes the British court order.
- For this reason, Wikipedia editors like to respect the laws of all related country where possible; if we do not do that, editors from that country can no longer participate in the article, or do so at undesirable risks to themselves.
- John Vandenberg (chat) 20:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, John, for you clear and succint explanation. GDallimore (Talk) 10:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
misattributed diff due to oversight
This diff is attributed to Chris Neville-Smith, however it should be attributed to Ecoleetage. This is an unfortunate effect of how oversight works. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)