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)

Why did you do that! Lot of people want to now what the baby's name is! 217.122.119.123 (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2022 (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)

So you noticed that Wikipedia is not a newspaper archive? We have progress! We're not the BBC, and we're not another major source. We're Wikpedia and we have ethics. --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you know "that the name of the child is no longer useful as a google search term"? People do research in many different ways. The child's real name is available, and it's not going to disappear anytime soon. Someone might find that name on another website and use it as a search term here. If it were me, and I were looking for more information about the baby, I'd probably begin my search by using the child's real name, and not a nickname.

At the very least, the child's real name should exist in the form of a redirect. I would appreciate a more detailed explanantion as to how the name is a BLP issue. 76.197.234.163 05:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. The removal of the name from Wikipedia was done with the intention of making the name useless as a search term for the article, in the interests of privacy. Why? Because, well, we try not act like pieces of shit. --Tony Sidaway 05:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How does including a child's real name, when that name is easily available in established sources, make us "pieces of shit"? Just assume I'm very slow, and explain it to me, in detail. You haven't given a very strong argument, IMO. 76.197.234.163 05:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well my point is that, because we aren't, we look for ways in which we could be harming privacy for no good reason. And one way is in putting the child's name into the article. The sole reason for the article in the first place is the fuss over identification of the baby and the tussle involving the parents, the hospital and the court; having made the decision to cover it, in all that the child's actual identity is insignificant for our purposes as an encyclopedia. On the other hand if we kept the name in it would impact the privacy of the child. --Tony Sidaway 06:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely, in this particular case, the identity of the child was absolutely crucial? That was the whole reason for the fuss, etc. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You confuse two situations. For the parents, the identification of the baby was of crucial importance and that's what makes the story. For us, the baby could have been called Fred Bloggs and the story would not be any different. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[←] You may be surprised at the number of articles I have written based on obituaries that appear in broadsheet newspapers. Newspapers, and the BBC, are excellent sources; not perfect, of course, but they have a reputation to defend, and have the time and funding to indulge in extensive fact-checking. But are you saying that they don't have ethics too? Or that their ethics are somehow inferior to the ethics of Wikipedia?

You seem to think it is somehow contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia to include the name of a person who was involved in current (and in due course) historical) event - that the name is not notable, perhaps? I still don't see how this turns into a claim that BLP is in point. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons that people shouting "BLP" are encountering resistance. The name gets over 2000 hits and details an international story where the name was very public. Us censoring the name merely lessens our coverage of a significant world event. violet/riga (t) 23:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Our references contain the name. I'm not noticing much resistance. The community seems to be very much behind us. --Tony Sidaway 03:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you're not paying attention, Tony. Plain and simple. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How many people are aware that this discussion, and the BLP discussions in general, are actually going on? From what I can tell, the vast majority of editors and readers don't pay much attention to these community debates until the repercussions directly affect their contributions or favorite articles. I was an active editor in early 2006, for example, yet I was completely unaware of the whole Brian Peppers thing.

I think it's a bit hasty to declare that the entire community agrees with you. For the record, I think badlydrawnjeff and ALoan represent the voices of reason here. Zagalejo 06:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well then you may be in for more than a few surprises. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What does that mean? Cryptic comments don't help. Zagalejo 23:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, so there are two admins and three others that believe that the name should be included despite what it says at WP:BLP. At which point does general consensus override the individual? Please don't say that consensus can't override policy because the issue is the reading of the policy and the consensus would be that it does not violate it. violet/riga (t) 07:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. Add it to the arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it's really something that the arbcom are going to want to decide on. It should be down to consensus and how we feel that BLP applies. Since five people appear to believe that the name can be included I will soon, without further objection, be including the name within the article and as a redirect. violet/riga (t) 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, as far as I can see, the only person I can see arguing for omission of the name in this case is you. And there are plenty of other people her who disagree. I would say that consensus is very much against you here. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Try to move it back, and I think it likely that you will find that there is no consensus to do so. There is no need to drag the name of a baby unnecessarily onto this encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 22:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

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)

Name in article or sources?

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)

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)

Ah, thanks. So names in titles are a special concern. Thanks. Carcharoth 21:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Inclusion of the name

There appear to be four editors and one anon in favour of the inclusion of Baby 81's name. The relevant BLP clause begins "Editors should consider" and includes "Evaluate on a case by case basis". This clearly states that we have to make judgements for each article. I believe that consensus is leaning in favour of inclusion and propose to add it. I await any further comments before doing so. violet/riga (t) 19:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem if the name is added, I cannot see what harm will be caused because of it. Catchpole 20:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My question would be: what useful information would be provided by using the child's real name? The article itself states the family no longer wants to be known as "the tsunami family" and that is really the child's only claim to fame. What would be the encyclopedic use of the name itself? -- Kesh 01:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the central theme of the article is discovering the identity of the baby it seems odd and somewhat ironic that it is never revealed. violet/riga (t) 07:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Also their appearance on Good Morning America shows that they did not exactly shy away from the public eye and I'm sure they will have had their names used there. Since most of our external links contain the name I feel we can too - I don't like the idea that readers have to go elsewhere to find out that detail. violet/riga (t) 08:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is also the more pragmatic consideration that failing to have even a redirect from the baby's actual name will prevent anyone looking that up from finding this. (I realize that this is some people's intended aim; however, the name is evidently public information from looking at the sources cited here.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the intention is to avoid causing damage by indelibly saddling the child, into his hopefully long and happy lifetime, with this rather silly affair. --Tony Sidaway 11:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that the majority here favour the inclusion of the name and I have replaced it. It is noted that the "Privacy of names" section at WP:BLP currently states:

When the reliable sources used as references for an article about a living person or about an event involving one or more living persons refer to such individuals by name, the article generally can as well.

Also interesting to note is the inclusion of the name on de: wiki. violet/riga (t) 15:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

July discussion

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)

This issue needs much wider discussion I think. Perhaps a request for comment to get as much outside opinion as possible? Multiple reverts can really be justified by a consensus of so few people. In light of the "Do no harm" principle as outlined by ArbCom, I think the name should be removed pending full discussion. Are people agreeable to an WP:RFC/ARTICLES? WjBscribe 03:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

How on earth could the article cause any harm to this child? Be realistic here, people. Wikipedia or not, this event is forever apart of this kid's life, and whether or not the name is said makes no difference. Removing fundamental information for an article for such a reason is retarded. Who are you protecting? Will the kid magically not now about all this, because the English Wikipedia article didn't mention their name? Removing the name is a perfect example of BLP being incorrectly applied. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

It's an anecdotal event that transpired through no fault of the child and that was resolved without any reported lasting injury or negative impact on the child, right? I don't see the "negative" concern here. Yes, the baby is going to be followed by this anecdote during the rest of his/her life, but I don't see significant harm arising from that. No more harmful than say being the first baby of the millenium, or the child of a celebrity. Consider, once this child grows up, would someone hearing this anecdote be likely to treat the person negatively, or hold the event against them? That seems unlikely to me. Given that I don't see what the potential harm is, I don't see any reason for excluding the well-known details of the child's identity. Dragons flight 05:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for exclusion

Now that I've had a chance to gather my thoughts, let me explain why I believe we should omit Baby 81's full name from this article. As I see it the problem is the risk of labelling this boy for the rest of his life as "that baby that survived the earthquake and was fought over by those couples". Its not a terrible label and much better than "that rape victim" or "that kid that accidentally killed his mother", but it is a label nonetheless. Most people claim the right to decide for themselves who they are and what to share with others about their lives. I believe most dislike being labelled based on one event in their life or a particular characteristic they have. We will probably never be able to give a rounded image of the person that baby grows up to be, but we may well immortalise him as Baby 81. Whereas other reports of the incident will probably fade from google overtime and old newslinks no longer be available, our articles are likely to maintain a high google presence forever. Already it is common for people to "google" those they meet, those they might employ, those they might date. We have a responsibility as a result. In my opinion we can give our readers all the information about Baby 81 they need without including his name. But we should give that person a chance to decide in later life who he wants to be and whether he wants to share this element of his life with people he meets. We should respect his privacy. WjBscribe 06:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What troubles me about the above logic is that it doesn't seem to take into consideration the countless newspaper articles, books, and magazines which legally, morally, and ethically have no problem *whatsoever* with providing the names of children and third-parties in their publications while also providing internet archives. Surely, if the editor-in-chief of The Times (London), the Calgary Herald (Alberta), BBC News, and the Sydney MX (Australia) -- to name a few -- had no problem disclosing the name of Baby 81 to their wide readership on multiple occassions, then perhaps we need to think twice about the precedents we're setting on Wikipedia?

Some obvious (and important) questions arise:

1. If "sensitivity" is an issue, why are we still linking to the very articles that disclose the name of the baby?

2. Should we start deleting countless articles on Wikipedia based on the premise of "sensitivity"?

3. How will this interpretation of BLP effect the 5 pillars of Wikipedia?

4. Are there slippery slopes involed here (I suspect that there will be)?

I'm trying to be constructive by voicing my concerns because I've been involved in a similar case just the other day, and I can see the problems that will arise in the future. The child's name (and picture!) were deliberately released to the international media by the defendent and his legal team, Nicholas John Baker, after a major Japanese drug bust placed Baker in jail. Obviously, the defense team released these pictures in the hopes of gaining sympathy and support among the international community. The child's name appeared on TV, radio, and too many print publications (including the internet) to mention here. Will Wikipedia outlast all of these other major media sources? Maybe. But, it seems to me that we need a very specific definition that takes into account when and where we can't mention publicly verifiable facts in multiple third-party sources, otherwise the BLP "sensitivity" charge can be used to the advantage of propagandists, trolls, and other vested interests using anon IP accounts who want to re-write history when it's now convenient for them to do so. Best regards, J Readings 07:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources you mention will be around quite as long and prominently as this article will be (assuming Wikipedia survives). Those papers are reporting news, we are writing an encyclopedia. Their content is short term, whereas ours may well last for a lot of this person's life - which is why our ethical considerations are in my opinion very different. WjBscribe 08:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Good encyclopedias wouldn't omit relevant information. BLP concerns would trump all if it were widely agreed and apparent that the association with Baby 81 is harmful to the child. But I think that prospect is wild speculation; isn't it equally likely that the child might one day feel blessed and fortunate to be Baby 81? I say keep your personal feelings out of editorial decisions, when possible. If this were a clear case of mocking or disparaging the otherwise non-notable subject, I would feel differently.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you say they won't be around as long and as prominently? I'm willing to bet that putting the name into a search engine in 5 years will still come up with results. The news reports are on hundreds of websites and will remain accessible for as long as we are here. violet/riga (t) 08:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect to conjectures such as "the sources you mention will be around quite as long" as the article will, I think WP:CRYSTAL applies. Also, as someone intimately familiar with the historian's craft, I would venture to say that news sources are as "permanent" as those of any other medium.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You only have to check references on some of our articles to see how soon links to news reports become deadlinks. To reply to the fact that he may be proud to be Baby 81 - quite possibly. And if we have reliable sources that he, as an adult, wishes that association I would have no problem with the restoration of that name. But that is a choice for him in my opinion. I agree that this is not as strong a case as were the circumstances negative, but I still think we are interfering with this person's future when we need not do so. Our article is no poorer for not including his real name. WjBscribe 08:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The world of verifiable information doesn't start and end with what's available on Google. Even a half-assed historian with a good university library can easily confirm information as basic as you're proposing we omit. That is not, by the way, the sole reason that I believe the name should not be omitted; I am merely stating that your reasoning is peculiar. And I believe the article is "poorer" for lack of a specific name (poorer than other reputable sources that include it, I mean/).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Second. Note that there are 69 Google News Archive results, which'll probably last as long as Wikipedia. Zagalejo 02:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Many news sites restructure themselves and move stories to different URLs periodically. Many others do not. Either way they are still accessible. Most major news corporations don't take down their content or archive it, and even so many search engines trawl through news archives now. violet/riga (t) 08:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the RfC, my view is that the name should not be included. The article doesn't benefit from it; the child has not actually done anything to make him notable as a person; and he isn't in a position to give tacit consent to be written about by, for example, giving an interview to journalists. The right to privacy overrides other considerations in a case like this. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's a fairly straightforward way to resolve this issue and test the hypothesis that serious academics (and by extension, encyclopedists) take into account these BLP "sensitivity" issues when publishing. We simply agree upon a subject to research, and check to see if bona fide historians, political scientists, sociologists, etc. actually omit personal names and other sundry details from the story, analysis, or narrative. J Readings 08:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to do what any other publication does, JR. We make up our own policy, based on our experience of writing an encyclopedia that anyone is allowed to edit — encyclopedia, not newspaper or academic journal — and on the fact that Wikipedia's reach is wider than almost any other publication. Extra power = extra responsibility. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to argue that Wikipedia is somehow so above it all now that reputable mainstream publications and their time-honored practices are no longer relevant to professional discourse, especially the practices of other academics and their peer-reviewed journals. I'm not sure that I agree with that sentiment, especially in this case, but I respect your opinion. J Readings 10:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that we have an article on Jessica McClure, the baby (now grown up) who was rescued from a well in 1986. Would you have argued, if Wikipedia existed in 1986, to exclude the name from the article? Would it have been OK to add the name after she was no longer a minor? (But isn't some of the "possible damage" cited, like them being Googled by people considering them for a job or a date, more likely to happen once they're adults than while they're still kids?) If there was a Wikipedia in the wizarding world, would people there have argued for excluding the name of Harry Potter in the early years when he was solely famous as the "Boy Who Lived" from an incident in his infanthood? Maybe the article would be renamed to The Boy who Lived, and of course due to wizarding taboos the name of his opponent would be He Who Must Not Be Named rather than straightforwardly as Lord Voldemort. *Dan T.* 11:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been over this page twice now, and while I don't see how a clear consensus to include the name exists (sorry, it just looks pretty muddy right now to me) it looks like recent wheel warring that showed up on AN/I occurred because some believe it does. So, I'd just like to throw my two cents in here, and say I agree with the concerns that this inclusion goes against BLP; particularly WJBscribe's comments at the top of this section. I would oppose including the name in this article, and as a redirect. I think this article does just fine at recording the event without needing to delve so far into anyone's privacy...especially as the article itself indicates the family is avoiding media attention. That seems clear to me, but I respect that others disagree. I just want to add my voice here. --InkSplotch 18:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Striking part of my comments. I still am not sure consensus is clear here, but my concerns that this articles reinforces a 'label' as WJBscribe describes have been greatly lessened. --InkSplotch 03:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on the fact that the German article does include the baby's name, and seemingly is going to continue to do so(?), it seems to me to be really pointless to try to exclude the name from the English article. Now, if there were an extant article in Sri Lankan (or whatever) about the subject, that might change things. Beyond that, however, I really can't see how including the name at this point could be problematic to the subject, particularly since they went public on American TV. However, if we were to have a request from the subject to not include the name at some point, I could then see removing the name. Short of that however, I can't see any reason not to include the name. John Carter 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do no harm

That ArbCom ruling that User:Daniel alludes to is sensible. However, who has agreed that this article does any "harm" to its subject? The "do no harm" decree was composed in response to an article mocking Chinese boy for being fat. This is not a similar case and, though the inclusion of the name is controversial (among Wikipedia editors--not the media at large), it is not controversial for the reasons surrounding the ArbCom case.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

Consensus agrees about whether something is harmful. Where no consensus presently exists, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that the material in dispute must be removed and not readded until a consensus emerges to do so. Daniel 09:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, so a consensus is developed then someone comes along and removes it again so we have to gather another consensus? Continue to discuss yes, but when the decision was taken so recently we should stick with what has recently been decided. violet/riga (t) 09:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Violet, what do you feel the name adds to the article that overrides the baby's right to privacy? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The "right to privacy" that you are espousing is a moot issue since the name in question is hardly a secret in the mainstream media. Wikipedia cannot undo the dissemination of this name by idealistically and (I would argue, falsely) asserting that its content falls somehow outside mainstream, recorded history. In a case where the subject is demeaned, threatened or its character impinged, I can see why Wikipedia might not wish to "pile on," but this article contains nothing of the sort.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and summarise the main points from the June discussion:

1. The name yields numerous results in Google which will not go away, including photos of the person and their family
2. We link to said sources, and are required to do so; the inclusion of the name in our references is unavoidable and it is bad that we have to say "go here for this person's name"
3. The family appeared on Good Morning America in part of the publicity surrounding the case
4. There is no reason to assume that there is any harm that this article can cause
5. The article is about finding the identity of the child, and it seems oddly ironic for us to then omit it
6. If an album can be released and the marketing involves the use of the name (in interviews) it is odd that we can't

violet/riga (t) 09:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Violet, your reply explains that others have used the name and that it's out there, but you don't say what the name adds to our article that overrides the baby's right to privacy. That others have arguably violated that right is beside the point. The only question that should concern us is: what does the name add to our article?

Also, the article is about the determination of the baby's genetic identity i.e. whether that baby came from those parents. It is not about the search for a name. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's actually quite hard to argue for the inclusion of names in many cases. I think we should include it because of the reasons detailed above and feel that #2 covers part of what you are saying. I actually think it looks silly to have an article all about finding the identity of a child and then not revealing it, especially when other places do. I also believe that readers would feel th#at they can connect to the story better given a name rather than the ugly "Baby 81" pseudonym. violet/riga (t) 07:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Children are very cruel, and this kid is going to be ribbed mercilessly when he goes to school. "No one knows who your parents are" etc. Maybe WP using the name will make no difference to that, but maybe it will. The point is: why risk it? The name adds nothing to the article, and I don't see why people would connect more easily to that name than to Baby 81. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to look at how well used the name is. If the name is in millions of Google hits then I believe it would be quite clear-cut, just as if it weren't used anywhere. This is perhaps a borderline case, and I believe that the name is used by enough reputable sources and returns a significant enough number of hits when searched. violet/riga (t) 08:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgen raises the thought-provoking issue of children being bullies, hence "do no harm." If trying to second-guess potential bullies in order to protect the child is the objective, I'm wondering why no one has put a stop to the inclusion of babies' names and the personal life details of porno stars in Wikiproject Pornography? Some former porno actresses are quite proud of their past and their new-born children (and rightfully so, mind you--if they're good parents). They publicize the names of their children for all to read. Sure enough, Wikipedia is right there to record those names for posterity. Should we all be deleting them now? Good luck in trying to argue that point to their fans and fellow editors on the project without also implying that there's something wrong with being a porno star. The point: who are we to second-guess what children may or may not do in the future, especially in this clear case where there is no violation of basic human dignity and the name is essentially everywhere in the reputable print and electronic media. It makes little sense to me to exclude it. Best regards, J Readings 08:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Inevitable discovery?

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 "baby 81" (including many for the rock album), I was surprised to see only ~600 hits [5] 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)

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)

I'd also like to point out, considering the identification of the baby is the whole reason this event is notable, readers will not only be expecting the name, but will be looking for it as a part of the content of the article. Why do we have articles? Why do we inform people?

Bob Saget could have been called Bob Tomson, and had the exact same career. Does that make his name illrelevant in his article? No, because the name is a fundamental fact that people are going to be looking for. -- Ned Scott 18:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Future

We can't see into the future and we don't crystal ball. We can't say that such and such a source will disappear, or that such an event won't be remembered. We can write articles based on significant events, however, and this one was.

Let us imagine for a moment that a piece is going to be written in any newspaper/journal/whatever about "Baby 81". Do you think they'd omit the name? I very much doubt it. violet/riga (t) 18:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We can't see into the future, so let's imagine it? It's already been pointed out, we're not any newspaper, journal or 'whatever.' We're Wikipedia, and we've adopted a policy to be conservative towards living people and their privacy. It's even been spelled out, and I've seen nothing to suggest this person's name holds any significance outside this event. I have seen quotes from the family through simple google searches that suggest they do not want the media attention attached to their child's name. I honestly can't see how it could be any more clear cut. The event was significant, yes, and this is a fine article on it. The child's name, the family's names, are not necessary and in favor of their privacy should be left out. --InkSplotch 18:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the Baby's identity. This is fundamental information that is needed to make the article complete. Of course, in the future, the media won't be bothering these people anymore, but the name being in Wikipedia isn't going to suddenly inspire reporters to shove cameras in their faces again. That's the media attention they don't want, it doesn't mean they consider the event to be a secret. People will know what his name is, so what, that won't cause harm to the baby or the family. It's an event, it's not even a particularly negative event (given the outcome), and nothing bad is being said about the child at all. There is a complete lack of negative impact. People are not going to follow him around because of this, or make judgements on his character. -- Ned Scott 19:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In the future, what the media will or will not do isn't our concern. What we do is. As for fundamental information, the baby's identify was confirmed and the child returned to its rightful parents. How is a name more fundamental than that? I believe it would be nice to have, but I disagree it's fundamental or required, and again I'll point to BLP which suggests we let their requests for privacy sway our decisions here. The family does not want the link between "Baby 81", "the tsunami family", etc. and their names. So, you could suggest we include their names...but they we'd lose the rest of the article about the tsunami, Baby 81, and anything that makes the event notable (which I kind of feel makes my point). --InkSplotch 19:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources I have read state that they don't want to be called "the tsunami family" and envied for the money that people believe they got. That is different to not wanting media attention. violet/riga (t) 19:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must disagree. I think you've practically defined "media attention" here. They don't want these terms tied to their real names. It's the event that's notable, not their names. --InkSplotch 19:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're overplaying the scale of this though, as it is just their neighbours and not people making special journeys to harass them. Said neighbours, I'm willing to bet, haven't read this article, and I don't think we would contribute anything negative. violet/riga (t) 19:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attaching any 'scale' to things, and I don't think any of here are qualified to do so. I'm simply looking at the family's wishes. I've never seen anyone suggest before that there must be a minimum amount of disruption an article should cause in someone's life before BLP kicks in. --InkSplotch 20:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I merely pointed out that the article will "do no harm". violet/riga (t) 20:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And I disagree. Do you require actual evidence of harm before we can bring BLP into this? Do you have some sort of minimum requirements for harm that go beyond "it's against the family's wishes" (as outlined in our policy)? In essence, what would actually convince you otherwise? --InkSplotch 21:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be convinced if they didn't self-publicise themselves, taking part in internationally printed/broadcast interviews. violet/riga (t) 21:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[De-indenting] Self-publicising suggests to me that they actively promoted themselves within the media community, which is markedly different from being approached by the media and agreeing to interviews. It's not an all-or-nothing thing (which makes me think of the 5th amendment for some reason). Regardless, it looks like it's been two years since they're taken any part in interviews, which I think lends strength to the idea they're not seeking media attention. --InkSplotch 21:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They chose to go on Good Morning America - that's not the same as having a microphone put in front of you unexpectedly. It was their choice to tell their story, and this was after the case. If it's been two years since they had media attention, I fail to see how having their names here would change that. Throughout those two years their names have appeared in the article and its inclusion makes no difference to them. But we're focussing on just one part of the reasoning here, and I've listed above several other reasons that we previously discussed when forming the original consensus. violet/riga (t) 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

InkSplotch (talk · contribs) dropped by my talk page and asked whether I might add my own two cents to this debate, specifically in the light of the BDJ arbitration case. I should emphasize that I'm doing this in a strictly private capacity--I was recused from that case and played no part in its determination. Anyway, the two major points would seem to be whether the actual name of the baby is significant, and whether the inclusion of the name violates WP:BLP, as clarified in the recent arbitration case.

On the first question, a glance at the sources suggests that all sources reporting on the matter after the determination of parentage use the child's name; what's more, they use the name in the lead paragraph. This includes such reputable news organizations as BBC News and Reuters. This suggests that these organizations consider this information pertinent to the reader. As a reference work, Wikipedia is obligated to reflect mainstream coverage. We're not talking about forums, blogs, or other forms of backstairs-jobbery. We're talking about organizations who have established policies of omitting the names of minors when deemed appropriate, and they did not excercise said option in these cases.

Now, it has been argued that Wikipedia, as a reference work, should take a conservative stance on biographies of living persons. I think the background of BLP is sufficiently well-known to be omitted, so I'll move on to the ruling. Principle #2 stated, in part, that "Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions." The operative part of principle #3 states that "in cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm.""

Therefore, the question is whether the inclusion of name violates basic human dignity. First of all, in this case we're dealing not with another person's actions, but force majeure, and the incident has a salutory outcome. By highlighting the event we do not give aid or comfort to a tormentor, nor do we mock the subject. As a practical matter, the name of the subject is widely reported in the sources from which Wikipedia draws its information, and it is reasonable to assume that individuals seeking information on the subject will search by name or search by "Baby 81" hoping to find the name. In cases of relatives being re-united the detail of family--including name and circumstance--is of prime interest.

On the question of "saddling" Baby 81 with this event, that was already accomplished by an Act of God. It is the formative event of that child's life and it is idle to pretend that it can be separated from his life story. It is not an invasion of privacy, at least not at this time, to give a name already widely reported by the media. If we are going to have an article, and in that article link to publicly-available websites that give the name, we're accomplishing nothing by withholding the name ourselves. A more central question would be whether this event is important to the overall narrative of the 2004 earthquake; its provenance and cultural impact suggests that it is.

(Exhales) That was longer than it was supposed to be, but there it is. I don't see any reason to keep the name out, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Mackensen (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Mackensen's views. We're an encyclopedia, our aim is to comprehensively document the subjects, and this includes (unless there is great harm) the names of those involved. The name may not add anything particularly significant, but that isn't the point, Gary Glitter's real name isn't important either. This case was about identity, and in the end, the Baby found one, how better to document it than with a name. Incidentally, the "privacy" violation here is trivial, given that the name was highly publicised. It also does very little harm, the case is not exactly disparaging towards the child. We should not degrade the comprehensiveness of the encyclopedia for this, the needs of the readership and the freedom of information is much more important in this case. - hahnchen 01:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it telling that organizations such as BBC and Reuters, groups with set journalism ethics and standards, chose to include the name prominently and believed that it was of central importance to the story of Baby 81. If internationally respected names in news such as the BBC wrote about it, in the interest of a comprehensive encyclopedia it should be included. And what reaction to the knowledge of this child's identity could there be other than a sense of wonder and gratitude that not only did they survive, they were successfully reunited with their family. --MichaelLinnear 02:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen, thanks for coming by to comment. I'd like to clarify for others, I approached Mackensen not as an Arbitor, but as someone who's opinion in these things I greatly respect. And on this matter, his comments have done a great deal to quiet my concerns, and help me understand things better. In fact, my only lingering concern is about their desire for privacy. In our article, and many of the sources, the family indicates their desire to disassociate their names from the terms around this event such as "Baby 81" and "The Tsunami Family." Now, so far as I know they've never made a direct request to the Foundation and in all likelyhood have never seen this entry about them on the English Wikipedia. So, consider this more of an academic point: how clearly or directly should the living subjects of articles make their desire for privacy known? I hope someone shouldn't need to contact the Foundation directly to make their desires known, and I get the impression this family wants to fade into obscurity.

I'm still disquieted by talk of 'balancing' the needs of an encyclopedia against harm we may do...I'm not sure I can accept very little harm being OK, but I can accept Mackensen's analysis that suggests that this article will not cause harm at all. So I'll go ahead and withdraw my initial objective above, but I would like to see more discussion (perhaps on the BLP talk page) about noting the wishes of our subjects. I think it's possible our article, given Mackensen's analysis, isn't detrimental to their long-term privacy as they fear...but I'll be honest. I'm not sure. I'm not certain.

I'll probably be disengaging from this page for a bit now. Violet, thanks for engaging me, I hope I wasn't too trying. I still feel the consensus you describe on this page isn't as clear as you might think, so I urge caution going forward. --InkSplotch 03:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You weren't trying - you were discussing, and that's what this matter needs. I thank you for being open to talking about it.

I believe that, at the time, there was consensus because five people agreed against just one user. I gave notice of my intentions (to include the name) and waited for four days before acting. Clearly we are better off now that more people have commented, and the discussion will help us move forwards with the matter. violet/riga (t) 07:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Although it goes without saying, I totally agree with what Mackensen just said. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A good contribution, thanks Mackensen. With sound thinking like that I wish that you hadn't been recused from the BDJ case. violet/riga (t) 07:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection?

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)

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)

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)

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)

The discussions here and at BLP talk seem to have died down. I've unprotected but will not include the name as that would seem like an abuse of admin powers. I'm convinced the name should be included, especially given the fact that the redirects point here. violet/riga (t) 21:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit/revert

Without explanation (no, citing WP:BLP is not an explanation), Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) 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)

Comment: As a rule, people known popularly by a nickname, or abbreviated name, usually have their BIO articles under their proper name. Thus Baroness Knight of Collingtree redirects to Jill Knight, Mr Hands (the shock-phenomenon) (via disambiguation) redirects to Kenneth Pinyan, and so on. WP:NOT#CENSORED and as noted the name is published widely and not exactly a secret. Baby 81 should probably follow common practice and redirect to the actual name. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning

This is not an article about the baby. It is an article about the incident. It could have happened exactly the same with any other baby. I moved the article to a new name, and then - since the article on the incident doesn't actually require the baby's name - removed the personally-identifying information. DS 01:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Having seen how contentious this article and tha matter of naming the child has been, this seems like a move deliberately done to allow you to ignore the concensus to keep the name. Surely there needs to be some discussion before such dramatic decisions are taken. WP:Be Bold is not usually a good thing in respect of WP:BLP or actions running contrary to concensus. Bielle 01:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is subverting the talk page discussion through the back door; the question of what an article 'requires' is irrelevant--articles don't require things, readers do. Does our article on Benjamin Disraeli 'require' an account of his years in opposition? No, and a good thing too, because it doesn't say much on the matter. However, our readers might want that information. A few sections up I laid out several reasons for including the name, not the least of which was that the very sources upon which our article relies do, and Wikipedia is supposed to report on what the sources say. I'm very disappointed that actual discussion has been avoided through this maneuver, which is clever without being wholly convincing. Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I concede as someone who supported the removal of the name that consensus proved against me on that in the lengthy discussions above. However I think the change of title (whether the baby's real name is included in the article or not) is a positive one as our article is about an incident, not really the person. WjBscribe 01:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the name change, but it's just kind of silly to place that much emphases on the title that we're making needless disambiguation. -- Ned Scott 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the incident was not dependent on the baby's actual identity. The baby wound up with Family A - would the article be substantively different if the baby had wound up with Family B instead, or C, or D, or none of the claimants? No, it would not have. The precise identity of the baby is not relevant to the article. Also, we don't need the disambiguation here. DS 01:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That's just silly. The entire incident revolves around the determination of the baby's identity. Those sources--reputable sources--which cover the incident after the fact include the name. Consensus on the talk page is to include the name, as WJBscribe grudgingly noted above. You're acting in a high-handed fashion for an unclear cause. I'm not emotionally invested in the outcome, but I will not see administrators run roughshod when discussion has taken place just for the hell of it. Explain your actions, or please revert yourself. Mackensen (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose that Baby 81 be turned into a disambiguation page - I have drafted a suggestion at User:WJBscribe/Drafts/1. Again, this has no direct impact on whether or not this article includes "the name". WjBscribe 02:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the album article. Since there are two articles that can make claim to the "Baby 81" title, that resolves my style concerns, and would be ok by me. -- Ned Scott 02:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested phrasing

I propose a compromise (that had not accured to me in previous discussions) - this phrasing means the name is included as both the family's surname and child's first name appear. But breaking up the name avoids the full name being so prominent. Is that any more acceptable to people? WjBscribe 02:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Still seems needless, and then becomes slightly sloppy. -- Ned Scott 02:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The name is in the sources. We do not need to further compromise the privacy of this very young child in any way, because it is not necessary to the story. The child's name could be Smith, Jones, or Rumpelstiltskin, and the story would be the same. However the child does have a name, and we should not further compromise his privacy by sticking it on a top-ten website with the intention of making it part of the foremost encyclopedia on earth. If you really think the baby's name is so important, put it into your blog. --Tony Sidaway 03:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony, care to respond to this post, made just a short ways above this thread (reposted because you aparently can't find it:

"InkSplotch (talk · contribs) dropped by my talk page and asked whether I might add my own two cents to this debate, specifically in the light of the BDJ arbitration case. I should emphasize that I'm doing this in a strictly private capacity--I was recused from that case and played no part in its determination. Anyway, the two major points would seem to be whether the actual name of the baby is significant, and whether the inclusion of the name violates WP:BLP, as clarified in the recent arbitration case.

"On the first question, a glance at the sources suggests that all sources reporting on the matter after the determination of parentage use the child's name; what's more, they use the name in the lead paragraph. This includes such reputable news organizations as BBC News and Reuters. This suggests that these organizations consider this information pertinent to the reader. As a reference work, Wikipedia is obligated to reflect mainstream coverage. We're not talking about forums, blogs, or other forms of backstairs-jobbery. We're talking about organizations who have established policies of omitting the names of minors when deemed appropriate, and they did not excercise said option in these cases.

"Now, it has been argued that Wikipedia, as a reference work, should take a conservative stance on biographies of living persons. I think the background of BLP is sufficiently well-known to be omitted, so I'll move on to the ruling. Principle #2 stated, in part, that "Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions." The operative part of principle #3 states that "in cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm.""

"Therefore, the question is whether the inclusion of name violates basic human dignity. First of all, in this case we're dealing not with another person's actions, but force majeure, and the incident has a salutory outcome. By highlighting the event we do not give aid or comfort to a tormentor, nor do we mock the subject. As a practical matter, the name of the subject is widely reported in the sources from which Wikipedia draws its information, and it is reasonable to assume that individuals seeking information on the subject will search by name or search by "Baby 81" hoping to find the name. In cases of relatives being re-united the detail of family--including name and circumstance--is of prime interest.

"On the question of "saddling" Baby 81 with this event, that was already accomplished by an Act of God. It is the formative event of that child's life and it is idle to pretend that it can be separated from his life story. It is not an invasion of privacy, at least not at this time, to give a name already widely reported by the media. If we are going to have an article, and in that article link to publicly-available websites that give the name, we're accomplishing nothing by withholding the name ourselves. A more central question would be whether this event is important to the overall narrative of the 2004 earthquake; its provenance and cultural impact suggests that it is.

"(Exhales) That was longer than it was supposed to be, but there it is. I don't see any reason to keep the name out, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Mackensen (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)"

Mackensen just nails it right there, and pretty much blows your absurd claims of harm totally out the window. Enough is enough, we are not going through this bullshit again. -- Ned Scott 20:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Hi. Article has been protected from moving, the redirect has been protected as well.

You're all well-seasoned Wikipedians here. Please discuss your reasoning and try to come to a compromise with the other parties before doing any further renames.

If you feel this message is specifically pointing to you then you're the one who needs to concentrate on how best to compromise. :)

Thanks, play nice. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• My, that was quick. Pity all this talk page discussion couldn't have happened beforehand. I'll let Tony & DS catch up on all they missed above. Mackensen (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to guess that there's no actual on-wiki compromise sought yet. The major actors are all you-know-where. Come up with some ideas for compromise there (if not here) and post the suggestions here, then do a quick poll to see what ideas are the most supported? Then at least something good can come of this. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• That's an accurate way of phrasing it. I'll be sitting at this talk page waiting for some actual engagement. I think my summary a few sections up is a good starting place. Mackensen (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My sole recent edit on this page was to remove the reference to the infant's name, which I consider to be unnecessary. That it is unnecessary I consider to be self-evident. This could have happened to my children, or yours. This kind of event does not give Wikipedia the right to put our children's names into articles in an encyclopedia. Private individuals have a presumptive right to privacy. There should be special circumstances to justify their use in an encyclopedia. The actions of the press sometimes create accidental "celebrities" that are used to feed the hungry entertainment machine. Wikipedia is not part of that entertainment machine (at least, not unless we decided that it should be). --Tony Sidaway 03:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And really (having re-read the wild accusations made by Mackensen above) I have to say that I will *not* respond to these patently false accusation of collusion on other forums. You know better than to play this silly game. --Tony Sidaway 03:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be a concerted effort to ignore that there was a concensus to leave the name in the article. As I read the long discussions before Tony Sidaway's sudden decision to dismiss the concensus, and to remove the name after a month of quiet, it appears that cooncensus was established, in large part, because of WP:BLP's support for using the name when it appears in the "reliable sources" used to verify the facts of the article. Has something changed here? If there has been no change, then the move-and-delete, rather than resolving anything, seems to have added an issue. What is self evident to Tony Sidaway is not at all evident to me, or to many others, and is an insufficient rationale for over-turning a prior agreement, reached in accordance with WP guidleines. Tony Sidaway believes the concensus is wrong; that is Tony Sidaway's privilege. Changing the article to reflect his personal beliefs, however, is not. Bielle 03:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There is a suggestion in Kylu (u|t) 's (signature format struck out at user's request) Kylu's remarks that there is relevant discussion on this subject happening somewhere else. This seems counter-productive and dismissive of the views and work of any editors who are not privy to the other communications. I doubt this matter will resolve itself unless everything is out in the open and on this page, where it belongs. Bielle 04:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bielle, you claim that there is concensus on this, but our biographies of living persons policy suggests thst there is not.

If you think the BLP supports the invasion of the privacy of infants, you're wrong.

Further, you repeat Mackensen's false accusation that there is "there is relevant discussion on this subject happening somewhere else." This is only true in the sense that everything must be discussed somewhere and neither you nor I can stop discussion happening when we're not aware of it.

However my decision to remove the name of the infant from the article was motivated solely by BLP concerns, and that was the only edit I have made on this article in recent months, and my reason for doing so must be obvious: that we must not destroy the privacy of an infant without very good reason. Mackensen's accusations of collusion are utterly beneath the standard he has set in the past. I'm utterly disgusted at this concerted attempt to misrepresent the sensible removal of privacy-invading material about a very young child.

The child's right to privacy is important. Also important is our right to make edits without facing false and baseless accusations. Just stop it. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

First, the comment about discussions off-wiki to which I referred were not made by Mackensen, but by Kylu who said, above "I'm going to guess that there's no actual on-wiki compromise sought yet. The major actors are all you-know-where. Come up with some ideas for compromise there (if not here) and post the suggestions here,." I don't know if this is true, and merely have requested that if it is true, the discussion stop being "you-know-where", and come back here. Your continuing assertion that WP:BLP requires the excision of the child's name is not specific, and I can't find the reference that would sustain your argument. I don't believe that the general guidelines override the concensus that is based on the finding that when the name appears in the sources used in the article, there is no barrier to having it in the article itself. I don't believe that the passage of time entitles anyone to restart the same argument that was lost to concensus. Is there anything new?Bielle 05:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bielle: if you would do me a couple favors (I'm loathe to edit the comments of others)

1. Please change the copy of my signature there to just a simple wikilink. It's really not needed.
2. Fix the link from [[WP:BLP}] to the correct wikilink, WP:BLP. Use preview. You've done this. Thanks.

To answer your question, yes, there were people discussing the matter "elsewhere" and I was getting to be a bit annoyed at discussions of how various people were planning to counter said argument. It's all a bit nauseating. Mackensen is already familiar with this sort of back-room discussion. I don't feel all discussion about a topic should be on the article talkpage, I've spoken (for instance) to gmaxwell at length about writing sql queries without even thinking about the sql article.

So, hearing this and noting there's already significant "let's insert the name", "no, take it out!" in the page history, people moving the article about in hopes to influence the content, and end up protecting the redirect. Well, the protection message still works. So I go move-protect the article. It's rather pointless to edit-protect it, especially given that those doing the edit warring are admins, so could bypass my protection without knowing it, and they should know better in the first place.

If you'd kindly do me the favor of not mocking my signature and getting down to resolving the issue, I'd greatly appreciate it. (end of message directed at Bielle.)

Perhaps this might help: Below, there are two sections. Mention a specific quote from a policy page or guideline and determine how it comes to bear on this article. Please avoid such tactics as straw man arguments and other informal fallacies. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Move war

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)

Ill advised edits

This latest edit war seems to stem from the idea of "Now the consensus decision is old I'll try to have my own way again". BLP policy clearly states that names are allowed if multiple sources do so and to claim its removed "based on BLP" without any discussion or explanation is just wrong and rude to those of us that have tried to get this sorted for months now. It's also plain daft to not include the name when it is used as an incoming redirect. Exactly what will that achieve? Since you couldn't delete those redirects yourself Tony surely it would have been best to come and discuss the way forward on this talk page? All you achieved was to restart this silly battle. violet/riga (t) 10:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I for one cannot see how BLP enters into this at all. It's only relevant if the material is "unsourced or poorly sourced", and here the baby's identity was confirmed using the best available science and is now practically universally accepted. Then BLP only applies to contentious material; the fact that the baby was lost in the floods, and subject to an identity dispute when found, is not contentious. BLP removals are for claims about something the subject is said to have done, not something which others did but which affected them. It's hardly accusing someone of a defect of character to say that they were washed away as a baby.

Furthermore, many people become in some way notable for something that happened to them during childhood which they did nothing or little to bring about, and therefore have articles, and in none of them is their name removed for privacy reasons. Three examples are Stuart Lockwood, Jessica McClure and Barbara West. Sam Blacketer 14:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of name

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Edit request on 11 September 2015

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]]

{{Redr|from move|from related phrase|mentioned in hatnote|printworthy}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

Template Redr is an alias for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. As long as {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} 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)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, thank you very much, Mr. Stradivarius! Joys! Painius  02:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)