Talk:Baby 81 incident

Renamed

I've renamed this article back to Baby 81 (its original name) and removed all references to the child's real name, for obvious reasons. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What obvious reasons are those, Tony? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a little bizarre, when a google search for "Baby 81" finds BBC reports like these [1][2][3] plus dozens more from other (non-Wikipedia-derived) sources.

Is this child's name a secret? Are we not permitted to have articles on minors now? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what some would like. I'm reverting this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not move this article on a minor back to the name of the minor, or add the name of the minor to the article. There are serious Biographies of living persons concerns here. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Name them. Support your claim or I'll revert back again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The previous article name was that of a four-month-old baby. Please add this to the arbitration case if you wish to dispute Wikipedia's right to act on such concerns. --Tony Sidaway 20:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Four month old baby" is not part of BLP. Again, what justification are you using - if you want to add it to ArbCom go right ahead, but that simply avoids the question. Two separate people are questioning your activity here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you're questioning this, to be honest. You yourself said on my talk page just three days ago "For the record, current minors is an area we shouldn't touch. I don't disagree with that. You want to draw a clear line, that's a good one." [4]. Could you explain your apparent change of heart? --Tony Sidaway 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Which arbitration case?

Tony, are you seriously suggesting that using the name of a minor is a WP:BLP issue, even if rock solid sources are provided? How so? In this case, the name is reported in many sources (along with "Baby 81", as I point out above - the first one says "Baby 81 became a symbol of tsunami suffering ... Murugupillai and Jenita Jeyarajah said the boy was their son, Abhilasha ..." with a picture). And the subject is not four months old now - he was apparently four months old in February 2005, so it presumably about 2½ now. Is there a magic age when the youth of an article's subject ceases to be a relevant criterion? 14? 16? 18? 21? 25? Or perhaps we should have no biographical articles until the subject is dead (goodbye Tony Blair and George W. Bush - hmm, perhaps this is a good idea). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, can you justify your claim or not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've justified my claim by reference to Jeff's own words in response to Newyorkbrad's well argued deletion of two well sourced articles about minors. I'd like Jeff to explain why he has changed his mind on this. --Tony Sidaway 22:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I already admitted I was hasty in such a statement. NYB and I are on the same page. Now, justify your claim please. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have followed your link, Tony, but I don't see the connection between two minors who were victims of crime (and presumably not particuarly notable, however horrific the crimes) and a child who was a "symbol of tsunami suffering". I repeat: are we being encouraged to delete all articles about any living person below a particlar age? Why? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)