Talk:Death of Baby P/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Notability[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)
I too urge that this article name both the victim and the killers. Several people have stated that the names wouldn't add anything to the article, but that's a perverse thing to say without any justification: of course it adds something, it adds the names of the victims and the killers, which most media sources have been prevented from publishing by a British court that apparently has no jurisdiction over what is written here. It would be unwikipedian to speculate on the reasons for the court order and then to act to suppress information based on those speculations; in my view freedom of information on the internet trumps such concerns in any case even if they were correct, but given all we have at the moment is speculation, that's not good enough. After all, had their been no court order the article obviously would not exclude the names for any reason, and as far as I'm concerned the fact that a court order has been passed carries no moral weight here. Lordrosemount (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Suppressing is a strong word and entirely innapropriate. It merely serves to inflame emotion around free speech rather than aiding the debate in any way. No information is being supressed by Wikipedia since nobody is going out and trying to prevent people from obtaining this information if they want. It is merely not being repeated here since it serves no useful purpose in an encyclopedic article and only serves to gratify certain people's morbid curiosity into the whole affair. "speculation" is mentioned, but there is absolutely no speculation whatsoever that there has been an order preventing the identification of those convicted in the Baby P case and that order has been made by a respected body - a UK court. And if you want to read more about how seriously this is being taken, have a look here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7740687.stm GDallimore (Talk) 09:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I object very strongly to your editing my post, without even mentioning that you'd done it or providing any justification for doing so. The remark you deleted was a direct response to the concern raised above that the source previously provided for the name was not valid for citation, by way of an attempt to help reach consensus; I appreciate that this was not your argument and you may not agree with its relevance, but my post was not a response to you. I therefore have re-inserted the comment. Secondly, the notion that the only motivation a person might have for wishing to know or to seek to refer to the real names of these individuals is to "gratify morbid curiousity" is blatantly speculative and also prejudiced; personally the reason I've taken to using the names is that I reckon the designation "Baby P" is frankly ridiculous, particularly of a chald of one and a half years old, and because I object to the notion that we ought to tiptoe around these things or, indeed, protect the identities of convicted killers. These, I know, are my opinions, but notice I'm not using them as arguments in favour of naming, but just to refute your (equally POV) suggestion that there's only one possible motive for wanting the names used. Thirdly, I stand by my use of the word "suppression", and reject your limited redefinition as not what I had intended. Finally, I had already read that BBC article at the time I posted - that was what promoted me to check Wikipedia to see what was going on here, as a matter of fact - and again reject its relevance on the grounds that that article was referring specifically to UK-based web sites, and since Wikipedia is not based in the UK it was proposed above that this site is therefore not subject to the order. We haven't yet had clarification over this, but as far as I'm concerned, it's the only real issue.Lordrosemount (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The mother, the partner and his brother were named last November (2007) when they were sent for trial at the Old Bailey. The names are in the local and national press of the time and pre-date any gagging order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.61.148 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That the names were revealed last November has no bearing on this matter. A court order forbidding them from being named superceded the November 2007 publication. The reason for not naming them has nothing to do with the siblings. It has to do with contempt of court. The case is an "active" case until those convicted are sentenced. It is still contempt whether or not Wikipedia is subject to British law. As the person who originally posted their names on wikipedia appears to live in the Norfolk, UK area they could be open for to prosecution. Let's get this into our heads, folks, Wikipedia is not above the law. 86.13.123.171 (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC) A lawyer writes
Ultimately, no discussion here is going can overrule the more general guideline posted here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy_of_names which pretty clearly states that the names should not be added without a good reason why adding them would help improve understanding of the topic. The onus is on the person wishing to add the names, not those wishing to remove them. GDallimore (Talk) 10:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Leaving aside the killers for a moment, it does seem perverse to me to invoke a policy entitled "Biographies of living persons" to defend the removal of the name of a tragically dead child. Also, based on your characterisation of the policy and considering you've just dismissed the relevance of the court order yourself, can I ask why this case is any different to any other in which living people are named? Myra Hindley is notable pretty much exclusively in the context of the murders she committed, and the details of her crimes and what happened to her afterwards could all be explained perfectly well without the inclusion of her name; do you propose we should therefore delete it? Lordrosemount (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not above the law of the state of Florida where I understand its servers are based. It is not subject to the law of England any more than it is the People's Republic of China. Wikipedia is not censored, and prior restraint should only be invoked for good cause - such as that there is another trial still going on where the jurors might be prejudiced by knowing the (now-widely-published on the net) names of the perps in a related case. If this is the case, it should be argued here as overriding the non-censorship policy of WP. At one time the face of Baby P was pixellated by court order, but British newspapers successfully argued that this was disrespectful and unnecessary. The same argument, I suggest, applies to censoring the full forename of "Baby P".--Straw Cat (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
If you actually read WP:CENSOR you'll see that your statement that it is to do with offensive and objectionable material and is therefore not relevant here. It also makes clear that it is over-ridden by other policies even if it were. Arguments on censorship have been raised and dispensed with already so there is no point discussing them further. GDallimore (Talk) 12:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
They have not been "dispensed with". They are relevant and crucial. The onus is on those who wish to censor, to justify their case. In this case, as in Victoria Climbie, if you study the case you will find that the authorities, who have a problem with accountability, have tried to withhold information, even from the proper authorities (see Lord Laming's report on Climbie, where Laming had to threaten the Chief Exective of Haringey with arrest if he did not stop witholidng vital documents). Offensive as ppublication of the emerging facts may be to some Haringey employees and councillors, the only hope for vulnerable children in Haringey is that lessons are learnt; this can only happen if the truth comes out, and Wikipedia has a part to play in this.--Straw Cat (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


The reason that they have not been named is because they are to be charged with abusing/torturing one of Baby P siblings. It is asumed Jason Owen will not be brought to trial as his name is in the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.61.148 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a difficult one to decide. On the one hand, there is no doubt as to the identities of the Mother and Boyfriend. Their names can easily be found by anybody who cares to do even the most cursory search on the net (often from reputable news sources published before the gagging order), and it takes very little more to find the name of Baby P himself, or the names of his Sisters and Father. On the other hand, whilst this information can be obtained by anybody who wants it, it is a little different putting it into a Wikipedia article where it will be found by those who haven't made a conscious decision to seek the name out.
On balance, not naming seems appropriate.
The one caveat that I would place on this is that the Child concerned had a name, and that given that his identity is hardly an inpenetrable secret, it might be appropriate to relax our stance sufficient to allow that he can at least be called by his own first forename.Mayalld (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you hold tight till the sentencing has taken place. The censorship restrictions are normally lifted once the case has fully concluded. Jamie (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It is suggested that the reason for the gag is to prevent prejudicing a future trial in relation to other offences against one of P's older sisters. If such is the reason, then clearly the gag is appropriate (and clearly we cannot be told the exact reason, because that in itself may be prejudicial).
I would maintain, however, that revealing only the Child's first forename is not goind to be prejudicial. I'm in the UK though, so I would be comitting an offence if I put it in. Mayalld (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
A simple google search of the BBC's web pages reveals the names which were published when the two were first charged. Isn't the British legal system being naive in believing that it is possible to suppress information once it has been published?Aa77zz (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we get the history wiped to stop the names being seen ? The more the names are in the public domain the more likely it would be that any future trials could be claimed to be unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw-wsh (talkcontribs) 09:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

01/05/09 15:45 BST: The name of Baby P can now be revealed as reporting restrictions lifted at the end of a related criminal trial. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8029499.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.30.1 (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:British murdered children[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

I can see the reason but I still don't agree. I am a British person but not in the UK. Part of my reason for coming to look at this on a site protected by the first amendment of the US constitution was my expectation that the British court order would not apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.218.132 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

misattributed diff due to oversight[edit]

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)

Daily Mail[edit]

What exactly is wrong with including links from the Mail? If it's a question of balance, then you might as well get rid of all those Guardian and BBC links as well... MultipleTom (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did next: moved links that could be used as sources into the relevant places in the article and deleted the rest per WP:ELNO no. 1. I just started on the Daily Mail since that was the most recently added link and seemed to have the least to contribute to the article as a whole. GDallimore (Talk) 17:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
What a daft question! The Daily Mail is not a reliable newspaper. It's a fascist and populist journal and encyclopaedic resources shouldn't use Daily Mail articles as their source.--217.202.76.53 (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
POV pushing on the status of the newspaper! Whilst we can argue in respect of many newspapers that they inject bias in to articles, by adding opinion, there is no suggestion that The Daily Mail is unreliable on issues of fact. Mayalld (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sharon Shoesmith removal from her job[edit]

I have added a short paragraph about the events of 01/12/2008, briefly telling of Shoesmith's sacking, and the resignation of the two council members, but if anyone would like to rewrite it with some more details, feel free. Sky83 (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do make sure to read the article before adding content that is already in there. GDallimore (Talk) 15:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
In that case, and there was no need to be condescending, that entire section needs to be rewritten, as an important development like this should not be shoved halfway up the article. It was easy to miss it. As the case continues to gather stories (as we know it will considering there are other reports to come out, as well as the sentencing of the three guilty parties), there needs to be some kind of chronological order to the article. Best wishes to you. Sky83 (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I entirely disagree: chonology is the last way we want to organise this article. There are going to be multiple reports coming out, each of which will have different effects and repercussions - and it is these effects and repercussions that will be of prime importance to this article. Arranging these in time will mean that any connection between cause and effect would be lost. What I think is needed, as I tried to do, was to make sure that the article gathers information by topic. Eventually, the Ed Balls report could probably have an article section to itself, as might each of the other inquiries that are made. I think the subsequent edits made by Mw-wsh have helped to improve the article further by separating out the details of yet another inquiry. GDallimore (Talk) 16:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree it looks better now, it was messy before and it now has some recognisable structure to it. However, owing to the nature of the case and the amount of parties involved, I still maintain that there should be some organisation in a chronological sense. This could, perhaps, be achieved via a seperate timeline somewhere in the article, just to focus the huge amounts of information that will still be rolling in for some time to come. Unless something like this is done, I can see the article ending up as one big mess of a list, not exactly user friendly. Given the impact of what has happened today alone, this report almost certainly requires a section in its own right, you're correct on that. Sky83 (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Although it comes to the same thing as sacking, technically she was removed from her post by direct action of the Sec of State, which is highly unusual as Haringey is her employer, not the Dept of Children and Schools. The CE of Haringey and Ed Balls stated at their press conferences that she is technically suspended on full pay.Straw Cat (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that really matters on the talk page of wikipedia though. When there are other websites that are naming the child and the parents, and saying all sorts of things about others involved, I don't think we need to worry about my calling it a sacking here. It's fine that you changed it though, I just don't see it being a big issue. Sky83 (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


Where is this page going to go[edit]

FYI... Just somethings to think about - This story is going to create a few more threads. Further court cases. Further reviews - eg a new Serious Case Review (initially done by Sharon Shoesmiths consultants) and will be done and then perhaps a review of the Ofsted review (done in 2007 by a friend of Sharon Shoesmith's at Ofsted).

Rename the title?[edit]

I don't think the current title is a conventional name for the incident. It seems like a title of a detective or tragic novel. Does people commonly call murder cases "XX incident", "XX case" or "Murder of XX", so I think "Baby P incident" would be a better title than the current one.--Caspian blue 18:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not entirely confident with the current title, I don't think any of your suggestions are appropriate. "murder" is wrong in law. "incident" or "case" is too imprecise.
The guideline to follow would be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) and that says that the title should have a "Where" and a "What" as precisely as possible. Note that words like "case", "event" and "incident" seem to be avoided in that guideline. With the current title, we have the "what" very clearly. We lack a "where", but the repercussions could be national in terms of UK social care so it's difficult to give it a locale - and that's key thing with this article: it only exists because of the serious repercussions of the death. Otherwise, and sorry to be blunt, it's just another sad death in a long line of such sad deaths and not worth noting in an encyclopedia but would be moved to wikinews. The repercussions have not yet played out, so, at present, I don't think we know what the best title will be. It might end up something like "UK child protection law of 2009" if there is a major change in UK law as a direct result of the death, for example. Having said all that, I do think the title we have is the best option for now. GDallimore (Talk) 22:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed answer. However, guidelines are guidelines and not every title of articles have "where" and "what". For example, the title of 911 attacks has only "when" and "what" because that is commonly used to call the incident. I would not imagine that this case is called "Death of Baby P" in media. As a side talk, since you believe that the article would've been moved to Wikinews, I'm curious as to why you're editing here.--Caspian blue 17:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I got interested in this article because I didn't want it to become a forum for people to vent their emotions. To be honest, it's not the sort of thing I go in for and I'll be happier when the worst has blown over and I can take it off my watchlist. As for the title: like I say, I don't know what the best title would be. I didn't like any of your first round of suggestions, but I didn't discard them out of hand and hope I gave you convincing reasons for not using them. If you have more ideas, please suggest them. Maybe we can find something better.
Having said that, I just went to the BBC website and this article. Note that the list of related items on the right has the headline "the death of baby p", which reassures me that the current title is not unreasonable. GDallimore (Talk) 18:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No name notice[edit]

I would suggest that if a notice is necessary on this article concerning the addition of names, it look more like this. ./zro (⠠⠵) 22:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

it looks like User:Prodego took care of it more elegantly, so ya. The language I was concerned about has been removed. ./zro (⠠⠵) 22:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
It is important not to give undue wait to the consensus not to include the names. However, Mayalld reverted my change. I restored it, based on your feedback, though I suppose if needed we could remove the warning, until its final wording is fleshed out. Prodego talk 22:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Erm, Point of Order!
I didn't revert you. I added an expanded version of the warning, which;
  1. Explained just why adding the names is a problem (future court case).
  2. Added the (factual) information that any UK based editor IS bound by the court order, and would be in contempt if they added the names.
  3. Added the (factual) information that there are editors who are prepared to police the current consensus, by means of oversight, and seeking blocks.
  4. Directed people to the talk page to discuss the issue.
Mayalld (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Erm, further point of order. In the context where it was used, the work "Prejudice" has a specific legal meaning. It conveys the concept that should the names of the mother and the boyfriend become widely known, they will when charged with abusing P's older sisters be able to argue that due to their notoriety, any jury will pre-judge them, and that they cannot get a fair trial.
Make no mistake about it, naming these two will almost certainly lead to the case against them for other offences being thrown out. Mayalld (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
IMO, Point 2 breaks the WP:NDA guideline, point 1 is what the talk page is for and, and point 3 is not entirely true, nothing but ordinary WP:CON policy applies (and oversighting here likely is and was a violation of the oversight policy). Point 4 is completely valid, pointing to the talk page more prominently is never a bad idea. That said, I am going to leave this discussion to you all now. Let me know if you need anything. Prodego talk 22:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
People don't always read talk pages, and given the sensitive nature of this an edit warning that gives reasons, so as to discourage going against consensus, is vital. Mayalld (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I dont think "People don't always read talk pages" is strong enough argument for ignoring precedent/policy. Also, this does seem to contradict WP:NDA. I think the point about gaining consensus should be noted as it is important. The rest seem inappropriate to me, especialy as the primary point. ./zro (⠠⠵) 22:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The "notice" also seems to be in conflict with WP:DNGLA.
It's surprising, in view of the way fact tags are smacked on every un referenced sentence in the article, that no link to the actual court order has been provided. I've no doubt an order exists but we need to see the actual wording.
Advice from someone actually legally qualified might be helpful on the talk page, and also with links to sources. Where is the link to authority for the statement that English editors are in contempt for writing on content sources outside the jurisdiction of English law? The non-legally-qualified author of the advice given above who talks about "British law" obviously is unaware that there is no such thing (only English, and very different Scottish, law).
No source is given for the statement that there is an upcoming case, although it happens that I know from a lawyer that this is true. Regardless of the extent of the court order's jurisdiction, it is up to WP editors (as in other recent cases) to balance harm done by publication against harm done to the principle of WP not being censored. Has publication on other websites now superseded the order, (so that the jurors could not be said to be prejudiced solely by its existence here) or would it still do harm (to the future welfare of P's siblings) to publish the names here?--Straw Cat (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps if you hadn't made your snide comment about fact tags, I might have given you the time of day. Maybe you should read the source provided in the article, end of first para. As for the rest, if a single person can give a single good reason why publishing the names of those involved would benefit Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, I'll take this article off my watchlist and let it go in whatever direction the rest of the editors choose. As it stands, I will remove any addition of the names. GDallimore (Talk) 10:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
GDallimore is absolutely right - there is no reason for Wikipedia to publish the names of those involved. With regard predjucing trials; at present, the names of those involved may be in the public domain but it is not in the public consciousness. The more the names are know the more harm that may be done to future trial. (Obviously some people will also have sympathy with the siblings and therefore want to keep the names as private as we can). --Mw-wsh (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Two interesting issues are raised above;
  1. We don't cite the actual order - Well why would we? We have ample reliable sources that say there is a ban on revealing the names.
  2. We don't have any sources for WHY the order exists - Indeed not, for the simple reason that such orders are invariably reported as "cannot be named for legal reasons". As such, it isn't something that can go into the article. We could possibly make the notice more wordy by saying something like "A court order bans the naming of the mother or her boyfriend in the UK. Such orders are typically issued where the person convicted is under the age of 18, or where media interest in the present case may prejudice a future case." We could probably source that, and leave people to work out that Mother and Boyfriend aren't under 18.
I have little doubt that the deferral of sentence to Spring is to allow for sentencing to take place after this second trial, and that subsequent to this trial, the names of Mother and Boyfriend will be made public. I rather suspect that the siblings will be getting new names in any case. Mayalld (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of names?[edit]

There seems to be a lot of controversy about whether or not to include the names of both Baby P and his parents. But the only discussion seemed to be on the Admin's Noticeboard, and content choices like that (as the court order is inapplicable to us) should be discussed on the talk page. I'll just open up this section for discussion, and leave it to you all. On that note: barring any changes, the current consensus seems to be not to include the names. Prodego talk 22:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The court order most certainly does apply to any editor in the UK, and the notice really ought to explain the reason why the order is in place. Mayalld (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I find it objectionable that Wikipedia is engaging in censorship at the behest of a government without legal authority over it. The article is significantly weakened for even a casual reader by the failure to name the dead child, the mother, and her boyfriend. Any temporary justification based on a desire to avoid prejudice to ongoing legal proceedings ended when the jury returned its verdict, even if sentencing is not yet complete. BLP policy does not apply here: the subjects left unnamed are central to the facts of the case, and this omission does result in a significant loss of context. People have names, and to remove those names is to condemn the victim to oblivion and shield the guilty. Ray (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Response Yes, the article is weakened, and it is regrettable that the article isn't more explicit about WHY the injunction is in place. Unfortunately, whilst we know what the reason is, there isn't sufficient reliable sources to place the info in the article. You suggest that an injunction to prevent prejudice had no justification once the verdict was returned. That much is true, but it is only true once the jury has returned verdicts on ALL the cases before it.
The facts of the matter are fairly simple. The mother and boyfriend are charged with further offences, in respect of Baby P's older sisters. Those offences have not yet come to trial. If their names, or the surname of Baby P, became common knowledge, there is a grave risk that it would become impossible to conduct a fair trial for these offences. At the next trial, if the defence barrister can say to the judge; "all the jurors know that my client is the mother of Baby P", the case would be dismissed.
I suggest that you sit tight. Once the further case is concluded, the order will be lifted, and the names will be able to be added. Mayalld (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
No, the article is not weakened and this is not censorship. If there were any possible improvement to the information content of the article by including names, then it would be censorhsip, but these people are nobodies and knowing their names gives no useful information whatsoever. What possible difference could it make to understanding the article between saying "a man killed a child" and "a man named John Smith killed a child named Adam Jones" if you have no idea who John Smith or Adam Jones are? Consequently, there is no good reason whatsoever to include the names, so we shouldn't. GDallimore (Talk) 10:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
GDallimore, what possible "information content" could there be in having any names on Wikipedia? Perhaps we should remove the fact that Jews were the target of the Holocaust and put in "an ethnic group." For that matter, why should we call it the "Holocaust?" That word has no information value either; we should call it by a suitable euphemism, such as "unfortunate event." Let's strip out all the names. The essence of censorship is to remove information because it is deemed "irrelevant" and its probable impact distasteful by those exercising that power, despite disagreement by others who recognize the value of names and facts, expressed in a manner that brings home, rather than disguises, inconvenient truths. Ray (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, did we arrive at Godwin's Law so soon? The names have no real information content, because the facts of the case are the same, regardless of the names of the individuals. They do have a value, in terms of readability, because we are used to seeing names in articles discussing people, and the absence of names makes it more difficult to write prose that reads easily. The point I made remains valid. Two of the people convicted of offences in connection to this case are awaiting trial on charges related to the abuse of Baby P's older sisters. If the names of those individuals were to become widely known, it would most certainly prejudice a jury sitting on those cases (be honest, if you were a juror, and you knew that the two people up in front of you were the two people from this case, wouldn't you be pre-disposed to think them guilty?). So, if the names become more widely known, it is certain that the abuse case would be thrown out.
You complain that hiding the names shields the guilty. Disclosing them will ensure that they never have to face charges for the other offences that they are charged with. Mayalld (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh. Mayalld, I thought it best to go there early, to make my point about censorship. I was responding specifically to Gdallimore's point about there being no "information content" to the names, which I consider quite false -- see my argument above. There are also more case-specific ones which I think add valuable context to the situation, which I will refrain from discussing since the names of the two perpetrators are currently hidden. I think your point about keeping the names hidden until the trials are concluded is a good one, but I think it may also be an irrelevant one. It took about 1 minute of searching with Google to find these names, and so the cat is very clearly out of the bag. Ray (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Except your comparison with the Holocaust proves my point, not yours. The name "The Holocaust" is a useful label because it provides context. If I say "x died in the Holocaust", I can go look up the Holocaust and obtain context for that person's death. If I say "x was killed by y" where y is an event of no consequence except in connection with x, there is no point worrying about what y is because it only has relevance in the context of x. Therefore, I can use the label "y" or "a man" or "John Smith" or "the unfortunate frying pan accident of 13 Tumbledown Crescent" interchangeably with no loss of information. If there is a reason why the knowing the names of these people would provide useful context in connection with anything else mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia, do let me know. GDallimore (Talk) 15:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
They would be of use, only because humans find it useful to have labels for things, and find it easier to read things that have labels that accord to certain norms. Whilst it is easy enough for somebody who wants to find out the names of the people involved, the current situation is that this information will only be found by those actively seeking it. The article in Wikipedia is more widely read, and it makes sense for us to wait, but to insert the names when the order is lifted. Mayalld (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

reply to GDallimore, w/o the indentation because it was getting excessive:

  1. There is the question of simple human decency. The dead deserve to be honored with their names, and to remove their names from them is to dehumanize them. It changes the effect of the article quite dramatically in a manner that devalues human life and reduces a human child to a clinical designation.
  2. There is the question of providing useful background, even if it's in politically incorrect ways. The names of people provide a good starting point for researchers in determining details of their background, such as level of welfare dependency, childhood experiences, cultural/ethnic origin, previous relationships, etc., that may inform any public discussion on the subject. By hiding their names, we straitjacket the public discussion into a narrower band of possible arguments. We are predetermining the "relevance" of information about the perpetrators w/o letting the public see it. In other words, the people only need to see what's good for them, eh?
  3. By hiding their names, we mask the relationships between the perpetrators, which are also useful to the public in determining details of the case currently unmentioned (anybody wondering what I mean is encouraged to Google for the names of the 2 remaining perpetrators, or to email me. I'm in the US, so I have no problem distributing the names of the perpetrators. I do not do so here out of respect for Wikipedia's internal processes).
  4. By deviating from standard practice, we make a mockery out of Wikipedia's claim that we do not engage in censorship, which is precisely what this is - removal of timely, accurate, politically disfavored information.

Any of these alone would be a good reason to release this information as soon as we feel the risk to justice is mitigated, if not before. Ray (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. I accept your first point. The process of justice requires that this decency must be witheld for a time in order to ensure that the guilty are brought to account. This is a necessary evil.
  2. I don't accept the second point. The names do nothing to help with background. It is a matter of public record that Baby P was of a white Irish ethnic background, that he was a legitimate child, but that his parents were now separated. The names aren't going to give you anything that isn't widely known.
  3. I do know what you are alluding to, and yes, it adds a dimension to the story. Again, once the court order is lifted, this can be added.
  4. It is a difficult situation. Given that the reason for the censorship is to ensure that two people who may have committed other crimes don't get off on a technicality, I believe it is a sensible course to take.
At the present time, there is a real danger that the judicial process will be affected, so we should exercise self-restraint. Mayalld (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll hold my peace for now. But there is a very real danger that the argument against disclosure is moot, since anybody can find the names by a minute or so of googling. Thus, any prejudice to the judicial process may already be done, and then the only effects of continuing to censor Wikipedia would be negative ones. Ray (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Daily Mail expose[edit]

Since we cannot quote large chunks of the Daily Mail's report, I instead created this summary of the points they raise: "The newspaper said that the review revealed that meetings and decisions concerning Baby P's welfare were delayed or badly handled and that recommendations were overlooked or ignored." I think this covers everything, but please suggest improvements. GDallimore (Talk) 16:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Even though a quotation from a 1000-word article is arguably authorized under fair use, in fact the paper's own summary was further paraphrased by me and so is not a "chunk". By all means improve the precis, or (if you want to be helpful) add to it, but please do not simply remove summarized information from a large article in a reputable national newspaper which puts many important facts about this case into the public domain.--Straw Cat (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This paraphrase both literally duplicates and too closely summarizes a copyrighted source. Wikipedia:C#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others and Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can_I_add_something_to_Wikipedia_that_I_got_from_somewhere_else.3F give information about how much revision is necessary. Wikipedia:NFC#Text gives guidance on how to handle text copied verbatim from other sources; we are both limited in how much text we can use and required to note duplication precisely. I have blanked this section pending the production of a clean version that does not infringe on that source and listed at WP:CP. For guidance on how best to rephrase, the Wikipedia essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing may be helpful—in itself or in the links it provides. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, I think I read in one of the links you helpfully provided that the usual proceddure is that you try to resolve the matter with the contributor - correct me if I'm wrong. Now, if the intention is to correct the copyright infringement (and not to supress the facts in the article), I'm sure this can be quite easily done (by myself and others) without making a Federal case out of it. Would you like to give us some guidance? Such as, suggesting a length of fair use quotation, with attribution, acceptable in this case?--Straw Cat (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl. StrawCat, I think that's a pretty firm signal that your proposed version of the article is not appropriate. Even if there wasn't a copyright issue, I do not think it is in the best interests of the article to include all of that information. I think my summary above covers the important points, although we could also add something about poor communication. I'll add that now to the internal inquiries section which discusses this SCR. I cannot see anything else that is mentioned in the Daily Mail's list of items that isn't covered by this summary so the amount of information is the same. If you think there is something in particular that needs mentioning, please suggest it. GDallimore (Talk) 23:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
StrawCat, please could you comment here what you are intending to do to resolve the copyright situation. Thank you. If you agree that we can remove the material, then the issue will be resolved. If you still wish to keep the material despite two people being of the opinion that it's a copyright infringement, and a third editor helping work towards improving the summary of the material, then I don't know quite what to do. GDallimore (Talk) 11:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Re-reading the various discussions on this article, I see that I am not alone in identifying an important issue in this case as freedom of information, and the attempted suppression of it by interested parties. So I do not think you and I will agree on what is in "the best interests" of the article. The copyright issue can easily be resolved by a combination of fair use quotation, and a proper summary of the new facts. Two of these in the article that you did not include in yours being (1) the discrepancy between the council's executive summary and the full SCR (as others have identified), and (2) the Sharon Shoesmith claim for unfair dismissal on sexual discrimination grounds because she was replaced by two men - though I would not myself insist on including the latter. meanwhile, the big scary templates only serve to direct people's attention to the original article containing the facts the council didn't want the public to know ... --Straw Cat (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Strawcat, there is nothing wrong about including details from the paper, but despite your desire (and mine) to shame Haringey council, that is not Wikipedia's purpose. We should include the salient points of the article which I think it now does and include a link to the aricle for others to follow. Also note that these are allegations from the Mail and ordinarily I'd dismiss it as usual drivel from that paper. However as I know how they obtained the leaked information I do have some idea on the truth of some of their comments.--Mw-wsh (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

←(edit conflict: several intervening edits as I crafted this which I have not read.) Reply to Straw Cat: I'm placing my answer here, for clarity. The procedure for handling copyright problems is set out at WP:CP. While it may feel like a federal case, blocking publication of an infringement is standard. It's essential to prevent that material being more widely disseminated by Wikipedia's many mirrors as the matter is resolved.

In order to resolve copyright concerns here, the important thing to do is to succinctly paraphrase with different text, using brief quotations only as necessary if the material cannot be satisfactorily rewritten in your own words. (I have no opinion on the appropriateness of the inclusion of the material; this response refers only to the copyright concern.) One might say, for instance, "The Mail on Sunday on March 15, 2009 indicated that details regarding a "secret" report had come into its possession which disclosed a number of specific instances of mishandling by officials, including missed and dangerously delayed meetings, miscommunication among officials, and a failure to follow through with decisions related to the child's safety.[1]. The Mail on Sunday noted among other issues that officials had not followed through with obtaining an "interim care order" that would have removed the child from his home when they had agreed that legal grounds had existed for doing so six months before he died; key officials also failed to attend a July 25, 2007 meeting intended to decide if it would be necessary to remove the child from the mother's home at that time.[1] (I have not read the full article and so do not know if this is redundant to details the article already contains.) I've selected two details; contributors here may prefer other examples. Insofar as possible, these should be completely rewritten.

Naturally, there are many ways to rewrite material; I don't by any means put this out as the only one. And again, I have no opinion on the appropriateness of such text to the article, as my presence here relates only to the question of copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I propose, if it's OK, to put that wording in the article.--Straw Cat (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for continuing to take the time on this MRG. StrawCat, glad you've finally seen some sense, but I would like you to scratch out your entirely bad-faith allegations of censorship and suppression. In particular, you accuse me of suppressing facts that you yourself did not attempt to introduce into the article. I summarised the material you wanted to add so do not turn around and accuse me of omitting things in my summary when you did not include them in the first place. Please also take the time to actually read the article (or you're just wasting everyone's time) because 20 minutes before you wrote your comment I added in all the things you say I am suppressing. GDallimore (Talk) 12:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Rubbish, it's the council, and Shoesmith, that have indulged in attempted suppression of the facts and injunctions, as the article notes. I do note that there was a lengthy debate between you and Ray about what Ray called censorship, earlier on this page; also your statement in December that I got interested in this article because I didn't want it to become a forum for people to vent their emotions. To be honest, it's not the sort of thing I go in for and I'll be happier when the worst has blown over and I can take it off my watchlist. Has the worst blown over yet? You labelled the Mail article with the rather POV description expose, usually reserved for articles about celebs' infidelities rather than the torture and murder of a little boy. Your focus seems to be on policing the article for criticism of the authorities, and removing what you consider sensationalist rather than re-wording or adding information. Unfortunately, much of the information that has emerged has only come through newspapers other than the Guardian.--Straw Cat (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we all calm down. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopia and unemotional and fact based. No one is objecting to adding information and references to the Mail article and thats what we should be doing. No one here has read the underlying SCR details so we don't know how accuratly they've quoted it. A summary of the allegations should be enough for anyone. Once the full document is published and the subsequent event unfurl, we'll be able to write with better vision. --Mw-wsh (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

←It's obvious that this is a heated issue. I can see why; it's an extremely disturbing story. Please remember, all, the whole WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and WP:DR thing. :) I take it copyright concerns are finished, so unless I hear otherwise I'll go mark this one resolved and keep on about my business at WP:CP. Good luck with the evolution of this article. Poor Baby P. Horrible world, sometimes. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the summary is not enough. The article is now highly POV due to the Mail's sensationalist "evil government don't want you to know" outlook and blatant, frankly disgusting attempt to sell a few newspapers off the back of this child's death. So, no, the worst clearly hasn't blown over but, as you noticed while proving you can read, SC, I don't give a fig about this topic and will leave you to turn this into a tabloid hack job if you want. I'm off. GDallimore (Talk) 14:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Still very heated, evidently. :/ This is far out of my neighborhood. I'm completely unfamiliar with the Mail, which could be either the equivalent of our New York Post or New York Times for all I know. But just a thought: have you (collectively) considered WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
GDallimore, hope you're not off. I've found your amendments to be well founded. Whilst the Mail is an awful and sensational paper, it has been leaked information that's not yet available elsewhere and if relevant to the SCR. I also agree the paragraph isn't as good as it could be. --Mw-wsh (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, as you can see I was happy to follow your guidance on copyright, and grateful for your advice. As to the Mail, it's a very powerful and popular newspaper with a fairly right-wing, pro-Conservative Party agenda. The problem is, is that the whole case is muddied by party politics because it is inevitably so intricately bound up with a local council which happens to have been for many years Labour-Party-controlled. In my view, the party politics aspect is far less relevant, if at all, than the fact that the same political party has been in control of Haringey for donkey's years. It and its officers have demonstrably resorted to injunctions and other tactics to hide its incompetence. And with politics comes tribalism, as you can see from the fact that all the councillors of the ruling party voted en masse not to sack those in charge, when individually they might have acted very differently. Clearly there are apologists elsewhere inspired by equally misguided loyalty, ready to label any criticism of the council's self-serving strategy of secrecy sensationalist - though I would hardly believe anyone here has been so motivated and I am not going to descend to crude personal abuse. In the history of journalism there have been writers, including Dickens, who have used undeniable sensationalism to address terrible social evils (yes, GD, I can read)... It was a Labour Government minister that intervened and got rid of the Haringey officers and councillors that had refused to resign. Absurdly, the Mail article lumped this minister in with the Haringey cover-up.
So yes, our concern here should be to distill the facts from the politically-biased sources. Possibly some would never use the Mail or the Sun as sources on principle, but this would be like refusing to use Wikipedia on the grounds that its co-founder was influenced by the philosophy of Ayn Rand. --Straw Cat (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Names again[edit]

As predicted when the whole furore over the names was raging months ago, the (as yet not officially named) boyfriend has just been convicted of the rape of a 2-year old girl, and the mother has been acquitted of cruelty to the same child. Baby P has now been officially named as "Peter" Mayalld (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So what's the reason now for not giving their names?Sumbuddi (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Can we now conclude that there is no longer sufficiently likelihood of prejudice to ongoing proceedings and lift the ban on posting names? If so, I see no reason to wait for the official release by the government. RayTalk 16:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The ban is to also protect the children as much as possible. Those not caring about the children will print the names - those who care won't print the names.--Mw-wsh (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the harm to the perpetrators created by public humiliation and naming of the perpetrators, and the tribute to the memory of a properly named and humanized Peter, will produce such positive effects as to outweigh any speculative negative outcome to the other children involved in the case. In any case, that is not ours to judge -- that's what "not censored" and freedom of speech means. We created an extraordinary (and possibly ill-advised) exception in order to avoid prejudicing ongoing judicial proceedings. The cat is clearly out of the bag, and such judicial proceedings where releasing the names could seriously prejudice them, appear to be over. RayTalk 18:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I care very much about the children and whether they can survive the nightmare they have been through; and to that end the authorities will certainly be giving them new names and identities. Therefore I don't think much further harm is caused by their mother's surname being all over the net, as it now is. I can't see any rationale for suppressing the boyfriend's name at all.--Straw Cat (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Baby P's name was [NAME REMOVED - — Alan 16:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)]] and the mother - who will NEVER be released or get out of jail alive - is called [NAME REMOVED - — Alan 16:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.149.151 (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Everybody in the country knows the real names and since wikipedia isn't a British site it is not required to follow anything by a British court anyway. Very soon this site will have to provide the real name, even if one person still objects. (92.15.9.8 (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

'Jason Owen[edit]

Jason Owen is a pseudonym, his surname was changed by the court, presumably to avoid prejudicing the second case, which is now completed. Should this not be noted in the article?

I think you're correct about his name being a pseodonym, because he was the brother of the boyfriend, and that it should be noted.--Straw Cat (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, the surviving children bear the name of the mother, what reason is there not to name the stepfather?


Are you sure about Jason Owen being a pseudonym ? I thought this was his real name as he wasn't connected to the second trial.

You're possibly right about there being little reason not to name the stepfather. However, the courts disagree and still want the names unpublished. Talking to people involved in the case, they also think its better for the children to have as little in the public domain as possible. The only reason I can see for naming the stepfather is to further punish him with shame. Whilst I'd agree with that desire I feel the advise of the courts to protect the children should take priority. For those wanting to find the names out I'm sure they can do so. Also, what would the article gain from his name being inserted ? --Mw-wsh (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Baby P's name was [NAME REMOVED -- — Alan 16:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)]. Everybody knows this already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.208.66 (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Stepfather? I thought he was not married, only a boyfriend?--Straw Cat (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Straw Cat, I thought the same - but all the papers have been using the term "stepfarther" - will have to look into it.--Mw-wsh (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be married to be called a stepfather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.164.37 (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Jason Owen won't be getting out and going to Canada with a new identity, I would kill him myself if I were in prison. Whoever stabs his eyes out should be given a knighthood. (92.15.9.8 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

You do realize that electronically-posted threats of violence, and inciting violence can be pursued as criminal charges, right? Your IP address is trackable right down to your address given the right conditions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good! Then prosecute me! I would kill the mother and the boyfriend and the lodger, and so would any normal person in this country. We should still have the death penalty for people like taht. I would hang them all from London Briodge. (JohnRedwood (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

More Names[edit]

The names of everybody involved are all over the Internet and everyone in the country knows what the real names are. The ONLY person here objecting to the inevitable is Mw-wsh, the consensus is that this site must do what every other site has done and use the actual surnames. (92.15.9.8 (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Thats not a good enough reason to add the details here. As someone who involved in helping in helping the children - I hope you realise what you're doing just continues their pain. Think about why some of us are trying our best to help them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw-wsh (talkcontribs) 12:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not see this consensus that you are discussing. It may be all over the internet, but it still seem to be in violation of UK law. In this case, I agree with Mw-wsh, the name should be supressed on wikipedia, after all if somebody is really interested, they can find the name as it is "all over the internet" Dougofborg(talk) 12:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

We already know all the names and there is NO Violation of so-called "British" law, since this is NOT a British-owned site. Maybe some people should have done more to help P... while he was alive? The children are NOT innocent, they should have been prosecuted along with the mother. They deserve the DEATH PENALTY. The mother won't be getting out of jail mate - I would stab her eyes out just like Peter Sutcliffe. (92.15.9.8 (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

I hope she loses an eye in prison just like Peter Sutcliffe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.9.8 (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't work for Specsavers do you? --WebHamster 13:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with that. Now come out of the shadows - create a proper account and discuss it.--Mw-wsh (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Also see this. — Alan 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The vitriol shown here today certainly demonstrates that the article is accurate. All the more reason for not including the names I'd say. --WebHamster 14:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is time to name the murdered child[edit]

We all know what the real names were of the murdered child, it is time this site did the right thing and gave him his name. We are not obliged to act by so-called "British" law here, since this is not a UK-owned site. Nobody is protecting the "children", whoever they are, because everyone in the country already knows the real names of everyone involved, as a simple Internet search will confirm. (JohnRedwood (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Got any reliable sources that actually name the people involved? --WebHamster 13:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes - newspapers, official Internet sites, and some sources of my own. (JohnRedwood (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

(ec)Reliable in wiki-terms? If so please list them here on the talk page so that they can be discussed. --WebHamster 13:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This looks like a pretty good source. [3] also [4] There are literally dozens of UK sources from that period, all of which are a matter of record (i.e. you could find them in your local newspaper library for that day, or even in an online archive [5] - most however have since been removed from the websites, it doesn't mean however that you can't cite 'The Times March 23 2008' or whatever.) Here's a recent, reliable, non-UK source. [6] Sumbuddi (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Sources of your own would be consider original research. How about posting links to the reliable sources so that the determination can be made by the editors of this article as to whether or not they are reliable - if consensus about that cannot be reached, the reliable sources noticeboard can be contacted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's only a case of whether the sources are reliable. Even if the information can be shown to be accurate, it may still be irresponsible to put it in the article. Sure, the information is already "out there" for anybody who wants to go looking for it, but it is probably a relatively small minority who do so, and putting the information in high-profile websites would significantly increase the number of people who know the names. It is noteworthy that mainstream news sources even outside the UK are refraining from publishing the names. This is a sign that reputable organisations, even those that are not directly subject to UK law, have the sense to respect the fact the UK authorities no doubt still have good reason for continuing to ban publication of certain details, just as they did at the time of the rape trial (see e.g. this).
Incidentally, a certain anon editor has been leaving comments to the effect that another editor who favoured withholding the names was therefore on the side of the perpetrators. It would help the discussion considerably he/she would kindly refrain from that sort of accusation, and recognise the fact that those of us opposed to publishing the names are no less appalled by the abhorrent crimes committed against two defenceless young people. — Alan 15:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that today's 'vocal' IP editor(s) and the above JohnRedwood have been blocked, the latter indefinitely. --WebHamster 15:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and relevance. Our guideline concerning reliable sources is precisely that -- a guideline to help us judge our verification efforts. However, Baby Peter's case is extraordinary -- there has been a significant effort to censor his identity, coupled with an equally extraordinary effort on the parts of various bloggers to publicize this information. I think we can take the question of his last name as verified, given the agreement among literally thousands of sources on the subject. As for relevance, the relevance of his name to a case concerning his murder is not to be doubted. Being something of a believer in the principle of free speech as it applies to matters touching the public interest and broader politics, I think it's past time we put out Peter's name. The trial is over. The sentencing is over, and even if it were not, press accounts have stated that the trials are being held under fake names, so revelation of the real names in the matter is unlikely to prejudice further proceedings. Ample time has been given to the British authorities to provide new identities for both the accused and other victims. Any further censorship on the subject would necessarily cause far more harm than good. RayTalk 06:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons to not publish the names one.

  • From an intellectual point of view, the article gains very little from their inclusion. The people are unknown outside this tragedy and their names will be changed on release.
  • From a legal point of view, it would be difficult for those of us close to the event and know many more facts than those published here to contribute. I'd be breaking the law.
  • From a moral point of view, my concern is for the children. They need to move on and those publishing the names do so for their own desires and hatred - certainly not for the children.
They have been fostered/adopted now, right? So with new names?--Straw Cat (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
They have not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw-wsh (talkcontribs) 13:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • From a Wikipedia point of view, the sources must be verifible (not just "its widley known").

--Mw-wsh (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

From an intellectual point of view, the article gains an enormous amount from inclusion of names. Most importantly, the dead deserved to be named, and failing to name them is a dehumanizing act. By omission, Wikipedia would be endorsing such a worldview, which is contrary to our usual practice and common standards of scholarship. Secondarily, naming the criminals would illuminate certain aspects of their relationship to each other. This would allow the reader greater insight into the particular nature of the crime, which is of interest to students of multiple disciplines.
From a legal point of view, I appreciate the difficulties that certain people in Britain may feel themselves to be under. However, I do not believe that it would be difficult for those of us outside Britain to contribute what we can freely do, and those of you inside Britain to contribute what you can freely do. Surely not even the law of the UK has degenerated to the point of guilt by association. If you are particularly and personally attached to the situation, we'd be sorry to lose your perspective, but you might recognize that you have a conflict of interest in the matter, and if that were true you should not be editing anyhow.
The point about the children I have already directly discussed. In any case, Wikipedia has a policy of not censoring information, particularly when harm to subjects is marginal and purely speculative. It is well understood that the harms of censorship to society are pervasive and lasting. Whether you like it or not, the case is a major social phenomenon, deeply touching the public's attention and interest, and we owe our readers a full accounting.
Your point about verifiable sources is well taken. Overcoming the consequences of deliberate efforts to scrub electronic archives is difficult but not impossible. Provided we can reach agreement here, I am confident that I can find information that meets any rational standard of verifiability -- after all, it is not doubted that sources like the BBC once published the information under discussion, and that it was scrubbed from their archives by legal fiat, not for reasons of accuracy. RayTalk 15:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply; nice to have an intelligent conversarion (rather than someone offering to poke my eyes out or accusing me of abusing children).
You say the article gains "an enormous amount from inclusion of name". In this case, I can't see that. If their names were John and Jane Smith what would it gain by adding it to the article ? It doesn't relate to any other article. I also just don't get the idea the "dead deserved to be named". ::From an intellectual point of view I don't understand it. And why does this make it "a dehumanizing act". Also, how do the names "illuminate certain aspects of their relationship to each other" and what "greater insights into the particular nature of the crimes" does it give ? I'm sorry I just don't understand.
From a personal point of view I'm lucky far enough away that I have no conflict of interest but close enough to see the effects. However, those people in the UK should respect UK law and not contribute to the article if the names are included. I'm sure lawyers can argue whether you're publishing the whole article or just changes but from a moral points of view, UK residents really shouldn't contribute.--Mw-wsh (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
As to the first, you say that it's neutral whether the name is given. I disagree. Giving a real name makes it concrete for people. To invert a trope of political rhetoric, a million deaths are a statistic, but an individual death, with a name and a history, is a tragedy. The dead deserve to be named, their cases deserve to be moved into the realm of the concrete from the abstract, and there is a known and solid difference in the mind of the observer. A comparable situation attains as to why we like to illustrate articles with pictures - a picture, like a good name, helps solidify the information in the mind of the reader
As to the particular relationship, I can't really comment on it w/o breaking our taboo of mentioning the names. But if you wish, you could google on the real names of the offenders, and if you like, you can backchannel me on email and I'll explain why the names will add a dimension to this affair this far unnoted in the article.
As regards the status of UK people writing to this article -- your legal obligations are of course between you and your government, but surely you see that Wikipedia cannot censor articles simply so people in countries most relevant to the article can contribute without fear of legal repression. There's no hurry on this one, and I understand the Attorney General is asking the court to review sentences. We don't have to put the names in tomorrow, but I think the longer this goes on, the longer Wikipedia is less helpful than it can be to our readers. RayTalk 20:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Ray, read what you've said and I'm sorry to say I still don't understand what the article gains with the names. Don't think we'll agree on this. And until the children and given homes and have moved on - I'd still object to naming them. And you'd still have to find a "verifiable" source. Anyway, how do we bring this to conclusion ? Is there a voting mechanism ? Do we need more discussion ? --Mw-wsh (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There are content dispute resolution mechanisms. Since this is not precisely a dispute between the two of us (arguments for posting names both predate and postdate), I think we'd probably go for a RFC eventually. I feel no particular hurry about the matter. As far as reliable sources go, a quick google gives me [7] and [8]. RayTalk 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody in Britain already knows the child's real name and since this site is not based in the UK there is no reason at all not to name him. Consensus is clearly with naming the child and the strange objections of one user do not count. He must be named immediately. (92.13.131.188 (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

As this discussion is about "it is now time", I think it is appropriate to expect new reliable sources that release this information. Old reliable sources have the problem that they went to print with information that has latter become protected by a court order. We don't have the same excuse that printed newspapers have: they cant "unprint" this. This incident is still receiving plenty of attention in news; if someone can find new sources which are releasing more details now, I think an RFC would be a good way to measure if it is "now" time for Wikipedia to follow suit. I do hope that we are not among the first to disregard the court order. Another useful way forward would be to try to push this article up to a good article level, which will being in new reviewers who can assist in determining whether the undisclosed details are needed in order for this article to be considered "good". John Vandenberg (chat) 00:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

John, I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Why are "old" reliable sources unusable, simply because they have been censored? Our reliable source rule comes from a need to use facts that have been through some sort of careful review process. That a publication is censored doesn't make the process that produced it suddenly less reliable. RayTalk 23:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
My argument is that overseas reputable sources are not mentioning mention the names, and are saying things like "Neither can be named for legal reasons."[9][10] If current overseas sources are respecting the UK court order, so should we. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Baby Peter must immediately be given his full name in the article anyway. This is not a UK site, everyone in the world knows his real name and it's all over the Internet, and only ONE user is trying to suppress the information on this site. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

What's all this "immediately" bollocks? This is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid with a deadline. This couldn't have something to do with the movement to get the name out there in as many places as possible as soon as possible in an effort to fuck up the forthcoming trial is it? Why oh why don't people realise that doing this will not help get certain parties convicted, all it will do is cause a mistrial which will mean it takes longer for them to end up behind bars. Regardless, the name will not bring anything to anyone in a world perspective and as such will not improve the article other than to give a name that's meaningless to the majority of people who will read it. There is no immediacy needed whatsoever in including the name. Once the trial is over and the court allows the name to be published then there's no problem at all in including it, so what's the rush? --WebHamster 23:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The rush is that we all know the name anyway, and Baby Peter deserves the dignity of at least being known by his full name. (GranvilleHouston (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

And your source for the fact that "we all know the name anyway" is where? It also doesn't explain your requirement of "immediately". What difference does it make if the name isn't added for 6 months? Apparently you already know the name so it's inclusion is irrelevant to your aquisition of further understanding or edification. Take a chill pill. --WebHamster 19:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, the Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 order was imposed to protect the identity of another (still-living) child of the family. Accordingly, WP:BLP comes into play and while I will look into this, that policy requires us to act conservatively, and I would advise against any editor based in the UK adding the name. The fact that it's "common knowledge" is irrelevant; it would still be a contempt of court to add it. Rodhullandemu 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Most people on this site are American. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

But not exempt from WP:BLP. I'm looking into it. Rodhullandemu 17:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Most (if not all) of us who actually know anything about the case (and the problems associated) are UK based. If you want an encyclopedia entry to have correct information then you need people who know about the subject matter. --Mw-wsh (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Even if there were a case for withholding Peter's surname from the article, as argued above , that does not apply to witholding of the boyfriend's name. I have not heard of any further criminal case pending.--Straw Cat (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Since this is not a UK site there is no reason whatsoever not to include all the names. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

There are plenty of reasons, you just don't personally like any of them. And last I heard your personal preferences aren't a WP policy requirement. --WebHamster 20:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There are NO reasons whatsoever. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

Roundup

Let's be perfectly clear here. The UK courts have issued an order preventing publication of any details identifying people involved in this case, for the explicit purpose of protecting the minors involved, and that includes the then two-year old rape victim. There is strong precedent here that such details, when added, are not only removed, but also oversighted. Whereas we have policies on verifiability, such as requiring reliable sources, there is one overriding policy that means that whereas we may publish such details, we don't, and that is WP:BLP. This is, as far as I'm concerned in the protection of minors, absolutely non-negotiable. So I'll say this right up front: Any attempt to add details of these people unless and until the court order is rescinded will result in this article being protected; and persistent attempts to do so will result in lengthy blocks. If you think I'm unfit to be an Admin on this basis, tough; I do what I believe to be best for the encyclopedia and the people whose lives may be affected by what is written here. If you disagree, WP:RfARB is thisaway ---> Rodhullandemu 23:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're attempting to shut down debate here, or if you are stating your intention to act independently, and contrary to any consensus that may emerge here, then yes, I do think you're unfit to be an admin. We're having a civil discussion here, and we don't need pronouncements from authority. RayTalk 02:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Admins are expected to take any steps required to enforce WP:BLP, including disregarding any consensus. If they do so, they do run the risk of being dragged to WP:ANI or Wikipedia:Arbitration. Naturally if that happens I will recuse.
That said, productive discussion about this can still occur here on the talk page, provided nobody mentions the names. The most obvious discussion that should occur is whether WP:BLP covers this situation. I would like to see a well visited RFC before anyone decides that BLP doesnt apply. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Section break[edit]

Okay, some questions for people who want to prevent publication of the names. Please give substantive answers to my questions. I realize that UK posters may find themselves unwilling to post the names here, but if you're going to argue that the names should not be posted, please recognize that Wikipedia does not fall under the jurisdiction of UK law.

  1. What, if any, legal proceedings are still ongoing that may be prejudiced by these revelations? Last I checked, we've had a trial, we've had a sentencing phase, and that should be the end of it. (The article in its current form certainly seems to suggest that the legal aspects of this case are over).
  2. What, if any, reason is there for withholding the full names of "Jason Owen" and the mother's boyfriend?
  3. Who are the children who would supposedly be harmed by this revelation, and what harm do you expect to result from such a revelation? What evidence is there that such a harm might occur?

Finally,

  1. What, if any, harm do you expect to occur from truthful publication in Wikipedia above and beyond what is already readily available on the internet as a whole?

These are some questions I'd like to have answered. I propose them as a starting point for adding some rigor, rather than muddy and unclear back-and-forth, to our discussion. RayTalk 02:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My responses.

  1. At present there are no more new court cases in the pipeline. However, there are appeals to be considered on both sides.
  2. Personally I have no objection to naming the boyfriend, but the court has asked not to. All the people with details of this case are UK based and as such should respect the law. If they don't contribute that doesn't help the article in anyway.
  3. Sugest you speak with those people dealing with children suffering trauma.

You may want these taken as a starting point but this is wikipedia and it already has policies which take priority over personal opinions. The administrator is right, if you don't like Wikipedia policies then you must get them changed first. --Mw-wsh (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have already tagged on the article, up-to-date sources are now needed for any claims that there are court orders currently still in force on disclosure of the names of
  1. The mother (named C in court)
  2. The boyfriend
  3. Jason "Owen"
which therefore bring WP:BLP into play.
As a matter of English law, Mw-wsh is wrong: only court processes involving juries are covered by subjudice rules; judges are deemed to be able to disregard knowing names, so pending appeals don't affect the matter.--Straw Cat (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


My view is that these questions are not particularly helpful. When the suppression court order occurred, all reliable sources appear to be respecting that, including international sources. This is an active decision by sources rather than a passive one, as new stories about this have gone to print without these details. As a result, the sources are deciding that this isnt appropriate material to print about these people, at this time.

Anyway, you want answers! ;-)

  1. There is nothing to suggest that the legal matter is closed. As Mw-wsh suggests, there may be appeals. However my guess is that appeals would not result in retrials by jury, so there isnt much to worry about here. The lifting of the court order would be one way to know that the courts are finished with it. If there was no developments after a few months, we may infer that there is nothing further happening in the courts. However, rather than ruminate about what may or may not be happening in the courts, a UK person could easily ask the courts. We might even be able to as meta:Wikimedia UK to inquire about this. There is possibly a Wikinews story in this.
  2. I am in agreement with Mw-wsh. I cant see any additional harm that would come from it, excepting that those names will be very good search terms to help find stories that also name the mother and siblings.
  3. Of the top of my head, there are a few ways that including this will contribute to additional harm:
    1. including these details on Wikipedia increases the accessibility of the information. People read a news story (without the names), google "Baby Peter", click on the first link which is this article and boom, there it is. If we don't include the names, the curious need to look a lot harder to find the details, and many will never try. As the first question is not answered definitively, the more people that read the names, the higher the potential that we have buggered around with justice.
    2. There is also the problem that a lot of people are really worked up about this, and including the names on the 8th most visited website puts more crazy people one step closer to doing crazy things, like death threats on guards, blackmailing guards to kill the perpetrators, and all sorts of other crazy things. I hope the system is prepared for these things, but often governments arn't so good at preparing for these eventualities while they feel comfortable with suppression court orders. security through obscurity. Normally I am very much opposed to this; in the field of computing I am a strong believer in full disclosure when/if a timely response isnt obtained via responsible disclosure. I am also quite reluctant to oversight material. But in this case, children are involved and I would rather suppress this information until the courts lift the suppression order, or a reliable source decides to disregard it.
    3. if we include these details before the UK court order is lifted or international media start printing the names, the credibility of Wikipedia as a responsible citizen of the Internet is harmed. This might result in a reaction from the UK courts, Internet Watch Foundation and/or concerned citizen groups complaining to WP:OTRS that we are breaking their laws. I would like to see a strong consensus that we should break UK laws before we do that. Because we are going to need a bulletproof rationale and a firm stance when the complaints start rolling in.

John Vandenberg (chat) 11:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1. The court business is FINISHED, over.

2. There are NO children involved other than the murdered Baby Peter, and if the mother, the boyfriend and the lodger are all killed in prison then that is a very GOOD thing indeed. We should have the death penalty in this country for people like that.

3. International media have already printed the full name LONG ago, and all the complaints should be ignored because this is NOT a UK site and British laws do not apply here. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

  • That's what we like to see from our parochial SPA editors... rampant neutrality. Sheesh. --WebHamster 13:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

1. Not true. Even though there may be an appeal against the sentences, the original order covers reporting of those proceedings.
2. A two-year old girl, now nearly 5, was raped. The order is intended to protect her identity.
3. WP:BLP trumps any so-called "right" or "authority" to publish. That is a policy predicated on the principle of "do no harm", so we always err on that side. Given how effective we are at making information available through Google, we have a responsibility to take care about what information we publish, and it is precisely your attitude in answer 2 above that convinces me that we are doing the correct thing by not publishing it. Rodhullandemu 13:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1. There will be no appeal and if anything the sentences will be substantially increased because they were far too lenient. 2. Her name has now been changed, this is no issue. 3. Everyone in the UK knows his full name and the names of everyone else involved, you're not keeping anything hidden. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

"Everyone"? References? Perhaps you should peruse WP:FLOG and an instruction manual on how to clean a vinyl LP. --WebHamster 14:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone with Internet access can find the names of all parties concerned on hundreds of different sites. You can't keep names hidden in the 21st century with 24-hour news, multiple news channels and the Internet. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

An RFC is now needed on this, because no reliable source is being provided for assertions that each one of the three sentenced persons' names are under court orders.

The original reasons for witholding of the boyfriend's and "Owen's" names were different from the ones about the mother. They were a normal rule in jury trial procedure; there was another jury trial and the juries are assumed to be prejudiced by "similar facts". All jury trials are over and the possible appeal is by the Attorney General about the length of sentence only, not guilt. The protection of the names of the boyfriend and the "lodger" has therefore lapsed and WP:BLP only covers withholding of names in this context if a court rule or order forbids it according to a reliable source - and none has been forthcoming. People's POV about this one way or another is not relevant. WP rules should be upheld, and they are not being.--Straw Cat (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that we should be using WP rules as our framework, which documents apply here. Obviously WP:BLP. Any more ? Straw Cat, where does it say that the boyfriend and lodger court orders have lapsed ? Is this inferred or stated ? --Mw-wsh (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What court orders? We were never given a source for the actual order, only this report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7740687.stm, which I believe was before the start of the second trial - and the lodger is not included.--Straw Cat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I was querying your statement "The protection of the names of the boyfriend ... has therefore lapsed". Do you have any background/details to this ? --Mw-wsh (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The jury trials being over. The reasons given at the time in the media for non-disclosure. --Straw Cat (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
As I point out earlier[11], new sources are still omitting the names, citing legal reasons. I have updated the page. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Foreign sources omitting names are not conclusive that any past order still applies in the changed circumstances. And none of these mentions the "lodger", so I presume he can now be named at least. Photographs of him were published in the national media after the verdicts.--Straw Cat (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to do more than presume. The court order was to prevent publication of the names, I don't think there was a restriction on the photos. --Mw-wsh (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you reference a reliable third-party source which specifically states that there is a current restriction on the publication of the real surname of the lodger, please.--Straw Cat (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I confess that I can not. I know there was a restriction and am not aware of it being pulled. If it has, then that's great. Anyone know the status of the restrictions or have a link to it ? --Mw-wsh (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The trials are over, there are no reasons at all not to name everyone involved on this site. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

You've said this - try to follow the debate that occurs rather than just repeating yourself. --Mw-wsh (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You're the one and only person arguing against the inevitable. One must really start to wonder why ... (GranvilleHouston (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

It appears you can't count. It also appears that your only 'detailed' argument so far is that "everyone knows" and that they should die in prison. You haven't yet come up with a reason that overrides the WP:BLP issue as outlined by Rod above. You may be used to getting your way in your house by continually shouting "I want, I want, I want", but that isn't the way it works round here. I recommend that you either keep quiet and let the more rational editors argue your case for you, or you spend sometime reading up on the rules of WP and formulate a rational argument. It's your choice, but I can tell you that all you are succeeding in at the moment is being ignored and ridiculed. You most certainly aren't moving your case forwards. Straw cat and Ray are making far more inroads so leave it to them before you destroy the credibility of anyone arguing for the inclusion. --WebHamster 13:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Another section break[edit]

So, I'm going to attempt to summarize what I regard as the useful parts of the discussion above, feel free to comment in reply.

  • The criminal trials are indeed over. However, there is the possibility that the Attorney General might decide to appeal the sentences. Such an appeal would be heard before judges, not juries, and judges are assumed to be capable of ignoring prejudicial material. Thus, any possibility of prejudicing ongoing jury proceedings has ceased. No future jury proceedings in the matter are in the pipeline.
  • The BLP-related objection centers solely on the possibility of harm to Peter's younger siblings. We do not have further information on the disposition of these siblings, except that the mother's boyfriend and Jason "Owen" were tried on rape charges for one of them. In particular, we do not know if the siblings have been given new identities (although it would seem rather odd if they have not), although one poster has claimed that this is the case.
  • No helpful answer was forthcoming as to what nebulous harms may happen to children from revelation of the last name of Baby Peter - Mw-wsh suggested "you speak with those people dealing with children suffering trauma."
  • Jayvdb holds the position that, since currently sources are not choosing to publish the identities, then their previous publications are no longer kosher, and thus no reliable sources exist.

Is this a fair summary of positions expressed here? RayTalk 23:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Up to a point. We do not know whether this is an "until" order under Section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 or a perpetual order under Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. In the former case, I can fully understand such an order until subsequent criminal proceedings are determined which, in factual terms, they have been and there can now be no possibility of adverse publicity affecting potential jurors; in the latter, the protection is designed to last beyond the conclusion of legal proceedings for the benefit of the minors involved. Whereas it has always been open to the press (who are specifically addressed by a Section 39 order) to apply to the Court for a lifting or relaxation of the order, the fact remains that they haven't apparently done so. As for the last point, the young girl who was a rape victim in the second trial could reasonably be identified, despite name changes, by publishing the real names of the defendants- and that is the evil to be avoided, is it not? Rodhullandemu 00:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Children have not been given a new family. In cases as severe as this its not initially easy to place them. --Mw-wsh (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia may be also affected by a Section 39 order, the Wikimedia Foundation could find out whether there is one, whether it applies to WP, and if so consider applying to the Court for it to be lifted. If British editors are under threat of being in contempt, there needs to be some kind of communication with the authorities and consultation by them with WP itself. I believe there are precedents of WP Foundation making representations in cases where British authorities have censored material on WP. --Straw Cat (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we have any examples of WP making representation ? I think everyone at least would be in favour of lifting the court order on the boyfriend. I think the only reason it hasn't been done before was that the mother and the boyfriend were grouped together for the second court case and to protect the children. --Mw-wsh (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's one, albeit a very different kind of case: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Censorship_of_WP_in_the_UK_Dec_2008 --Straw Cat (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Rodhullandemu, by what chain of logic would publishing the names of her abusers identify the victim? I'm all for shielding the identities of rape victims -- that falls well within the parameters of BLP. But in this case the last name is a common one, and I fail to see how its release (much less the release of the names of attackers unrelated to the victim) would substantively identify the victim. RayTalk 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm presuming here that the court or judge who imposed that order had all relevant facts at its disposal; I do not and am unable to go behind the order itself. Nevertheless, if the order had any perceived weaknesses, I'm sure the British press would have applied to the court to vary or discharge that order. That they haven't is highly persuasive, in my view. Rodhullandemu 17:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
We really need to know what the order exactly says, its extent and reasons for it. Perhaps Mw-wsh could assist?
This is not the usual case of mere accuracy of content of an article based on WP:V, is it? This is a court order which directly affects English Wikipedia editors and the project itself, and researchers and future authors, just as much as journos. As we have seen, it is being widely flouted by the public, perhaps because the continuing justification (especially for non-related attackers, as noted above) is unclear; that is not good for credibility of the victim protection system, and perhaps worth noting in the article.
Incidentally, the warning "template" is now both contentious and was incorrect; it only mentions Peter's parents. --Straw Cat (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Straw Cat. Let's get the reasoning behind the order. I think it would be a very bad habit for Wikipedia to get into, of supporting the reasoning of legal authorities sight unseen, as reason to censor the encyclopedia. Until that reasoning materializes, I suggest that an argument not made has no force. RayTalk 20:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Let them try. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Continuing our discussion[edit]

I presume people who wanted to do legal research into the order have had the chance to do so. Anybody have anything to contribute on that front? I propose that, at a minimum, we can now publish the mother's boyfriend's name, as well as Jason "Owen"'s true last name, as we seem to have had (and correct me if I'm wrong here) agreement that there aren't good reasons that can apply to the publication of names of people unrelated to the children. As for the mother's name, is anybody here versed in procedures for handling abused children in the UK in cases like this? Are they immediately given pseudonyms, or does that take a while, or ... RayTalk 21:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The court cases are all over. There will be no change in the sentences given, and Jason Owens will not get anywhere with his appeal. Neither will Sharon Shoesmith, since the sheer weight of public opinion would result in disasterous consequences if anything was done. There is NO reason at all now not to provide the names of all the individuals in this case, particularly since every single person in Britain knows the names anyway. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

The mother's boyfriend is appealing and could get sentence changed or a retrial. How do you kmow there will be no retrial. If there is then we need to ensure there are grounds for dismissal by publishing names (or is this your intention). (Minor point, but worth noting that a lawyer suggests that Shoesmith will win her case (albeit in part)). --Mw-wsh (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
There will be no retrial or a reduction in sentence. Shoesmith will not win her case at all and if she appears in public she will be killed. Her lawyer can say what he likes but it ain't gonna happen mate. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC))
I think you're confusing the "court of public opinion" and the "court of law". Its not her lawyer but a lawyer close to the other side who thinks she'll partly win. --Mw-wsh (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

She won't, end of story. ALL of the court cases are over now, there will be NO retrial, and there is no reason at all not to give Peter * his real name, especially since it's already over every other site on the Net. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Keep this up and you're going to get blocked. You've said your bit, now give it a rest please. --WebHamster 18:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for telling the truth? All legal matters are over and the murdered child needs to be named NOW. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Yeah yeah yeah, you've repeated this countless times. Now please give it a rest, you've had your say, now all you are doing is turning this discussion page into an example of how not to act whilst on Wikipedia. It's not like you're going to get what you want because you can type in caps, or because you can wax lyrical about how they should be killed. Tell you what. You go walk down your local high street wearing a sandwich board and holding a noose, and the rest of us editors who know how to behave will do our best to remain neutral. Meanwhile, if you're going to ignore me, at least make an effort to indent properly. --WebHamster 19:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not a venue for non-neutral editors with a lynch mob mentality to use as a soapbox for their biased and blinkered viewpoints. So please go back to any of the chat forums you're getting this bile from and preach to their choir. This is a neutral encyclopaedia and it's pretty clear that you and your attitude don't belong here. Mw-wsh, please stop feeding the lynch troll. --WebHamster 15:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As has been noted already, there will not be any jury trials any more. There are no further charges. The only people involved in appeals would be judges, who will know exactly who they are, what their names are, what they have been convicted of and what they have done. There are accordingly no issues with prejudicing ongoing criminal cases. Clearly there are issues with siblings of the dead child. This however does not extend to the two convicted men, given that those children being protected are children of a different man, the mother's ex-husband, and are not related to the convicted men.

And as for sources there are several online, which I linked to above, as well as numerous past printed newspaper records, easily verifiable via sites such as higbeam or a local library. There are also court records which include the names. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There are NO reasons whatsoever not to name Peter, his mother, the boyfriend and the lodger - legal or otherwise. The so-called "siblings" aren't really related to Peter at all so they are absolutely irrelevant here. This article had better give the real names immediately because the floodgates are open and public opinion is overwhelmingly on my side. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

"Had better"? Or what? What are you going to do if it doesn't get included? Implode?
And what does "public opinion" have to do with anything. Most of the public you are referring to most likely don't have a clue what Wikipedia is much less give a shit whether any of the names are published on it. You're the only one that looks likely to bust a blood vessel if WP doesn't. If it is as you say that the name is out all over the net then one more website not including it isn't going to make any difference. All in all I find your overwhelming need for it to be included here very confusing and not a little alarming. --WebHamster 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes they are related to him. Same mother, same father. A further child was born to the mother while she was in prison, who had a different father - the convicted man. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Returning us to our usual discussion (GranvilleHouston, please try to refrain from deliberately baiting other editors. WebHamster, please do not rise to the bait). Does anybody see a substantive reason not to publish the names of the two men? I remind Mw-wsh that we do not censor the names of convicted criminals because they are appealing; in fact, it is not even customary to censor the names of criminal suspects (see, for example, the article on the Assassination of George Tiller, where Stephen Roeder's name is given prominent mention). BLP does not extend so far as to keep us from reporting accurate and relevant facts, however much they may be to the discredit of those named. BLP does extend towards protecting private individuals who are innocents, victims, and falsely accused, but for all the heat above, I don't see any real argument in that direction. Are there other objections on that score? If not, I propose we move on to vetting sources for the naming of these two. I offer the two I linked above - are there objections to those sources? RayTalk 03:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There are NO objections at all. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Speaking for others again? You're confusing objections with indents. --WebHamster 14:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Only one "person" - and I use that term VERY loosely - is objecting, so we should name Peter <redacted> and all the others at once. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Ah, so you don't mean "NO objections at all" then? Still not got a grip on those damned indents I see. --WebHamster 18:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is time to name the murdered child here. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Beyond that being your opinion - why? Incidentally, when consensus is to name the child, a reference will be required, per policy. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There IS consensus. Everyone in the world knows his name was Peter <redacted>, there is only ONE person objecting here. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Anyone else? Is there a consensus? personally I have no objection - provided the claim is referenced by (and really, this shouldn't need saying, but I've just reverted a reference from a site that proclaims "The Daily Squib is a curious satirical publication and should therefore be taken fu**ing seriously ;)" so I guess sadly it does) a reliable source. :Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is certainly a consensus and it can definitely be referenced. And there are NO reasons whatsoever for not giving his full name at once. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

A consensus of who, exactly? So far I seen you claim there's a consensus, and no one else has said anything. I've seen numerous dissenting voices both here and at WP:ANI. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No there's only one loser protesting and we all know what he is. There are NO reasons at all not to name him at once. THe so-called "siblings" have been renamed and the legal business is over. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, are you using some strange definition of "consensus" that I'm unfamiliar with? There are plenty of people saying that you should not be naming the child; you do not have a consensus. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, there's only ONE, and anyway there are NO reasons. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

You're posting at WP:ANI - you must be able to see that there are numerous people dissenting. Or do you believe that they're all sock puppets of one individual? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see only one here. Anyway, nobody has raised any reasons at all why we shouldn't name Peter [redacted] at once. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

WebHamster? Mw-wsh? Me? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that GranvilleHouston's been blocked ...[edit]

Hopefully a productive discussion is now possible. As I see it, we can break the naming issues into at least three categories, in all of which I now (after thinking it through) favor disclosure.

  1. The last name of Peter and his mother, where there is a potential BLP issue w/ Peter's unnamed siblings. I contest this, since they have a common last name, and the identification value of providing merely a last name is almost null.
  2. His mother's boyfriend and his mother's boyfriend's brother's real names. I don't see a BLP issue here -- BLP does not extend to protection of the identities of adult criminal suspects, and these two are, at this point, convicted criminals.
  3. His mother's first name, which essentially follows from the same argument as the last point.

Finally, in rebuttal to a point that has been raised previously, I hold that it is wrong and Wikipedia should not respect the reasoning of any court where that reasoning is not available to us. The only people we need to respect that way are Wikimedia foundation office actions, and they'll tell us if we're getting into legal hot water. Our only concern needs to be the interests of truth and a proper encyclopedic treatment of a fairly important incident. Comments? Please specify which part you are responding to -- I believe the three can proceed in parallel. RayTalk 19:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first point, but my understanding is that Oversight are still wanting to hold off on publishing the surname.
I don't see a BLP issue with the boyfriend and the boyfriend's brother (cited, naturally). BLP protection does extend to them, but this will be covered if anything we say is reliably sourced.
Third point is really contingent on the first - I'm happy for it to be published here, but will defer to Oversight for now.
Fourth point (my addition!) - it's nice to have a civilised debate, eh?! If you put the kettle on I'll throw a few more logs on the fire.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course Peter (redacted) should be named, we all know his name anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.245.248 (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've redacted the child's name. I think oversight needs to go and clean up the use of this name and if at all possible, the user who is adding this name needs to have all accounts blocked since they said they would continue to sock the info in. Thanks,I've been watchig this from afar. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This IP is now blocked AS WILL ANY OTHER EDITOR WHO ADDS THE SURNAME HERE BE. I'll deal with the oversighting. Rodhullandemu 13:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope all of these attempts to force the name in will be found. :( I did notice the IP blocked but that was after my post. Again thanks for you immediate attentions since I've never had to go to oversight before. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The offending edits have now been oversighted. I now know where the IP editor is based, and since it is within the UK, will be advising their ISP's legal department as to contributory contempt of court in relation to their customer. Rodhullandemu 00:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody has provided any reasons why <redacted again>should not be named I suggest this article gives him the dignity of a full name. Everybody already knows his surname was <redacted again> anyway. (92.10.209.119 (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

Please don't post the name again. This has been discussed and the last I knew is that the name of the infant will remain out because of a living sibling. That's all, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the repetition of the name in the comment two above this one. Rachel Pearce (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection

This editor will just not get it, and I have deleted a recent outing, blocked the IP, and semi-protected this page for a time. Unusual I know, but any unregistered/non-autoconfirmed editor may ask me on my talk page- without mentioning any names- for comments to be added here. Any editor mentioning the surname will be blocked without further notice. Rodhullandemu 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal order banning the names is lifted tonight (10th August 2009)[edit]

Just so any editors don't get a little ban happy and automatically block anyone giving the names of the mother and her partner, the legal order is lifted at 11:59pm tonight. It has been stated as such in several publications, but here is an example. Sky83 (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Although we may need to keep an eye on this situation, just in case they apply for an extension of the order. Sky83 (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked 92.12.5.4 for 24 hrs for publishing the name here.
We should wait until there is a reliable source that publishes the name. I am sure that we wont need to wait very long. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're definitely right. Anything posted here before 11:59pm GMT is going to be in violation anyway. My guess is it will be on news websites shortly after midnight, they will certainly have their stories ready to go now. That said, we do still need to be careful in case the order is extended, which, I suppose, is a possibility. Sky83 (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I have also semi-protected the talk page for 24 hours, which should be sufficient time for us to work out what is going on. If anyone feels this protection is too protective, I don't mind if the protection level is dropped. I'm off to bed... --John Vandenberg (chat) 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This just popped up on my BBC alerts notifier thing, if that helps. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Well the BBC News site is definitely a good enough source. I personally don't have the time to go through the whole article myself right now and make the appropriate changes, but if anyone has some spare time and the inclination to do it, we have a reliable source for it. At least this should end some of the name-outing related vandalism on the article. Sky83 (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
How come the BBC have published the names before midnight? I was watching the newspaper review on Sky News an hour or so ago and the relevant parts of the front pages were shown blacked out. I appreciate that it probably makes very little difference in practice, but we've repeatedly been told "midnight", and the BBC has clearly not waited for that time. Loganberry (Talk) 22:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It was lifted at midnight GMT (actually 11.59). Don't know where you are but in the UK we are on BST at the moment. So 11.59 GMT = 10.59 BST. BBC published at 11pm BST. Rachel Pearce (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Um... no. BST is an hour ahead of GMT, not an hour behind. It's now gone midnight GMT anyway, but it certainly had not done so when I posted my previous comment at 23.43 BST - you can see from the timestamp that it was 22.43 GMT. Loganberry (Talk) 00:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As expected, there are a lot of sources to work with[12], already available before the official expiry. I have unprotected the talk page so that open discussion can start.

Please do not add the details to the page until after the court order has lifted at 23:59 GMT. Blocks will still be handed out for jumping the gun. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There are now 341 Google news results "in the last day" for the top search result for "Connelly+Barker".[13] John Vandenberg (chat) 00:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)