Jump to content

Talk:Katie Piper/Archive 1

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

Seriously?

Anyone actually reading the grammar in this article? The whole thing looks like it was written by a 4th grader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmc22388 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :). Hey I was tired :P, but remember to only comment on content, and not contributors. Anyway, since you spotted it all, why don't you fix it? - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of content: the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Mirror? These are hardly the most reliable sources. As a biography, it's probably worth improving those. I'm going to tag the article for improvement, since it's going to get a bunch of traffic during its DYK. TheFeds 05:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Nearly everything in the sun and mirror can probably be cited by one of the other sources. As to the Daily Mail, even if their pieces are "sensational", they tend to be fairly reliable, nothing compared to the Times/Telegraph/BBC, but enough for WP:RS IMO. Anyway, once the TV documentary comes out (29th this month), I plan to improve this article - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I'll pull off the tag, given the likely improvements after the documentary. I was just looking at this again, and trying to track down some sources that didn't have the stain of sensationalism on them...and there was remarkably little. Too bad that with 8 000 page views in the DYK period, few users had anything to add. TheFeds 18:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, although some of them managed to do small copy edits, but few expansions. Anyhow, thanks for pointing out that it got 8k views, it prompted me to add it to the DYKSTATS page :). Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Origin of acid?

Any details on how the guy got hold of some acid that strong in the first place? --Cybercobra (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's funny that you mention that, cos that's one of the things I wondered about when writing this article too. But none of the sources I've read had information on this. Looking at other pages it seems that sulfuric acid is one of (if not the) most commonly used acid in acid attacks. I'm hoping the documentary will give us a lot more information about this particular case. - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
He might've got it from a car battery, which contains Sulphuric Acid that is concentrated enough to be corrosive. Ucl1986 (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Aye, but then that's just speculation. Unfortunately, the documentary, along with the other sources, doesn't see to have information on this. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yep, but speculate is all we can do. Alternatively, he could've used a drain cleaner which can contain H2S04 of up to 95% concentration.Ucl1986 (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviation used without definition

The abbreviation "MMA" is used in this article without any definition. I think it would help readers if the definition were indeed provided.Hughesdavidw (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


Norwegian talkshow called TRUDE/

please try to find information that confirms it. i know for a fact that she appeared there because i saw the show myself right after the documentary. i suggest checking the website tv2.no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.8.180.111 (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Reason?

Did anyone (particularly Lynch himself) ever discuss the possible motivation for Lynch to want to attack her with acid? It seems like a sort of revenge thing (one of the refs says 'vengeful') but it's not clear why Lynch felt he needed revenge. Did he think she had reported him to the police over the rape? Was he angry that she had somewhat broken up with him after the rape? Did he just hate her because she was beautiful/a woman/whatever? He may be 'deranged' as one of the refs says but I do wonder what on earth was going on in his censored for BLP reasons mind Nil Einne (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

He wanted to own her and didn't want anyone else to have her (ie. want her). This is the motivation behind most disfigurement attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
And because he's a sadist; we know that from the fact he beat and raped her. Jim Michael (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Most likely she refused him sex initially in the hotel room, that precipitated the rape, with the beating merely incidental to the rape. Realizing afterward the relationship was over, he wished to punish her (take away her beauty) and make her undesirable to other men. Her outstanding beauty prior to the attack was her most salient feature and one would think that is why Lynch choose that form of attack, the previous attack with boiling water to the might suggest something else, or in addition however. All speculation though...

Stalking

Apparently, the relationship they had has many aspects in common with Stalking. I think that it would be helpful to mention the concept and the danger of stalking in the article. Stalkers often attack or even murder victims that they can't possess. Many victims rationalize and excuse about their behaviour and are not arare about the danger to their life. --84.135.68.189 (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, the control aspect seems to overlap somewhat, but without any actual account of any stalking, it would out of place here. More relevant perhaps is evidence that a woman is in most danger when a scorned lover realizes the relationship is truly over, as detailed in the book Erased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.210.33.203 (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


Post initial attack Facebook Conversation

Not sure what if any of this belongs in the article at this point, but it is a record of the facebook conversation between Katie and Danny Lynch just prior to the second attack.

-March 29, 6:18pm - Danny Lynch:

Hey, look i just wanted to say that you wasn't wrong in me and given the chance i can be the danny you fell in love with, its hard at the minute i know but K what we had can neva be matched, i want to make you happy again and to love me you are my world Katie it dosent seem it but you are and i know im getting steroid rage and i guess deppression, i neva even relised that im deppressed! but without them i can and will be the danny you fell in love with.
miss you so much and i cant bear the thought of not seeing you again, im realy realy sorry katie, ive realised after having along chat with my friend that im actually suffering from depression and neva even realisted it. look i dont want to bore you so will sign off.
Bye preincess xxx

-March 29, 6:24pm - Katie Piper:

You have to understand thats its only luck i am not dead, if the split in my head had been at the side on my temple i would of died, if i had fallen on anything when you struck me i would of died, if i had lost any more blod i may not of woken up from my sleep. What about when you got that razor blade what if you had slashed my face?
i am just so glad im alive, ye sim in pain i cant move my neck, when i do the split in my head re opens and keeps bleeding.
I have lost my job on fame tv and no money.
I didnt deserve any of this i was so kind to you and wanted to help you and you tried to kill me.
If i ever saw u i would run im scared of u and would hate to be alone with you i think you are dangerous and are goin to end up killing a woman one day

-March 29, 6:41pm - Danny Lynch:

no babe please dont say that, i was foolish to try steroids due repair my arm quicker and i wasn't even in the right frame of mind to take them, i will show you one day Katie maybe in years to come but there will come atime when i prove to you that im genuine. i realy believe that what we had will never be matched we are made for each other its just that i need to get throught my issues, i know i can make you happy and you do too i did it once i will do it againx you realy are the love of my life and i could do with your help i struggle to come to terms with my dad dyeing before he could see me fight all i ever wanted to be was the best at whatever i did, yeah i totally fucked up but one day katie i will make you trust me again and you will be proud of me.
sorry katie
bye x

ProfJustice (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I transcribed this from the screenshots shown in the My Beautiful Face documentary, any mistakes in transcription are soley mine. Grammar mistakes are Danny and Katie's, mostly Danny's. ProfJustice (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Race of attacker

We seem to have a revert war going her over inclusion of the racial identity of Daniel Lynch. I can appreciate there may be a difference of opinion on whether this is relevant. I would argue that it IS relevant. This attack was clearly a continuation of the physical abuse precipitated by the sexual rejection of Lynch and subsequent rape of Piper by Lynch. The reason the race of the aggressor is relevant is because there is a profound statistical correlation between the frequency of rape and the race of the atttacker/victim. Interracial rape is now overwhelmingly black on white. Based on the FBI's national records on crime, Dr. William Wilbanks, a criminologist at Florida International University, found that in 1988 there were 9,406 cases of black-on-white rape and fewer than ten cases of white-on-black rape. [William Wilbanks, “Frequency and Nature of Interracial Crimes,” submitted for publication to the Justice Professional (November 7, 1990). Data derived from Department of Justice, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1987, p. 53.] Another researcher concludes that in 1989, blacks were three or four times more likely to commit rape than whites, and that black men raped white women thirty times as often as white men raped black women. [Andrew Hacker, Two Nations, pp. 183, 185.]

Granted these data are for US statistics, but similar trends are seen in crime rates based on race in European countries "figures showed that the majority of males who were accused of violent and sexual crimes (including those subsequently acquitted) in 2009–10 were black." Race and crime in the United Kingdom

To illustrate the point by analogy, consider the following example.

Pitbulls are 100 times more likely to attack a child than any other breed of dog. A child is attacked and killed by a dog. Is it relevant to note the breed of dog that committed the attack was a pitbull? Of course it is. (Note I am not saying this is an actual statistic regarding pitbulls, it's a hypothetical example.)

I can not see any reason this information should be excluded from the article, except that some editors would like it supressed for various ideological reasons related to bias. In such cases, we should error on the side of inclusion of information, rather than of censoring it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfJustice (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The race of the attacker is completely irrelevant to this article. It may be material to an article about the sociology of crime, but not to this article.--ukexpat (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Whenever the cry of censorship is heard administrators are wary. ProfJustice, Wikipedia is not the place for original research or soapboxing. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
After re-reading the first comment--WHAT? Yes, these are US results. And from a different decade. And I resent the synthesis behind this argument. Now that the professor has dragged me into this, I need to pull my tool out of the article. Someone, please re-consider my protection of the article and undo it if you think my decision was either invalid or (now) compromised. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, at more length: I see no need whatsoever to include the attacker's race, unless it has been a matter of extensive scrutiny in the media (a la Trayvon Martin, for instance). That certain statistics say a certain something (even if those statistics were from the same continent and the appropriate era) does not make it meaningful in this article: to imply that this identification would be meaningful based on such data is synthesis. In that perspective the addition doesn't just fall foul of our "No OR" policy but also of our BLP policy: just because the man is in jail does not mean he should be identified as belonging to this or that category if the category's relevance is not based on references to reliable sources pertaining to him and his case specifically. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the substative reply. I would suggest you try discussion BEFORE protecting the article to enforce your POV in the future. There is no synthesis here. I am not stating A and B, therefore C. What conclusion am I advancing in the article text? None. Inclusion of the perpretrator's race is simply stating a fact, not a conclusion. And how is there ANY WP:BLP issue here? I agree with your last point, although I gave the rationale for inclusion, I did not cite any sources to substantiate the race of the attacker here. I'll work on that. I hope you allow addition when/if sources are found. ProfJustice (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the addition of photographs of the three principle parties here, even a before/after of Katie would suffice as illustration and avoid the (still incomprehensible) aversion to including the attacker's race.ProfJustice (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing 'incomprehensible' here. The 'race' of the attacker is irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
[ec with Andy] A passing mention that the attacker was black doesn't cut it, in my opinion. As for your insinuation that I abused my admin powers to push a POV (the age-old complaint)--bollocks: I protected it in part to protect you from a block for edit-warring. A look at the history clearly shows that you could be blocked for that, even before identifying you as IP 108. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
A look at the edit history clearly shows I was the one that initiated the discussion, rather than just endless reverts, unlike others. But let's not let this turn into personal vitriol (pardon the double entendre). I stand behind all the assertions I've made and see no coherent discussion from the other side, with the exception of the one post from drmies. I really don't consider saying "no it isn't" a mature reply that adds anything to the discussion. An attempt at reason, logic and explicative would be appreciated. ProfJustice (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but anyone who looks at the history will see that there is one person sticking it in, and half a dozen editors who are reverting that edit. So, edit-warring against consensus is obviously what's happening here. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly there is a disagreement here as to whether the race of the attacker is relevant. I think it is for the reasons I've given. I've yet to see the cogent rebuttal, but even if one is forthcoming, this is a point where reasonable people may disagree. Therefore, we should include the information - this is consistent with the basic tenant/bias of wikipedia toward inclusion of information. Let the readers decide for themselves if they think it is relevant. This is not some lengthy paragraph that might detract from the quality of the article - this is an attempt to suppress a fact by those who would prefer it not appear in the article. I feel the onus is upon those who would like to suppress it to give a valid reason (beyond their opinion re:relevance).ProfJustice (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia isn't a forum for the promotion of racism - and your misleading attempt to use the Race and crime in the United Kingdom statistic (which relates to London figures alone, rather than the UK as a whole), combined with your other arguments leaves me no choice but to conclude that is your intention. If you want to promote bigotry, do it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
What is the definition of racism? I am promoting nothing of the sort. I am, in fact, not a racist - although my personal beliefs should not be inferred and denegrated here. This crime happened in London, and was an interracial crime, so I don't see that citing Race and crime in the United Kingdom as unreasonable. What I do find unreasonable is your ad hominem attack on me personally. You don't know me and you have the temerity to label me a racist and a bigot? I think that exeeds a simple breach of civility and pretty clearly rises to the level of libelous defamation. What is the wikipedia policy in such cases? I really wish you guys would discuss the issue with logic and reason rather than emotional, labels, name-calling and refutation by tautology. Kind Regards,ProfJustice (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm not a proponent of censorship. But I will tell you this: what you're doing is a clear example of synthesis, and it's not acceptable by our policies. You can argue anything you want, or you can take my word for it: Wikipedia does not allow this, as consensus has determined in more cases than Andy, who is a regular at the noticeboards where such cases get brought up when it concerns people, probably can remember. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
"Well, I'm not a proponent of censorship." - Are you sure?
"But I will tell you this: what you're doing is a clear example of synthesis, and it's not acceptable by our policies." No, it clearly is NOT syntheis, please read the examples and/or explain how stating a fact (not a conclusion) is synthesis. And I didn't realize you speak for all of wikipedia. "You can argue anything you want, or you can take my word for it: Wikipedia does not allow this," I prefer discussion. "...as consensus has determined in more cases than Andy, who is a regular at the noticeboards where such cases get brought up when it concerns people, probably can remember." How is this relevant? Appeal to authority? Can we please stick to discussing the topic? The rhetoric is becoming a bit tedious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfJustice (talk • contribs)
"libelous defamation"? Well, you appear out of nowhere, quote dubious statistics from another country, and another era, then misrepresent statistics for London (with a high ethnic-minority population) as data for the entire UK, compare black people to pitbulls (with more made-up statistics), blather on about information being "supressed for various ideological reasons related to bias", then complain that I suggest you are motivated by racism? If you aren't, you are doing a darned good job of imitating it. Take your soapbox somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I "appear out of nowhere" what is that suppose to mean? Dubious how, they are RS and duely published in a peer-reviewed journal. How am I misrepresenting anything, and how is the high ethnic-minority pop an issue, it's a per capita stat. Perhaps the pitbull analogy wasn't a good one - there was certainly no derogatory intent, I didn't realise some would read more into it than the explicit illustration of relevance. I will try to find one that can not so easily be twisted. And now I "blather on" and am "motivated by racism"? What does any of this have to do with the issue? It is just more ad hominem rhetoric, for which you have already been warned. Please remain civil and address the content by providing reasons this information should be suppressed, beyond your personal dislike for its inclusion. Thank you, and kind regards, ProfJustice (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I retract the last attribution of motive regarding exclusion - it was improper to assume you have a "personal" dislike of the content. For that, I apologize.ProfJustice (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
You have already been told - by multiple contributors - that we consider your proposed edit to be irrelevant to the article, and as such there is nothing more to say on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I also agree that it is irrelevant to include the attacker's race. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I became aware of this article from watching another editor's talk page, and thought it might help if to comment here. However, because I have absolutely no knowledge of this article, I have a few questions just so I understand the context of the edit being disputed. (1)Do reliable sources primarily identify this individual by his race? (2)Did the race of the individuals play a factor in the attack (was it racially motivated)? (3)Other than Wikipedia:Ethnicity, is there some applicable guideline that deals with identifying an individual's ethnicity? - SudoGhost 16:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
If that's the case then I don't think the race of the individual is any more relevant than his height or religion would be. I could present data showing the correlation between religion and violence, or even a correlation between deficiency of lithium in the hair and violent behavior (PDF). (If you'll excuse my example here) If reliable sources don't think the lithium content of his hair is relevant, than it is undue for the article to assume it is relevant, despite evidence that there is a correlation. However, even though this correlation may exist, there's no reason to describe the individual's hair in the article. This is no different for the individual's race. Yes, there may be data demonstrating a correlation, and a researcher may or may not suggest that individuals of a certain ethnicity are "three or four times more likely to commit rape." However, if reliable sources don't mention this, then it isn't relevant to the article. There's all sorts of data that suggests a plethora of factors that can cause any number of things, but if reliable sources don't demonstrate that it's relevant to the particular subject at hand then it doesn't belong in the article. - SudoGhost 18:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your reasoned comments SudoGhost. I am persuaded by your logic. I am content to leave the identification of the attacker's race out at this time based on your comments. Thank you for engaging in this discussion and for not personally attacking me. Kind Regards, ProfJustice (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sylvestre

In the article it says "Sylvestre approached Piper, with his hood up and holding a paper coffee cup". Now i might be wrong on this, but surely a paper coffee cup would not be able to hold sulphuric acid of the concentration he was carrying. Isn't it more likely he would be carrying it with a silicone based holder (i.e. a mug or a glass)?

You are wrong, a wax coated paper cup would likely suffice.

Secondly, are there any details on how was convinced to by Lynch to carry out the attack? And how the police identified him as the attacker (you can't really make out his face in the CCTV footage). Ucl1986 (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I do recall something about a coffee cup, but nothing about a paper one. So I went ahead and removed that, along with some other text. No idea on how Lynch got Sylvestre to carry out the attack, probably money :). As for the police, I'm not sure about that either, although it's possible they had Piper look at mugshots, and there where other CCTV captures of Sylvestre (some are shown in the documentry). - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought Lynch must have either paid Sylvestre off or threatened him. It's just hard to comprehend that not only was Lynch so sick that he came up with the idea of an acid attack, but that he had a friend who was willing to carry out the attack for him. I looked at the additional CCTV footage from the documentary and it is still hard to make out his face because of his hoody. Like you said though, Katie identifying the Sylvestre is very likely since she can recall the event vividly. Couple more questions, was Lynch in the area when the attack occurred? I read some articles saying he was. Additionally, did Sylvestre get some acid on his face during the attack? I ask this because his face looks scarred in his mugshot. Ucl1986 (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Violent sadists often know other violent sadists. Sylvestre may have done it for kicks, or in return for Lynch attacking someone for him. Jim Michael (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Sylvestre did get some acid on his face during the attack, this article by Piper says that's how he was caught:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1351435/Acid-attack-victim-Katie-Piper-attacked-going-boy-met-Facebook.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.108.74 (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Images of Katie Piper and Lynch's article?

Considering that the drastic change in appearance of Mrs. Piper are mostly the reason why she became renown, I can't but question myself for why there's no image of her before and after the attack. I'm not a very involved editor, so I guessed it might be because of the property rights of the image, and I just don't want to mess with that kind of stuff. But looking how far-off went the debate over such a minor issue with little matter to the actual case, as it's the race of the aggressor, that could've also been resolved by adding his picture (as pointing the actual individual rather than exacerbating a particular trait of him is much more informative and transparent), or even making him his own article. The case didn't stopped at Mrs. Piper, sort of speaking, later on, he disregarded the damage he did to Katie when chatting with her on facebook, later he seduced a prison guard with whom he kept a certain relationship, and got even called "the face of pure evil". A seductive, whimsy, irresponsible criminal with little hold for the consequences of his actions. --G0parra (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Katie Piper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katie_Piper/Archive_1&oldid=1156097272"