Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 12:32, 28 May 2009 (Signing comment by 92.14.248.193 - "→Category:British murdered children: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 November 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Notability

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 Misplaced Pages 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 15:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that this situation will continue to gain stories in the coming days and weeks, so it seems to be a perfectly valid article. If there is to be a debate over whether or not to delete it, I'll get my vote in early that it should definitely by kept. This will likely be on the level of Victoria Climbie. Sky83 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Whoops! I think I owe an apology to User:193.111.25.201 and User:Bnynms; I copied the infobox over from the Murder of Victoria Climbié and didn't change the dates properly. Guess I should've paid more attention to what I was doing... I'm adding the (now correct! :P) dates from this page into the article now. Sorry for wasting your time, guys. --saxsux (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Name

Revealing the name of the mother or the name of 'Baby P' is forbidden under the UK's (draconian) press censorship laws, but those laws do not apply to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages have any loyalty to it. Sky83 (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is more of a moral issue (something prehaps Wiki doesn't want or should get involved in). The UK courts protect the parents name for the simple reason of trying not to affect the other siblings more than they are already. Its not really draconian as using the parents name achieves nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw-wsh (talk • contribs) 10:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I would urge against it. Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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: 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages: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)

Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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)

It was murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.248.193 (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Name Change?

Following the Articles for Deletion debate, linked at the top, editors suggested numerous name changes to the article. I would like to initiate the name change debate. As I have spotted Victoria Klimbé has an article under her own name, keeping "Baby P" has to be an option, but I am aware others may wish to consider other names. Below is a list of suggestions from the top of my head, debate and suggestions are welcome!

• Keep as "Baby P"
• Move to "2008 Haringey Council Social Services scandal" or similar
• Move to "2008 UK Social Services court case" or similar

doktorb _words 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, Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Biography#People_notable_only_for_one_event and related guidelines. "Case" isn't enough because it was his death that sparked the media and government attention. This style of naming would also be consistent with "Murder of Victoria Climbié" which is a Good Article. The case seems so clear cut to me that, if no objections are made in the next few hours, I'll be bold and make the move myself. GDallimore (Talk) 14:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarification. I'm not saying it's clear cut that "Death of Baby P" is the right title, and that might need more discussion, but I think it is entirely clear that the current title is the wrong one as said by many people, including those in the AfD discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 14:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

editorial control

This query was removed 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 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 Misplaced Pages policies, however more importantly, editorial decisions by Misplaced Pages editors shape the article. We have policies on living people, and verifiability, and many others.

"Fact" is always an imperative on Misplaced Pages, 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, Misplaced Pages 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 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

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 20:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Daily Mail

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

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

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?

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 Misplaced Pages: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

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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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?

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's internal processes).
4. By deviating from standard practice, we make a mockery out of Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages would be negative ones. Ray (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Daily Mail expose

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. Misplaced Pages:C#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others and Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Copyright#Can_I_add_something_to_Wikipedia_that_I_got_from_somewhere_else.3F give information about how much revision is necessary. Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages essay Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing may be helpful—in itself or in the links it provides. --Moonriddengirl 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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.. 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. (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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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. Ray 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. Ray 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 ] and the mother - who will NEVER be released or get out of jail alive - is called ]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.149.151 (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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. (92.14.248.193 (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

'Jason Owen

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 . 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)

1. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1162061/Baby-P-boss-1m-sex-bias-claim-reveal-explosive-report-Ed-Balls-refused-make-public.html#

• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content