Talk:Killing of Peter Connelly

Paternity
Who the daddy be? - Maury P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.79.131.210 (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Article title
This article should now be named "Death of Peter Connelly." There isn't a single other article about a murdered child named "Murder of Child/Baby..." Sure, children's names are not revealed prior to a trial, but it's time to change this article to the child's name. That's a no-brainer, I guess. Do people want to hold onto "Baby P" because it's become a buzzword? EdgarBacon (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to bring up the same topic. I think right now Baby P is more appropriate (though redirects can be created). Baby P is what everyone knows him as, and until he's referred to by his real name as routine I think we should stick with the most common thing he is known as.  Majorly  talk  15:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The best title for the article is the one that would be most recognised and referenced, and that is still, by quite some stretch, Baby P. Sky83 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it's been moved, while consensus is still developing. Unhelpful, WP:BOLD notwithstanding. Furthermore, it's a cut & paste move which hides the edit history and contravenes GFDL, so I've had to undo it on that basis alone.  Rodhull  andemu  15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I totally agree, I think someone got a little too quick with that one! Really should be moved back. Sky83 (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noticed you already did! My apologies! :) Sky83 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although "Death of Baby P" does sound a bit silly, I think it should stay as it is while the child is still predominantly known as Baby P.--A bit iffy (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be chaned to "The Death of Peter Connelly" now because the murdered child deserves to be known by his real name. I will be buying a new gravestone very shortly. (92.14.237.216 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC))
 * The majority of sources are using Baby P, and far fewer using Peter Connelly. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I cannot find a SINGLE article relating to the death of a child that is titled "Death of Baby..." - how about someone address this glaring fact, rather than trying to completely swerve the matter at hand? The fact that "Baby P" has become a hip, cool term clearly does not justify the article title. This is a murdered child we're talking about here, not a Big Brother contestant. Why not show this child, who lost his life in such tragic circumstances, the respect he deserves by giving him a name? Anyway, as all Wikipedia articles are rigged, rendered and dominated by biased editors who are unrelenting in their quest for the entire world to subscribe to their vision of what the subject should be, I guess the idiotic title of "Death of Baby P" will remain... EdgarBacon (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting your feelings known. It actually is irrelevant whether there are any other articles titled Death of Baby..., this one just so happens to be because that the name that this child is best known as. His name is in the article, but we are not supposed to make it into a hagiography. We write about facts not opinions. Yes it's tragic, but our encyclopedia is supposed to be a neutral one not an opinion piece. I'm sorry if you don't agree with that.  Majorly  talk  20:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what element of my previous post was opinion, sorry. Swerving solid points by branding them "opinion"? A bit cowardly, is it not? EdgarBacon (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to apologise. How about "glaring fact", "hip, cool term", "tragic", "biased", "idiotic" etc? They sound very much like opinion to me. It's unfortunate that you seem unable to engage in civil conversation without resorting to attacking people who disagree with you.  Majorly  talk  22:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Another swerve. My viewpoint has essentially been proven correct, but as ever, fact is not of paramount importance here on Wikipedia. I will allow yourself and your biased cohorts do discuss how your biased, rigged article should be presented. EdgarBacon (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It must be changed to "Peter Connelly". (92.13.5.1 (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Of course. EdgarBacon (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you've got me there - nothing could possibly beat that argument! Actually, this one might - "It must stay as it is".  Majorly  talk  22:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I don't believe I was responding to you. EdgarBacon (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, let me see, the article name has sufficed for 9 months yet suddenly it becomes "idiotic" and "stupid"? These fallacious arguments have the tone of an outspoken SPA editor indef'd for similar opinionated rhetoric. I wonder if we have a sock here, someone who is fixated on getting the name "Connelly" out in as many public locations as possible. Nah, an agenda driven editor here on Wikipedia? Who would believe such a thing. -- Web H amster  22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "The article name has sufficed for 9 months." Yep, and now "Baby P" (how insulting) is known by his real name, Peter Connelly. Ah well, I guess the biased, agenda-driven editors win again. Best to present a cleverly rigged perception of what you would like the subject to be, rather than the reality. Well done. EdgarBacon (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. Take a look at WP:COMMONNAME. I don't know if you've noticed, but this is an encyclopedia, intended to provide information to its readers- it is NOT meant to be a polemical vehicle for its editors, you included. This issue can easily be dealt with by redirects here and does not require any specification as far as I can see. What I can see, as I have seen from previous editors here, is a somewhat unnecessary insistence on emphasising the name of the unfortunate victim, with a subtext of vilifying the perpetrators. That is not what we are here for, and I personally, will resist any attempt to use this encyclopedia for propagandist means, and if that means blocking disruptive editors, well, so be it. Meanwhile, I am prepared to go with the consensus expressed here. Rodhull  andemu  01:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to be changed to "Peter Connelly" at once, continuing to call him "Baby P" is a sick insult. (CarlosJohnstone (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC))
 * It looks like we have yet another sockpuppet of . -- Web H amster  10:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Same as this and this?  Majorly  talk  12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC) -- Web  H amster  16:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes most likely.

I can't understand this "sick insult" stuff. In Britain for sure, and I would guess internationally, the case has considerable notability as the "Baby P" case and the child's real name has no notability. That this is the case is no insult to anyone and we should always follow the line of greatest notability. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But that's not the child's name. "Death of Baby P" could certainly redirect to "Death of Peter Connelly", but it's abundantly clear that people want to hold onto "Baby P" because it's become a buzzword throughout the nation. It's become a pretty cool, hip term to use. I'm waiting for the predictable response of "oh but that's opinion". In reality, every one of us know that the "Baby P" moniker has become a popular term that people quite like and want to keep using, at the expense of presenting a decent article. My point is only solidified by the fact that there are "Baby P" t-shirts and hoodies in circulation. I haven't seen a single "James Bulger" t-shirt. It's a hip, trendy, damn cool term. That's all about it. Again, the biased editors will rig the article to their liking, after all, that's what Wikipedia is: biased editors rigging articles so that the entire world subscribes to what they would like the subject to be. EdgarBacon (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses the name commonly applied, as told to you: this incident is known as death of Baby P, whether you like it or not. Also, you're repeating yourself. The fact it is a buzzword is what people know this incident as. Most people will know it as Baby P. The article is presented fine, and reflects what the real world thinks. I know you don't like the term Baby P, but that's what the incident is known as. There is no rigging, no bias - it's reflective of what people know it as. And considering Jamie Bulger was murdered over 16 years ago, it is unlikely you'll see many t-shirts or whatever with him on them. Give it a year and the baby P ones will go too.  Majorly  talk  13:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Majorly is right. When there's a conflict between the two, Wikipedia names articles by how things are notably known, not by what is "correct". Hence dear old Dickie Bird's article isn't at Harold Bird and Buffalo Bill isn't at William Frederick Cody. --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And 50 Cent, Meat Loaf, Eminem, Marilyn Monroe, Elton John etc etc.  Majorly  talk  14:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, everybody has known the murdered child by his real name of Peter Connelly since the very beginning. (CarlosJohnstone (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC))
 * So? Welcome back . You really make it so easy, sheesh. -- Web H amster  16:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't know until the other day when it was announced. I guess that's because I'm not "everybody" though.  Majorly  talk  17:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, EVERYBODY knew his name was Peter Connelly because it was on thousands of sites all over the Internet from the very beginning. (CarlosJohnstone (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Hmm. So, by "EVERYBODY" you mean "the kind of people who look up the real names of people (whose names have been protected on reliable sources by law) on the internet". Not my definition of everybody. But it's irrelevant. Wikipedia is a mirror of reliable sources. Reliable sources overwhelmingly have referred to Baby P. Sorry if you don't like that. --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Every site I have seen refers to him by his real name of PETER CONNELLY. Oh, and by the way, you can't keep any names secret at all in the modern age, which is why this stupid court order was lifted. (CarlosJohnstone (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Quick, write a letter to the Daily Mail about the sick article at Wikipedia. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The article title must be changed to "The Murder of Peter Connelly" because that is what everyone knows him as now, just as James Bulger's article is entitled "The Murder of James Bulger". (92.14.233.10 (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Yet another demand from /  et al. Some people have far too much time on their hands. -- Web  H amster  21:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Time of court order expiry
Probably not the most important of facts here, but with regard to something I asked last night (now at the bottom of the Archive page), if this BBC article is correct then the court order expired at 23.00 BST (22.00 GMT), not midnight as I'd been led to believe. Loganberry (Talk) 15:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't shed any light on the reasons for it, but the names and some details were mentioned on news channels before 11:59 GMT as well. I believe Sky News and BBC News 24 both did it. It seems odd, but it could've been a mistake in determining the differences between GMT and BST, as was suggested in the archive. Sky83 (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cash and cachet
In the section about the name of this article, there are concerns that the name "Baby P" is being used because it is "hip", "cool", etc. This may be true, and it strikes me as being another facet of this terrible tale. It would be good to see some reliable sources about how this story & moniker is being used in popular culture. I don't come empty handed: John Vandenberg (chat) 13:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The cause of death was murder
The article needs to mention that the cause of death was MURDER, following 17 months of horrific abuse. (92.11.168.163 (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Perhaps you should look up the legal definition of murder. The abusers were not charged with murder, in fact they were found to be not guilty of murder. Now, yet another sock of, go away and quit with the disruptive histrionics. -- Web H amster  21:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Make that "another blocked sock..." Rodhull  andemu  21:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it was murder - Stephen Barker deliberately snapped Peter Connelly's spine in order to end his life, after pulling his fingernails off with pliars - something the article should also mention. (92.9.187.66 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Talk about whacka-fucking-mole. At this rate Carphone Warehouse Broadband are going to get all their IPs blocked. Either that or you get reported to them and lose your broadband access. -- Web H amster  22:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What this guy doesn't realise is that he's building up a viable IP rangeblock with every new edit, and if his fellow CPW users complain here or to CPW, I'll gladly explain it to them. Rodhull  andemu  22:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * An even better clue is that GranvilleHouston is in fact a sockpuppet of HarveyCarter who has a developed a far more accurate target for a rangeblock. -- Web H amster  11:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added "murder" categories for the moment, however I think we need categories for "child abuse resulting in death". John Vandenberg (chat) 02:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Category created and article added to it. I haven't removed the murder categories you added as I think there should be some discussion about it first. -- Web H amster  09:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I removed the murder categories before reading this. As it was not murder it's hard to see why these cats should be retained; the present cat seems adequate. Of course I am open to argument... --John (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see another user has restored the categories and reverted a number of stylistic edits I had made towards a more WP:NPOV article. Is there a consensus that because there was a murder inquiry, that makes this a murder even though the accused were found not guilty of murder? Could even be a WP:BLP issue, I'm thinking. Apologies if I misunderstood anything but these last edits don't seem to improve the article. What do others think? --John (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically, "notably failed" breaches NPOV, even if it can be cited. Repeating the geographical location using slightly different terms, in two paragraphs, seems excessive. Remember the lede is a summary of the article below, not a place to editorialize about the rights and wrongs of the case. Present the facts as they can be referenced, summarize them, then let the reader decide on stuff like that, is how we generally do things. --John (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please could you give your argument why, in a case where the police have conducted a murder enquiry, and made arrests and charges, there being no ultimate convictions for murder makes there having been no murder? I don't follow that logic.--Straw Cat (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Separate argument. See murder for more info on that one. Murder relates to the criminal, not the victim. There having been no murder convictions here means the legal crime of murder has not been sustained. Please respond to my argument above as well. Thanks. --John (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you any legal authorities for your third sentence? Were the victims of Jack the Ripper, or President Kennedy, not then murdered?--Straw Cat (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not within the legal meaning of the word, no. On these occasions when folks disagree, the protocol is for the person wishing to add material (such as the category you restored and the editorializing in the lede) to justify the inclusion of the material in terms of our policies, guidelines and so on. The onus is therefore on you to show it belongs here, rather than on me to show it does not. Looking at the other articles in the category, it seems all but this one and Maria Colwell were actual murders. I would argue that as it is a legal term, and especially as BLP is a potential issue here, we should not use the category.

Peter Connelly, President Kennedy and Jack the Ripper's victims were indeed all MURDERED. (92.11.196.183 (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC))


 * I blieve it is for you to argue why your removal of a category someone else added earlier, is wrong - i.e. that though this was a murder investigation and (contrary to what Web Hamster said) there was a murder charge brought, you have a legal authority to say that if no murderer is identified, that no murder took place. In this country an inquest may, I believe, bring in a verdict of murder. Until you can do that, I think the consensus is (and WP is usually governed by consensus - it has until now on this article) that it is correctly categorized.--Straw Cat (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that in category "English murder victims" there are more than one where the perp has never been convicted, including for instance PC Keith Blakelock of Tottenham.--Straw Cat (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What's your rationale for your reversion of my trim of the lede? --John (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, it is for you to explain why text which has stood for some weeks, and you have changed, has been improved by your changes. The geographical location was not simply repeated: Tottenham is a long-established working-class district where both Peter and Climbie lived. The Borough of Haringey is a larger local authority responsible for some of the child care agencies. The intro can clearly be further improved but it is helpful to concisely summarise the issues which made this case so publicly notorious - this is not to "editorialize", - a rather POV term in itself - but to simply describe.--Straw Cat (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is, and I have stated why I believe my version is better; as I mentioned above, I think "notably failed" breaches NPOV. The lead is not the place to talk about the distinction between Tottenham and Haringey either. "Text which has stood for weeks" is not a policy here; NPOV is. Let's see what other people think now, unless you have anything to add. --John (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have done some similar edits to John, partly on grammatical grounds and partly on NPOV grounds. For example I removed the "mounting" from "mounting shock" on both grammar and NPOV, because "mounting" is a present tense statement yet this is a historical case. I also removed the media bit as it was Parliament and the public that were shocked, the media just reported the shock. I've also removed the BNP political affiliation as it is irrelevant and ultimately a coatrack argument.


 * I've also removed the above mentioned murdered category. I agree with John. Peter died an unlawful death which isn't the same as being murdered. Murder is also a state of mind. The CPS couldn't prove that there was an intent to kill him. Without intent there is no murder. It is not up to us editors to decide how a person died, it's only our responsibility to report how they died and the official cause of death was not murder, therefore we can't turn round and say it was. To do so is POV.


 * One other thing that should be worked on is the many refs that are simply a link and aren't formatted correctly. -- Web H amster  08:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion
We don't usually delete contributions to talk pages on Wikipedia which may disagree with us, do we, unless they are clearly vandalism? John Stuart Mill, anyone? --Straw Cat (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Baby P: Sharon Shoesmith 'compares her treatment to that of James Bulger's murderers'
September the 3rd : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/baby-p/6119918/Baby-P-Sharon-Shoesmith-compares-her-treatment-to-that-of-James-Bulgers-murderers.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.204.16 (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection.
If anyone could get around to it, it's high-time this page was released from semi-protection. As it stands, this case is now relatively quite now, and has been protected for two years. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that. The protection log of showed repeated vandalism was a problem. The last indefinite protection was made with the comment Excessive vandalism: let him rest in peace; he didn't deserve that. Indef is appropriate until these ghouls have kids of their own. -- Trevj (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Mother to be Released on Bail
It might be time to protect this article again as it's just been decided Tracey Connelly is going to be released from prison within days here's the link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24446126

Veryscarymary (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Death of Baby P. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081208061525/http://www.haringey.gov.uk:80/index/news_and_events/latest_news/childa.htm to http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/news_and_events/latest_news/childa.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081208041118/http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org:80/column222-baby-p.htm to http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/column222-baby-p.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)