Talk:Red diaper baby

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 May 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Sources and biography[edit]

Hi a friendly reminder to anyone editing this page, before you name any living person as a red diaper baby or red parent, please read wp:biographies of living persons. In particular:

We must get the article right. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006 Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006.

We've had repeated problems on this article with vandals adding unsourced or poorly sourced biographical material. This is vandalism and should be reverted and reported as such. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 07:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate article?[edit]

Yes, but it does purport to be an encylopedia, does it not?

Why then is this article inappropriate?

Ruthfulbarbarity 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Variation[edit]

Michael Savage uses a variation. This is the Red diaper doper baby. They are red diaper babies who were influenced by the drug culture that arose in the 1960s.Lestrade 18:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Vandalism or "protecting Wikipedia from lawsuits"?[edit]

An anonymous user, accessing the internet through the HughesNet satellite connection, and using at least the following IPs:

69.19.14.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.19.14.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.19.14.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.19.14.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

has been removing valid content from this article and related articles. After I reverted his deletions he contacted me on my talk page (See RDB Deletes below):

The article Address Unknown describes a novel by Kathrine Kressmann Taylor in which a well-meaning person does extensive damage by insisting on free, open communication in a hostile environment. Similarly, well-meaning User:Petri Krohn thinks that he is opposing vandalism by reverting my deletions. I can't convince him that my deletions are an attempt to prevent various radical lawyers and litigious persons from suing the Wikipedia Foundation for libel. By insisting that the deleted material be retained, he is placing Wikipedia at risk.69.19.14.36 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Benighted[reply]

If you want to convince anyone of anything on Wikipedia, register. -- Petri Krohn 06:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RDB Deletes[edit]

(Moved from User talk:Petri Krohn)

Please do not revert the deletions related to Red Diaper Baby. I deleted them in order to prevent lawsuits against Wikipedia Foundation. Thanks. 69.19.14.35 17:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Benighted[reply]

If you genuinely have the interests of Wikipedia in mind, please register an account. (...or at least edit from a fixed IP, so that you can be contacted and your edits can be traced.)

Anonymous deletions of content, without proper explanation on the talk page, are always considered VANDALISM. -- Petri Krohn 17:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please realize that you are endangering Wikipedia Foundation by reverting names of living persons who may find cause for legal action.66.82.9.57 18:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Benighted[reply]

I do not think that the suggestion that these two radical lawyers both had radical parents is defamatory, but it needs to be demonstrated with verifiable references or removed. My concern is not a hypothetical lawsuit but the accuracy of information in Wikipedia. The suggestion sounds plausible, but it needs to be backed up by reference to another source. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion/Ethnicity[edit]

Is Jewishness a necessary property, quality, attribute, characteristic, or predicate of a Red diaper baby?Lestrade (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

No. Movingboxes (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed][edit]

Meaning[edit]

My understanding is that this term was used to distinguish between the two types of student radicals in the 1960s. there were those who were rebelling from their conservative parents, and then there were those who grew up radical (the so-called red-diaper babies). I would think we would need to make that context clear in this article--i.e. make clear that it was used only during a certain time period, and as a way of distinguishing the red-diaper babies from normal children who turned radical. 1.53.152.174 (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Diaper Baby?[edit]

I saw the term 'pink diaper baby' used in Gary Saul Morson's "Leninthink" and I'm curious if this is the same concept, or if there's a variation we should add to this page for context. Any thoughts?

https://newcriterion.com/issues/2019/10/leninthink 70.55.219.183 (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]