Talk:Oldenburg Baby

Untitled

This at minimum does not meet the Notability requirements WP:NVRE. The German sources listed are not independent, the independent ones are editorials,This Page also seems to be being edited by prolife, not neutral admins. I am proposing deletion again. I would propose speedy deletion, but I'm not sure enough if this meets G11 criteria. Someone should have a good German admin verify this stuff, not someone with translation software and one highschool German class.

what's his last name? 67.172.61.222 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

According to his personal webpage, his last name would be Guido. La Bicyclette 07:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The website gives no evidence for the claim that his last name is Guido. It's the name of the person responsible for the website. That does not necessarily mean that this is also the name of the parents or legal guardians. Plus, the website is apparently run by the couple that adopted the kid, and Tim does not have to bear their name.--80.145.126.168 09:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The biological father refuses to execute his right of custody (see the German Wikipedia entry), so he will hardly put up a website for the child, will he? Germany has, for better or worse, strict data protection laws, so the name of the parents was never released. What does it matter anyway? Calamitas (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Compared to the German version this article seems extremely biased towards a pro-life position. For example the article fails to mention the mother's preexisting condition of mental instability and her threat to kill herself should the abortion be denied. It also makes it seem as if the mother killed herself solely because of the events following the failed abortion. Also the time frame given ("the procedure took place less than four hours later") seems highly unlikely, isn't cited anywhere and gives the decision for abortion yet another negative spin.

German language sources

I need some help translating the more advanced pages and sources. My German is extremely weak at best and these books are written in very advanced German. Here's some of the sources I was unable to translate via software or otherwise: [1], [2]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• [3] [4], [5] [6] [7]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
• [8] A potential award? If so, is it notable enough to include?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• Looks like it's getting taught in law classes as well [9]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• Here's where I left off if anyone wants to continue to wade through here for sources. [10] Also, the award won was indeed notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

I've researched the existing sources. Here's what I've found:

1. Wie geht es Tim? appears to be an article from an organization dedicated to assisting foster and adoptive parents of disabled children. Site is pretty small. Can't find anything on German wikipedia.
2. Focus München, Issues 14-18, p 78, Can't find this anywhere, if it is the same Focus magazine listed below it is a different issue.
3. Ausgezeichnet: Pflegeeltern des „Oldenburger Babys“ Tim erhalten Verdienstorden Article from a pro-life, evangelical christian organization site. German wiki for the org [11].
4. Tims 10. "Überlebenstag" Actually a news article from an actual newspaper. The paper has a German wikipedia page [12].
5. Eine Abtreibung sollte ihn töten – nun feiert Tim seinen siebten Geburtstag und kommt bald in die Schule An article from a weekly newsmagazine. Has a German wikipedia page [13].
6. Spätabtreibung: "Oldenburger Baby" Tim wird schulpflichtig - Staatsanwalt stellt Ermittlungen ein Appears to be a personal site for a Catholic organizer or politician. German wikipedia confirms[14].
7. Fröhlicher Tim lebt neues Leben(Tim Lives a Happier New Life) An Oldenburg newspaper. Has german wiki [15].
8. GERMAN BABY SURVIVES ABORTION ATTEMPT English language pro-life website
9. Pflegemutter vom »Oldenburger Baby«: Wir sind glücklich und führen normales Leben Article in a pro-life, evangelical christian website. Organization has a German wiki [16].
10. Medizin & Recht für Ärzte: Grundlagen, Fallbeispiele, medizinrechtliche Fragen. Looks like a legitimate law text book.
11. Spätabtreibungen sind nach wie vor umstritten - Sonntag Demonstration von Lebensschützern in Köln (Late abortions are still controversial - Sunday demonstration of life guards in Cologne) News story on a Catholic radio website.
12. Menschen hautnah - Er sollte sterben - doch Tim lebt. Eine Abtreibung und ihre Folgen Looks like a blog listing soon to air documentaries. The link is broken though, the given article has been removed or archived.

I guess people should comment on which of these are RS or not, clearly some of these sources have an attributable bias. If we are going to resort to using pro-life material then lets find some English language ones to better meet WP:NOENG guidelines.108.193.104.222 (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've found some inconsistencies in what has been attributed to the RS sources. The Focus article said nothing about damage to the kid's lungs and didn't seem to attribute any of the kid's issues to the abortion. Most of the listed issues could be attributed to Down's syndrome. The supposed "law text book" looks more like a medical book regarding doctor's responsibilities under the law. And there is a big issue with all of these pro-life publications being cited. Clearly not RS.

I think I'll endeavor to remove these pro-life sources in the coming days. Most of the claims attributed to the pro-life sites seem to appear in the more reputable sources already cited in this article. So I think I'll cull the biased sources and re-attribute those cites to the Focus magazine and newspaper articles where appropriate. I don't think much will be lost in the rewrite except maybe some POV. --Joshuaism (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability, factual dispute, POV and Sourcing issues

I have tagged this article and if no one takes the time to clean it up, I will create an AfD again. I want to take time with this since it is likely to raise simple Pro-life/Pro-choice votes and is controversial. However, the sources provided on the article appear to not meet WP:IRS(are from a religious POV site, or have been translated poorly from German and given the article a POV that is still very pro-life(see the aboveNeutrality Dispute. I don't read German well enough to finish this article, but even with Tokyogirl79 's work, the article is not encyclopedic. It doesn't even appear to meet notability standards when you discount the sources that are POV.Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is any help needed?

If so, then I am German! So if anything is needed, call on me! --Eu-151 (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

For me the article seems to be neutral, not biased. Guido can not be a family name, it is a first name, common mainly in Switzerland. In the german version it is mentioned that the mother died by suicide later. The "fact" that she may have been mentally unstable is not verified and may be only an excuse for her wish to abort (in Germany you have to go through some sort of investigation before doing this ). Thanks for attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.249.182 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing of my own contribution was not allowed? In a german newspaper I read that Guido is the family name - true or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.249.182 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oldenburg Baby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130212064229/http://www.noz.de/lokales/14045229/tims-10-quot-ueberlebenstag-quot to http://www.noz.de/lokales/14045229/tims-10-quot-ueberlebenstag-quot

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)