Talk:Baby 81 incident

message: Interested readers may like to see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, which seems to be the ArbCom case mentioned above. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbcom

message: One side of the argument seems to be that if the sources include the name, we can. The other side seems to be that if the sources include the name, we can choose not to (letting readers go to the sources to find out the name if they want to). First, to forestall the "Wikipedia needs to record all of history" argument, we should assume that all information included in a Wikipedia article will still be available in various sources in 10 years time (maybe not the same ones, but some sources should still remain). If not, then history has passed its verdict and the information should be passed from Wikipedia to a "possibly this happened but we aren't really sure any more" wiki. In that vein, I tend to agree that including the name is not necessary here. Once the living person dies, their name can be placed in the article. The only other issue I have a question about is how Google searches work if a name appears in a Wikipedia page title, as opposed to appearing simply in a brief footnote to an article. Is the result on a Google search the same? Carcharoth 11:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the article features in the URL, which is given a higher priority over the rest of the text in Google's search results.  violet/riga (t) 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks. So names in titles are a special concern. Thanks. Carcharoth 21:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, basically Doc and I went through Wikipedia identifying named infants, and took steps to deal with them all.  Since then Jimmy Wales has introduced the "Wikipedia isn't a newspaper" addition to What Wikipedia is not,  I'd rather not hold an AfD at this time, but obviously this ephemeral human interest story falls afoul of that policy.  I am simply sitting back and awaiting a more propitious moment, which I expect to come soon enough.  --Tony Sidaway 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in article or sources? 

message: :Linked to from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies
As it appears from this discussion that the concensus was, based on WP:BLP was to include the child's name, I have reverted the most recent change to delete the name. Bielle 23:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If most of the reporters of the incident refrain from mentioning the name, then we probably shouldn't include it either; however, if the name is widely reported then I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same.  Having not followed news coverage of this, I have no idea which is the case. *Dan T.* 03:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No RFC is needed, there is no BLP issue. Common sense, not paranoia. -- Ned Scott 03:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your opinion, but this seems to have been discussed by very few people and I think wider input is needed. In the meantime I think the info should stay out as a simple application of "do no harm". We're not working to a deadline here and its better safe than sorry. WjBscribe 03:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a moment, step back, clear your head of the wiki-think, and actually look at this situation. No harm can be done form this situation. There's nothing bad that can happen from mentioning the name. It's not probable, it's not realistic. This is fundamental information that isn't just relevant, but needed for proper verification of the article itself. It's even something that BLP mentions, as pointed out by violetriga. Removing the name isn't supported by WP:BLP. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that baby's name was Tony Sidaway I would bloody well not want it to be broadcast, for reasons that must be obvious to all.  The name is moreover quite irrelevant to the story.  This is a private individual with a right to privacy.  The tragedy that occurred during the first two or three years of his life must not be used as an excuse to plaster his name all over the internet through the agency of Wikipedia. To cite BLP and claim that removing its name is not supported by that policy is quite mind-boggling.  This is precisely why BLP exists--to protect private individuals. --Tony Sidaway 04:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He may (or may not) want privacy (he's probably still too young to ask), but he didn't get it; like with Elian Gonzalez, he was thrust into a big media event, like it or not.  Wikipedia didn't do it, but when it's out there, we ought to be giving the straight facts about it. *Dan T.* 04:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Wikipedia didn't do it" is beside the point.  Wikipedia doesn't have to do it.  We don't need this name.  If we do include the name then it is simply and flatly a lie to claim that "Wikipedia didn't do it."  Wikipedia, I say, need not do it.  The name is not important to the story.  If we include a name we don't need, then Wikipedia did do it.  Wikipedia is now too big to ignore the damage it can do by unnecessarily including the name of a private individual. --Tony Sidaway 04:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What damage?! Are you insane? The name is a vital piece of information. If it's encyclopedic enough for us to keep the article, then we need to be including his name. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: July discussion

message: Seriously, of all the things to do right now you choose to edit war?  1RR please!  violet/riga (t) 08:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No consensus exists to restore the information at present (I presently have no real opinion on whether it should stay or go, however I do know there's ncs to include it). Therefore, per the recent ArbCom ruling, it shouldn't be readded until a clear consensus exists for it to be readded. That fact was made very clear by the ArbCom in their findings with relation to do no harm (this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached). Daniel 09:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That case doesn't rule on individual articles.  The BLP policy, as cited above, shows that the name can be included.  No matter what, it is not appropriate to edit war over it especially given the circumstances.  violet/riga (t) 09:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, so "Wrong Version" and all that. Isn't it just slightly amusing that we now have the exact opposite situation of the other day where the redirects exist but the name isn't included in the article? violet/riga (t) 09:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Typing the name into Google still brings up this page.  Hell, typing into our internal search engine brings us to this page.  I fail to see how violating edit war policy is valid in such circumstances.  What's the rush?  You could easily wait for a couple of days to see how this discussion develops.  Removing the name when a BLP-aware decision has been taken is edit warring and is inappropriate.  violet/riga (t) 09:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course edit warring is inappropriate. I apologise for it unreservedly. It is because edit warring is inappropriate that this page has been protected. What you're complaining about isn't protection but protection of the wrong version. As you know, protection isn't an endorsement of the present version, an admin seeing a revert war is required to protect the version he/she finds... WjBscribe 09:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, hence my wink to "Wrong Version" above.  I'm not complaining about that at all.  violet/riga (t) 09:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: One of the arguments here is whether or not the name will be so obviously associated with this event in the future that trying to hide it is moot.  Though there are ~400,000 hits on  (including many for the rock album), I was surprised to see only ~600 hits  that associated "Baby 81" with his name (of which there are at least 3 spellings, incidentally).  If the name has had only limited exposure in print media, then there is more of an argument that some right to privacy should still be considered, and that these events may effectively fade from view.  When I started looking at this, I was expecting to find the opposite, but now I am not sure.  Dragons flight 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, then maybe removing the name is the right position.  I was favoring keeping it, but it's not something I have a fervent, unshakable opinion about; my general view is that we should go along with whatever the mainstream media is doing, including the name if they are, and excluding it if they are, rather than doing the "original research" or "POV" of going in a different direction from them. *Dan T.* 16:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inevitable discovery? 

message: It's been a few days since the last comment; are we ready to unprotect the page? Mackensen (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say yes, but I don't think the debate is over and I worry that an edit war might start again.  Unless someone is willing to claim a majority/consensus decision on way or the other, of course.  violet/riga (t) 18:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do it, include the name per Mackensen's rationale, discussion here, and WT:BLP#Privacy of names. -- Ned Scott 22:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be safe to unprotect, but I'm not sure the discussion at WT:BLP#Privacy of names is quite through the matter yet.  As I responded to Mackensen above, I've withdrawn my own objections but I speak for no one but myself.  The subject's desire for privacy is still a viable concern, and too close for me to try and call.  Some at that link strongly feel erring on the side of caution is a good thing here, so I think a bit more discussion wouldn't hurt. --InkSplotch 17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection? 

message: Without explanation (no, citing WP:BLP is not an explanation),  removed the name again. There's certainly no consensus for such a move on the talk page, and that the article stayed static for a month suggests, strongly, that there was no issue. I am concerned that this move was prompted by the pending, if ill-conceived, arbitration request concerning Violet Riga. I hope not. Articles aren't counters. Mackensen (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit/revert 

message: Before I involve myself in these discussions again I'd just like to remind people of the very basic thing of avoiding double redirects - if you move an article sort out the incoming links.  violet/riga (t) 10:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move war 

message: Somebody has restored the name of the infant to this article.  I have removed it again.  Please reconsider this vile, trollish, and unnecessary abuse of a small child's privacy. --Tony Sidaway 23:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure whoever restored the name meant well.  I reverted you mainly b/c you were asuuming bad faith.  I certainly won't engage in an edit war if others believe the name should stay out of the article.  It's probably not essential.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion above seems to have come out in favor of including the name, on the grounds that the major news media coverage being used as sources did so.  Your calling all of this "trollish" seems to be yet another example of how people around here toss around "troll" as a description of any opinions they disagree with, in an attempt to stifle debate. *Dan T.* 00:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sidaway quit being such a drama queen, I'll trust the ethical judgments of professional journalists over yours any day. I find your histrionics and inferences of moral turpitude on the part of those who disagree with you vile, trollish, and an unnecessary abuse of your fellow editors. PS stop being such a wiki-lawyer about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. --MichaelLinnear 00:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, that's not nice.  Tony's good people and wants to do the right thing; he just has an unfortunate tendency to address his fellow editors as enemies and scoundrels when they don't buy into his strident intepretations of certain policies.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but it's becoming disruptive. Tony needs to back off on the issue. Policy does not back him up on the matter, something that now two arbitrators have indicated. -- Ned Scott 03:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please WP:AGF, the people here aren't doing this out of any attempt to be trollish and your behavior here is over the top.  When the real name of the person is easily found by a straightforward Google search, it becomes pointless to hide it.  All of the initial hits I get from the search reveal the name. I'm not that familiar with this subject, but some sources are claiming that this is a partial hoax, in that not as many people as claimed tried to claim their baby as their own.  I haven't researched this myself so I don't know its veracity, but perhaps someone could look into reliable sources on the matter.  -Nathan J. Yoder 06:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of name

message: A protected redirect, Baby 81 needs redirect category (rcat) templates added.  Please modify it as follows:
* from this:
#REDIRECT Baby 81 incident
Category:Protected redirects
* to this:
#REDIRECT Baby 81 incident

* 
Template Redr is an alias for the  template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories.  As long as  and/or  will suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically.  (Also, the categories will be automatically removed when and if protection is lifted.)  Thank you in advance! Painius  21:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, thank you very much, Mr. Stradivarius!  Joys! Painius  02:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 11 September 2015