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've justified it. I agree with Jeff three days ago and I disagree with Jeff now. Is that clear? --Tony Sidaway 05:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you've made no justification, in fact. You've simply said "BLP" with no actual argument. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:07, 31 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 particular age? Why? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For example, there are a number of very young people listed in Category:2007 births. Will we be deleting Princess Ariane of the Netherlands and others? How about Leo Blair? How about the hundreds at Category:1990 births? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not deleted this article, nor have I had anyone else delete it, nor have I attempted to do so. Please address the situation at hand. --Tony Sidaway 05:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. So we are allowed to have articles on minors. Good. So the next question is, why is this article unable to mention the name of its subject? Should we be renaming Leo Blair as Tony Blair's youngest son or Tony Blair's fourth child? And should Princess Ariane of the Netherlands be Third child of Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange? How do we decide when the name of a child is prohibited? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are all interesting questions. I do not propose to respond to them because they are not relevant to this article. This one was pretty obvious, though, because the name of the child is irrelevant. --Tony Sidaway 09:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am just trying to discern what rule you are applying here. How can the name of a person be irrelevant to an article about them? We mention the names of both parents, and provide links to sources that name the child. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The thinking here is that the name of the child is no longer useful as a google search term to find this article, so the information will not follow him around as an adult. The child's name is irrelevant because it has no bearing on the case. --Tony Sidaway 11:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So we are deliberatly obscuring this easily available information to stop it following the child around? As if someone typing his name into Google won't find a hundred articles (from the BBC and other major sources!) giving the information that we are supressing?

In 50 years time, when someone asks themselves "what was the name of that baby who caused such a fuss after the Asian tsunami" and thinks "I know, I will check it on Wikipedia", they will come away disappointed? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)