Talk:Child/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Suggestion

Particularly interesting discussions in this topic might include Technology in child development. -Unsigned

Jun 2003, Language

I removed a sentence

A female child is called a girl, a male a boy.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, therefore we don't have to put English linguistic information. While we cannot assume the readers know a subprogram in CS is commonly called subroutine, we should ignore those who don't know who is a girl. Above sentence is nothing but teaching those who don't speak English. -- Taku 02:09 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You are making the assumption that the reader has a full command of the English language. This may not always be trhe case, and WTF has a subroutine got to do with it? 80.46.147.184 04:26 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Of course we assume the readers are capable of understanding text written in English. And see you are making the assumption I know WTF in this time. We have to explain what is WTF in text but we can have no trouble assuming people know a female child is called girl. It is a basic. -- Taku 18:53 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I am afraid the article becomes a typical entry in linguistic dictionaries. There are a lot of words describing children. Kids, brats, schoolchildren, schoolboy/girl, teenager, young child and so on. Again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary meaning we don't have to provide complete linguistic information about child. People are interested in not child in language but in world. -- Taku 18:56 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, true, but one of its aims is to teach the reader about language. Stating that a female child is called a "girl", a male a "boy", is no different from stating that "a child is a human that is not yet an adult." I don't think it's necessarily safe to assume that everyone who knows enough English to read the article knows this fact. Some people might use English Wikipedia articles to learn English - and if indeed a distinction like this helps those who don't know English, I think it should be left in. It certainly doesn't do any harm. Obviously we're not going to explain the meaning of every word in the article, but since it is an article about children, it at least warrants a mention. -- Wapcaplet 19:09 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't think we should use wikipedia to teach people English. I mean when did we add it to our mission? Besides, it is harmless but redundant. The current article is awfully stubby. We should talk about child not a word child. If the article is expanded more in this way, I bet a sentence a feamle child is called girl should look off-topic. Anyway, I leave this because it seems everyone likes that. I don't quite understand the importance of that, though. -- Taku 19:48 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In a systematic treatment of a subject I think it is better for completeness' sake to include simple things. The rule "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is mainly useful to avoid very small articles with just a definition. - Patrick 21:52 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the point is that first this article is about child. We can expect the readers of this article are those who don't what is a child in the first place or more likely those who want to know more about a child. So probably terms boy and girl are needed to be mentioned I guess. -- Taku 03:45 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

One approach I like to take is to imagine that the reader is an alien anthropologist who wants to learn more about Earth and the human race. The Prime Directive won't allow him to actually visit and interact with us, but he can read the Wikipedia. The alien has to learn everything about us from the Wikipedia, so I can't make any broad assumptions regarding what he knows about us or our languages. This approach is obviously not the solution to everything, but it helps me (at least) to get a good perspective on problems like this. -- Wapcaplet 12:44 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Are you a professor or student? because the alien anthropologist is a dumb, overused, and unlikely excuse given in curricula for such basic and common writings. 69.108.165.94 05:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"A child or minor is a human who is not yet an adult." - Does anybody (except lawyers) call a child a minor? It might be useful to mention in which context the latter term is used. However, not being a native speaker I would like to leave this to somebody with a clearer understanding of the subtleties of English vocabulary. Kosebamse 13:40 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Good point. I've never heard the word minor used in anything other than a legal context. I rewrote the intro paragraph to make the distinction, but it could definitely use some work - for example, clarification about when a child is no longer considered a child, but an adult (or an adolescent, for that matter), outside of a legal context. -- Wapcaplet 15:02 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

2003, Picture dispute

The article contains a photo of only one child, which is male and of white race, something which may offend some ppl (feminists, non-whites). I propose to add a photo of a female child too. I think the girl should be of another race (not white) such as black or asian. In this way Wikipedia will symbolically show a policy of equality towards both sexes and all races. What do you think? (unfortunately I dont have any relevant photo to upload, does anybody has a suitable photo?) Optim 04:02, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

European males are offensive? Crusadeonilliteracy 04:35, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dec 2003 to Oct 2004

Additionaly, I think we could have a link to some charitable organizations etc which help homeless children under the heading Street child. Optim 04:06, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Now that we live in an ever increasing multicultural society the photo of a 'child' should be inclusive of a number of cultural backgrounds. -Unsigned

I like the inclusionist sentiment, but I doubt that any of us have a photograph of a child that includes every culture and ethnicity on the planet. I am not offended that the child does not look like me. --Zigger 07:36, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

My daughter? File:Dje.jpg -Unsigned

She is cute! Anyhow, I don't think we should present a child from every single culture, region, race and such. NPOV is not achived by that. I put a white male child at the top of the article, but it by no means represents the whole human race; it is just an example. But I do agree to put a photo of non-european female child (which needs to appear least pornographic). It just adds more information. -- Taku 15:16, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

just adds more information. -- Taku 15:16, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Nov 2004

I replaced the sentence

When one refers to a person's children, one means their offspring; i.e., their sons and daughters, regardless of age.

With the following:

Adults are often described as the children of their parents despite their maturation beyond infancy followed by the example Muhammad, aged 26, is the child of Tobias, aged 63"

To conserve what I percieved as the intention of the original sentence, that is, that some adults are considered children of other adults whilst avoiding language that excludes fully matured humans who were fostered/adopted etc. as children from the category of children of other adults. --afterword 17:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dec 2005

I think this article could use with a little more info about development. In psychology it is often divided into: motor, senso-perceptive, cognitive, linguistic, emotional,.... I wanted to add maybe a couple lines about it. Anyone else thinks this would be a good adition? or should I just drop it? Albarinos 10:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Childhood

I seacher for childhood and was redirected this page. I was trying to find something about the phenomina that has occured recently in American society which views childhood as an idyllic time of ignorance and peace. I think there should be something in this article addressing this topic. You know, shows like The Wonder Years and our increasing move towards treating children and especially babies not as human beings but as sub-human toys almost. Can we include this on this page, or even create a seperate page? Terry 20:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• This has not occured "recently" in my opinion. Look at Booth Tarkington's idyllicPenrod series (from the early 20th century if not earlier) or indeed Tom Sawyer, or watch Leave it to Beaver (now about a half-century old), etc. As to the other, hmmmm, I dunno if its so... I'd say that in the last century or so we have gone somewhat from a mode of "go play" (i.e., kids left more or less alone as long as they don't bother the grownups) to more adult involvement in kid's lives, so maybe there's something to that, it that's what you mean... It would be interesting to have a section on changes in childhood over the last 100 or 50 years... Herostratus 15:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring list of ages

Child

• Infant (baby, newborn) (0-1.5)
• Toddler (1.5-4)
• Primary school age (also called prepubescence) (4-11)
  • Elementary school age (also called middle childhood) (4-11)
  • Preadolescence (preteen, or late childhood. The child in this and the previous phase are called schoolchild (schoolboy or schoolgirl), when still of primary school age.) (12+)
• Adolescence and puberty (teenage) (13-20)

---

What this is saying is:

1. Primary school age, also called prepubesence, is exactly the same as elementary school age, also called middle childhood. Those are all four terms for the same age, 4-11. However, this is further confused by the bulleting which puts "Elementary school age..." as a subcategory of "Primary school age...", at least visually.
2. Preadolescent is listed as "12+", but it stands between the above and "Adolescence and puberty" which is 13-20. So Preadolescene should be just plain "12" not "12+". However I guess there is some overlap, but it should not be "12+" which is open-ended but rather "12-13" or "12-14" or some such.
3. Then the bit about "schoolchild" which basically says "applies to both of the two above, but only to the first of the two above."
4. Since when is a 4-year-old ever called "prepubescent"? That term would, at a guess, apply to perhaps 9-year-olds at the very youngest, I think.

---

Grrrrr, that section was a mess. Anyway I refactored this as best I could so that it is at least consistent, with overlaps, but with the overlaps made clear. I am surely no expert on this but am just trying to make it internally consistent. If anybody has better information, by all means edit it in. Herostratus 15:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

• Child:
  • Infant (baby) (ages 0 - 1.5)
    • Neonate (newborn) in the first month of life
  • Toddler (ages 1.5 - 4)
  • Middle childhood (schoolchild (or schoolboy or schoolgirl)) - Primary school/ Elementary school age (ages 4 - 11)
    • prepubescence, a subset of the above (ages 10 - 11, approximately)
  • Preadolescence (preteen, or late childhood) - in America, middle school age (ages 11 - 12, approximately. Note overlap with prepubesent stage of middle childhood.)
• Adolescence and puberty (teenager) (13-20)

Definition of "child": 0-12 or 0-20?

I ((fact))-tagged the opening sentence which defined "child" as "pre-pubescent". While I personally agree with this because it's common usage, there has been some disagreement over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch about this, with some editors contending that "child" should be closely cognate to "minor", that is, a person under 18, and citing the canonical Oxford English Dictionary definition of "child" as "a young human being below the age of full physical development" (I don't have an OED so I can't verify this).

This is important because it bears on terms such as Child Pornography, Child Sexual Abuse, and so forth. Do or should terms cover people up to pubescence or all the way up to adulthood? If any editors associated with this article have sources indicating scholarly acceptance of one or the other definitions of "child" that would be useful. Herostratus 08:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC) I must also add that adolescence is 13-20 as opposed to 13-19 this is from the textbook "child development" by laura berk. this makes sense because 20yr olds still cannot drink as alcohol is not supported by the adolescent brain. so I will be changing that. -Unsigned

I'm very sorry about those 20 year old who cannot drink alcohol, but your comment is of no help to the discussion. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 15:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The drinking age is a legal issue that is different in different countries. In Spain, for example, the drinking age used to be 16 but was raised to 18 a few years ago. We cannot base the categorization on any one random country's arbitrary cut-off point. It also makes absolutely no sense to define "twenty-something" as starting at age 21 and "thirty-something" as starting at age 30. Either both start with X0, or both start with X1. Finally, there is no definite carved-in-stone parameter for age category distinctions. Just because the textbook used at your junior college listed slightly different parameters than the ones in this article does not mean that you must or should change every Wikipedia article you can find to reflect that one particular book's definitions. (Also, please sign your posts by typing --~~~~ at the end. This makes it easier to keep track of who said what on talk pages.) --Icarus 21:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I read in another article on this site that 21 is the age of full maturity, so adulthood should be noted as starting from the age of full maturity and onward. -Unsigned

The most appropriate definition of childhood would seem to be 0-18, as this is the definition outlined in the 1989 United Nations Declaration of the Child. -Unsigned

It's flat-out ridiculous to cherrypick a dictionary to define prepubescents as "children" and everyone else not as one though. Very few people would describe an eleven-year-old girl as an adult simply because she had entered puberty. And legal majority might wander depending on the law and the nation whose law it is, but the concept exists to formalise the transition from childhood to adulthood. Grace Note (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

N.B. According to his userpage, this person (Grace Note) is no longer an active editor. For this reason I'm not going to go into detail about why the above comment is wrong, but just change it (partway) back. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

I see that in many Wikipedia articles, a sentence or two(sometimes a paragraph) is included on the etymology(where the word comes from) of the word, could we get that here please? Or maybe if it takes to much space put it in a new article. Etymology of the word child. 84.48.104.249 15:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Einar agerup

Child?

This article seems to be totally off topic and more related to the development of human beings during their whole life rather than children themselves. It should probably be rewritten from the scratch. --80.181.231.246 12:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a fair amount about development in general, but enough is specific to children that I think it would be a shame to lose everything by doing a complete re-write. If you think that some info is better suited to a different article, please feel free to merge those parts into the appropriate articles. You can then reduce the length of that particular part in this article, and direct readers to the article with more information if they desire to know more. Alternatively, if you have more on-topic information that you think would be valuable to this article, you are free to add it yourself. That's the great thing about having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit! I've left a welcome message here on your talk page which has links to pages that will help you learn more about being a contributor to Wikipedia. Welcome! --Icarus ^(Hi!) 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Child prodigies?

Does that section really belong here? I think a link might be more appropriate. -Unsigned

Shmulik?

May just be me being a non-native speaker of English, but what is Shmulik(look in the very first sentence of the article)κ? Cannot find any article, a node in the wiktionary or even anything useful using Google. Looks like one could wish for just a short explanation of the term. Could somebody help me out on this? --Trompetplayer1 21:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Shmulik" isn't anything. It was vandalism. I've reverted the article. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding proposed merge of article Childhood into this article

An editor has suggested merging Childhood into here. Granted the Childhood article is little more than a stub, and of dubious veracity at that (Jesus Christ?), still I think that it could be made into a decent, seperate article covering the evolution of the concept of "childhood". So I don't support the merge, absent convincing arguments. Herostratus 15:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you dispute the veracity of the sentence concerning Jesus Christ, why don't you first research the subject or at minimum at least read the reference I gave? By the way, I don't support the merge either -- this article is too clinical and provides no historical background. laddiebuck 04:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

CHILDHOOD IS DIFFERENT FROM A CHILD!!!!! YOUR CHILDHOOD IS A TIME OF YOUR LIFE, A CHILD IS A YOUNG PERSON!!!!! THEY SHOULD NOT BE MERGED!!!!! Bob the ducq 23:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Integrating the article Childhood into this article would be inappropriate as a child and childhood are two different things. The state of being a child is the time of rapid development between the ages of 0 and 18. Therefore, a child is something biologically defined. Childhood however, is the socially constructed experience that a child undergoes. -Unsigned

This was never done thankfully, but as a buffer in case the idea is revived: I agree with both the above points. In social science Children (a better title for this article perhaps?) are a biological fact, but childhood is seen as a social institution. The problem is that 'Childhood' needs expansion, which I plan to undertake. That done this article may need to be refocused, a point I will return to when that task is further advanced. --Sabrebd (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: pictures

I didn't remove any of the pics on this page, but... you know, why do we need any pictures? Everyone knows what a child looks like. But whatever. But for Image:556608 82067258.jpg, I have reason to doubt about the veracity of the copyright claimed on this image, and I intend to delete it to be on the safe side. Herostratus 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I like having pics, because articles without them frankly look boring. Also consider that while there is the occasional edit war with someone trying to add a photo of their child (who is invariably the cutest in the whole world, and therefore singularly qualifed to be in the article), it would probably only get worse if there were no photos at all because that would be seen as the perfect reason to add some!

As for the photo in question: I agree, it reeks of copyvio. I was suspicious the first time I saw it, but wasn't sure what to do since I wouldn't know where to even begin tracking down the source to prove it. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know either. It's not like googling for a text string. Nevertheless, we are empowered to use our best judgment and best guess about a picture, I guess. Nominating an image at images for deletion with the note that copyvio is strongly suspected would have been perfectly OK. Herostratus 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, images are supposed to convey information, not relieve boredom. Purely decorative images are OK but if there is anything iffy about the picture (it is not completely free etc.) AND if it's purely being used for layout and decorative purposes, it should probably not be used. Herostratus 17:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are 4 of the 5 picture children girls? Thats not representative. Qvkfgmjqy 23:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead add boys' pictures. -- tasc ^words_deeds 23:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Why a picture of a naked child? On the one hand, who wants to see that? On the other hand, do we really want to cater to those who *do* want to see that? Come on. . . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.163.0.44 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 19 December 2006.

You mean Image:Baby.JPG? He's a baby, and you can't see anything. Naked baby pictures like this aren't terribly uncommon, because it emphasizes their innocence. I think that removing it is an overreaction, considering how innocent it really is. I don't find the picture at all offensive, but I don't really care either way if it's in the article or not. There have been so many mini-edit-wars over people adding vanity images that I won't defend including any image that doesn't have a long history of being in the article. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

First sentences

The first sentences

“ A child (plural: children). Precise definitions vary; is the offspring, of any age, of two people. The American Heritage Dictionary ... ”

read like a dictionary entry. Something like

“ The precise definition of a child (plural children) varies, but is mostly considered as the offspring, of a pre-puberty age, of two people. The American ... ”

would be better. This opening sentence should be changed aqap. Jake95 17:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki for Kids?

Is there ever going to be a Wikipedia for Kids? Because I know that a lot of kids use Wikipedia for reports and things like that but it would be easier for them if it were more... kid-friendly, I guess. It's a little hard to explain... SoccerPrincess1014 20:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The good thing is you can! Just go to wikia (you can start right here.) and read the page. Then use the information and create it. (NOTE: I haven't read the page myself, so if I'm wrong you'll know why.) FootyStavros 23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikijunior. Richard001 07:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia might be a good place to start - it is not designed specifically for children,but it might be easier to read! Conrad.Irwin 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing isn't child-friendly. I'm a child and children should have the right to know anything. In fact, children should have all the rights as adults have. There's no reason for us not to. We're humans for god's sake can't we act like them??! People are just to serious and technical about things!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.110.254 (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Child worship

Part of culture, even in less.religious forms, it's not mentioned at all and has no article... IS there no investigation on this matter?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.240.157.143 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 5 March 2007.

Photos

The new photo of a girl does not add anything to the article (and is not a very good picture either). I also don't see why it should be up there on top, shifting everything else off kilter. I would delete it altogether, or put it back in the gallery.--Gilabrand 15:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed this same picture on scn.wiki and it.wiki - I deleted it on both occasions because someone has just loaded it up without any text - I am actually quite suspicious about the motives - I think it is quite ambiguous (as to what the picture is meant to represent) - I would certainly prefer that it be removed if it adds little to the article. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 00:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a picture of a child above the age of ~8 would be good, but I can't find any good ones. Voretus 16:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A six year old pic is 100% fine! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.94.145 (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See also

This is ludicrously long; adding anything vaguely related to 'Child' is not the way to go. Cats should be used instead. I have cut it right back. In general items under 'See also' should be discussed in the text. TerriersFan 18:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Famous child prodigies

I've removed the list. Looking back at the history of this article the list of famous child prodigies began 13 May 2003. In October of 2005, a List of child prodigies was begun as a separate article. Also, there is already an article for child prodigy. I think that maintaining two lists is redundant and requires more upkeep and vigilance against self-promotion and conflict of interest. As this article is devoted to the general idea or concept of child or children, not the specific phenomena of prodigal children I think for clarity of it's best to leave the listing of child prodigies at List of child prodigies alone. -- Ltvine | Talk 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Defining terms

Flyer22, you said that "not everyone who hits puberty is an adolescent." But that's precisely the definition of adolescent: someone who has reached puberty. I agree that more sources are needed, but dictionary.com isn't going to help, I think. Not as reliable as others. In any case, I hope that clarifies one thing, at least. Also: I think that boy and girl are perfectly good (even necessary) in the See Also section. After all, nearly every child is either a boy or a girl. Let's talk about other concerns you have. BEst, Anthony Krupp (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Anthony Krupp, the adolescence article touches on the fact that not all people who hit puberty are adolescent, which is what I stated in my edit summary. A nine-year-old girl who has reached puberty, for instance, is not an adolescent. Thus, I don't see how you disagreed on all three points made in my edit summaries. My wording of this article's lead is not all that different than yours, but I feel my wording of it gives a more accurate description of this topic. And especially since, when I expand this article (whenever that will be), I am going to touch on psychological and chronological age, the lead, in my version, presented even more so an overview of this article. As for the internal links Boy and Girl, I removed those because they were already linked in the lead of this article in my version. I also don't see anything wrong with dictionary.com, but that's another matter.

And, no, I didn't view you as owning this article when you reverted my recent three edits. If anything, with as much as I have edited this article, with either defining the lead of it and reverting vandalism to it, I felt that someone might feel that I feel that I own it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See Human development (biology) on puberty and adolescence. Note as well that the adolescence article fluctuates in its definitions, and does not provide sources for some of them. The term comes from ad+alescere, meaning to grow as in to become nourished. ('Alescere' is related to 'alimentation,' or nourishment.) That is, adolescence means 'growing up' as 'filling out.' Obviously, this takes place at different ages, but the term is connected to pubertal process.Anthony Krupp (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I know everything that is in that article (which includes that it was recently). Note that puberty also happens in the preadolescent years, and an 8 or 9-year-old girl who reaches puberty is not defined as an adolescent. She's not put into the same category as a 16-year-old. Simply stating that "Oh, this person has hit puberty, so now this person is an adolescent" is quite off. There is a such thing as precocious puberty. These children are not adolescent.

And, anyway, what you cited above about puberty is the very reason I had this article defined by puberty. Plenty of dictionaries define a child as someone who has not reached puberty. I noted on how this is not the main defining quality of what constitutes a child. You changed it to a child is someone between birth and adolescence, then you noted how this is not the main defining quality of what constitutes a child, which is not all that different from my lead. The exception is that my lead gives a better discription of what determines a child in biology, a person who has not reached puberty, and it touches on other matters that I will be adding to this article (as said before, whenever that is). Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well clearly the article needs a lot of work from a number of editors. I hope some drop by! You might invite some people to come. I think the important thing about the lead will be to give a definition that is either genuinely universal (fits in various cultures and various historical moments of those cultures) or else clarify up front what sort of definition is being given. Thus while I may have suggested "A child (plural: children) is generally defined as a human being between birth and adolescence. However, the definition varies according to the discourse (legal, psychological, biological, religious) in which the term is used." for the first two sentences, I'm not even comfortable with that. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that "child" (if we're talking about all cultures at all times, to the extent we have documentation) means "not-adult", such that "childhood" = "pre-adulthood." The concept of adolescence has undergone a number of changes in Europe and America over the last 300 years, not to mention over the rest of time and the rest of the world... In any case. Out of curiosity: how are you defining "adolescent"? We may be disagreeing over terms rather than over concepts. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what I stated on the predolescence talk page:

"Sources? You mean sources that state that puberty also begins in the preadolescent years, and that puberty sometimes extends beyond the adolescent years? Sure. Here is one for puberty beginning in the preadolescent years...[1].

And this next one states exactly what I was stating...or rather touching on concerning this subject: Puberty, usually occurring during adolescence, is when kids develop physically and emotionally into young men and women. Usually, this starts to happen no earlier than about 7 to 8 years of age for girls and 9 years of age for boys (the average age is about 10 for girls and 12 for boys). But what if a younger child - for example, a 5-year-old girl - begins showing the signs of puberty? How would it affect her?[2]

Puberty in the predolescent years happens more often with girls, of course. Maybe we should mention how it more often applies to girls and how the factors of premature adrenarche, premature thelarche, and a higher BMI play a part.

And here is a source for puberty extending a little beyond the adolescent years:[3] Puberty beyond the adolescent years or rather teenage years happens more often with boys...or I should say males.

As for when does adolescence begin? Adolescence is usually defined as 13 to 19, but some sources state that a 21-year-old can sometimes be called an adolescent. With precocious puberty, it can be called early adolescence, but a child who is hit with precocious puberty is still defined as a preadolescent. A 7-year-old girl who reaches puberty, for instance, would not be considered an adolescent."

Thus, your version of the lead of this article, for the opening sentence, Anthony Krupp, should at least be changed to A child (plural: children) is generally defined as a human being between birth and puberty, as the rest of the lead points out that this is not the main defining factor of what a child is, but rather is soley the definition in biology. And because puberty is not necessarily the same thing as adolescence, as even the Puberty article notes on. Flyer22 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the article as needing more reliable, verifiable references. Just added content using American Heritage Dictionary, but will now look at others, since we don't want this article to become America-biased. It should be 'universal' or explain what is specific to particular cultural understandings of what makes a child (or an adolescent). Best, P.S., Flyer22, as you'll see, puberty is now back in the lead.Anthony Krupp (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Anthony Krupp, but I still feel that the first sentence of the lead of this article should state that a child is a person (boy or girl) between birth and puberty, since most dictionaries state that as its first definition. That's not too American, of course, but rather the term in its biological sense, which I feel should be noted first, as most articles and dictionaries note the first (or original) definition. If I add some valid references for the between-birth-and-puberty definition, will you be fine with that change? I feel that some online dictionaries are fine to use as a reference, and a lot of them state between birth and puberty concerning this matter as well, just as the paperbacks do. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

More research is needed. Of course, do more research and that will enrich the article. I disagree that the first sentence should state that a child is a person between birth and puberty. There is lots of historical and cultural evidence controverting the English-language online dictionaries you might wish to cite. This is not to say that one or the other body of evidence is true. But I don't think your or my personal opinions are relevant. If you look at the OED definition (please do so now), you'll see that before they start listing something like 30 definitions, using arabic numerals, they group the definitions into several Roman numerals. I've written the lead with the first two (I and II) in mind. So structurally, your definition about puberty has to do with OED's category I (childhood is about age). You see? I don't want us to make a pars pro toto error here. Enough for now. Thanks for the comments.Anthony Krupp (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be totally fine with a claim like "most contemporary English-language dictionaries define a child first and foremost as...", if that's what turns out.Anthony Krupp (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

But it's not about English dictionaries defining Child as being between birth and puberty, Anthony Krupp. It's more about that being its actual definition in biology. There is really no debate there. Scientists often cite a child as prepubescent in biological terms as well, whether referring to the human species or otherwise. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I get that you prefer biological definitions. I think this article can benefit from your interest (and reputable, verifiable sources you can cite from "biology" or "scientists"). But the article is not called "the child in biology," but rather "child." That means that as editors, we have a very hard job, namely to reflect the various uses to which this term is put, biological and otherwise. (I'm not even referring yet to metaphorical uses.) Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And I get what you are saying as well. However, I don't prefer biological definitions. It's that I feel that the biological definition (which I feel is also its original definition) is important to state first. The Virginity article, for instance, states the original definition first, even though a man can also be considered a virgin. It states the original definition, while expanding on other factors and feelings people have on exactly what constitutes a virgin. And that is what I mean. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Last comment for today (I have to go pick up my 'child', whatever that is :), from daycare.) I had meant to ask you about your use of this term earlier, and you mention it here as well, so: what do you mean by 'original'? What would make a biological definition original? The term has been used since before biology existed as a discipline. So you've used the phrase "the original definition" three times in the paragraph above: what is that supposed to mean? Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I like your tweak of the lead of the Virginity article, though maybe you should have talked about that tweaking of the lead with us who work on that article first. As for my use of the word original, I mean since the beginning of its use, parents would often define a child by someone who has not reached puberty, particularly girls...and once those girls reached puberty, that would often signal to the parents that their daughter was no longer a child. Personally, I cannot imagine sending off a 12-year-old girl to get married to a man, but that often happened way back then, and still happens in some parts of the world today, usually based on the girl having reached puberty. Perhaps, I should have said the word "historical". I don't know about biology existing as a discipline for the word, but it certainly defined the word significantly in history. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You say that "since the beginning of its use, parents would often define a child by someone who has not reached puberty, particularly girls." Just one question: what is your source for this information? BTW, have you checked out childhood and its list of further reading? I think that article needs a lot of work as well. If you have access to a library near you, I might recommend that you look at James Schultz's book. Just the Introduction, that is (unless you're interested in medieval German conceptions). The Introduction is really good, and I share his sentiments on a number of points. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I stated above, I mean from well-written books that I have read over the years. Too many to name, though I cannot remember any specific titles. It's been a while since I've studied childhood and development. I usually study science (not of relating to childhood and development, of course), and read science and literature books, as well as sex educational books. As for a library, I have one at home, though I do not have James Schultz's book. And, no, I'm not just interested in medieval German conceptions, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was new discussion at Talk:Childhood#Merger proposal. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Should Childhood and migration be merged into this article? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No. More logical would be to merge it into childhood. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Accordingly, I changed the proposal. Please comement at Talk:Childhood#Merger proposal. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Coddled and Overprotected"

From the article: "One study has found that children in the United States are coddled and overprotected." The source given doesn't really say this. Briefly, what it actually found was:

• If there's an empty seat on a bus, 57% of Americans think it should go to a 7-year-old rather than an adult woman
• If there's a rambunctious child on an airplane, 58% of Americans would ignore him/her, 14% would talk to the child, 10% would talk to the parents, 9% would glare at the parents, 6% would call a flight attendant, and 4% would look for another seat
• 40% agree that sparing the rod spoils the child, almost 60% think teachers should never spank children, 35% would let teachers spank on rarely for grievous misbehavior, 8% are undecided
• 86% think a 10-year-old should pay for a lost library book, 13% think the parents should, 1% thinks the library should

The only time the word "coddling" appears is in the opening sentence, which merely presents the author's opinion. It appears to be a legit source, but I'm not sure how to best present the actual data within the article. The current wording in the article is inherently POV. It needs to be reworded to either neutrally present the actual findings, or removed. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I would rather one of us reword it, work some of that other information into this article, rather than remove that source. Flyer22 (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Childish

For such a short article, it has way too many links at the top. Who says childish should redirect to child? It could just as well link to childhood and child development and child psychology. If you think there must be a redirect to this guy Billy Childish, who is in no way world famous, then pare down the description. The "artist and poet" or something like that is certainly enough. --Gilabrand (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There are currently two disambiguation links at the top. I hardly even notice them, but maybe your monitor settings are different. This is the most logical destination article for the Childish redirect page, and as in any similar situation, there needs to be a redirect to assist people who were looking for an article with a similar title. I'd like to come up with a mutually satisfactory solution, but I honestly don't see why you're so opposed to something so standard as a disambig link or two at the top of an article. I'll trim the description as you suggested, though, since I'm sure no one looking for Mr. Childish's article would need all of that to recognize him. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 12:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is the most suitable redirect for the use of the word, or possibly a small disambiguation page that directs here with a statement for this Billy Childish so that it need not clutter the main article page. The reason this page is bettter than childhood/child development/child psychology is that 'childish' is a very broad term which does not only refer to actual behaviours but also physical and mental characteristics, so linking to the root word to characterize that it can mean anything and must be specified or be in a certain context is important. Tyciol (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia

I that the article Pedophilia should be added to the See also section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josecarlos1991 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's really necessary, currently no one has merged androphilia into the man article, gynephilia in the woman article, teleiophilia into the adult article, nor zoophilia into the animal article. These topics should definately link to their subject matter, but not the other way around. A description of other organism's attraction to that organism is not a relevant thing to link to. Tyciol (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Answer!!!

Does Wikipedia think that children don't and/or shouldn't read Wikipedia.org? And Wikipedia's supposed to be neutral! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.110.254 (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As this talk page is specifically for discussing the article Child but the points you raise seem to go beyond the scope of this one article, I have responded on your own talk page. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Adult education

Looking at the above discussion of boy/girl, it occurs to me the definition of "child" depends on the definition of "adult". Which one is more appropriate: the legal one (def by age) or the physical one (defined, absent a better standard, as sexual maturity)? Or is there another, better one? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Discuss

"A child is a human being between the stage of birth and puberty."

The next sentence articulates a legal definition that breaks that rule by about 6-12 years. "Child" is apparently far too subjective for such a limited definition in the first sentence.

My own preference is for:

""Child" is the term used to describe to human beings during the life phase of childhood, which has a number of social, legal and biological definitions."

forestPIG^(grunt) 14:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I support a change. As a matter of style, it would be possible to eliminate the quotation marks (since the main focus of article is the concept rather than the word, despite the word being a secondary topic covered out of necessity) by re-wording it to something like:

A child is a human being during the life phase of childhood, which has a number of social, legal, and biological definitions.

--Icarus ^(Hi!) 16:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is just as good. In light of the concept of childhood, another improvement may be:

A child is a human being during the conceived life phase of childhood, which has a number of social, legal, and biological definitions.

Or -

A child is a human being during the life phase of childhood, which has a number of social, legal, and biological conceptions.

forestPIG^(grunt) 17:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

While "concept" might be a more accurate word that "definition," strictly speaking, it could create a bit of confusion in a context referring to life phases, as "conception" and "conceived" are also often used as synonyms for "fertilization" and "fertilized." I don't personally think that the benefit from using a slightly more accurate word is sufficient to justify the awkwardness and ambiguity it creates. My concern for the concept of childhood vs. the word "child" is more along the lines that, grammatically speaking, quotation marks are reserved for a direct quotation or for when the word is being discussed as a word rather than being used within the sentence. An introductory sentence is usually something of a combination of the two, but it looks overly pedantic to me (kind of like my own post here, lol!) to use quotation marks when a simple rewording avoids them. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 18:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with removing the quotations, and your suggestion is a vast improvement on the current version. My primary concern is that we risk treating childhood and "the child" as if it were something more than a concept/working model of early development, i.e. something that is native and/or discontinuous with other man-made categories. An alternative to the conceptual terminology would be somthing like

"A child is a human being during childhood, which since (certain era (middle ages?)) has been defined as a distinct social, legal and biological phase of life".

The downside of this is that it may come off as postmodern preaching. forestPIG^(grunt) 21:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Pruning the gallery

There are too many pictures of children in the gallery. Maybe around four is fine, but 11? I think we need to cut it down.

EGL1234 (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop socking. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

New lead image

A child playing in Warri, Nigeria

I added a new lead image.[4] Flyer22, you wrote: Get consensus on the talk page. As has been told to you before, not every article needs a lead mage. WP:Lead image is clear. And this article has been prone to people fighting over images. That will be heightened with a lead image of just one child. One image does not do this topic justice. I didn't see fights over the lead image, but I see that the gallery was removed per WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES.[5] If I understand correctly, that leaves your objection to having one photograph of a child or children for the lead. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

How can you see any fights over images unless you go through the edit history of this article? Not everything is documented in the talk page archives. I know about the fights because I've been with this article for years. People fought over what images to place in the gallery. And it will be no different for the lead.

I feel the same way I felt in this and this discussion about using a single image to represent a topic like this. Consensus was with me for reasons you disagree with. We disagree when it comes to what WP:Lead image states. When I and others point to what it states about "representative image", you go on to argue the opposite of what it states regarding "representative." That is also clear when looking at this discussion. You also repeatedly ignore the fact that WP:Lead image states that a lead image is not required and that not every article needs a lead image. My objection is based on WP:Lead image -- a guideline -- as you very well know. I see no reason to debate something like this with you every time you decide that an article must have a lead image. So go ahead and start the RfC. From my point of view, stuff like this is more so about you countering "white as the default." That was pretty clear from arguments you made at Talk:Woman, Talk:Woman/sandbox and Talk:Man/sandbox. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "yes", no need to argue. I have, however, never opposed an image of a white person,[6] but my preference is mixed-raced, like my main suggestion at Talk:Woman who I suspect is of African and European descent (yes, I know I can't claim she's white). No need to respond. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC) clarified text in parentheses Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that we need a lead image, for the reasons given. Even my experience says that it leads to time-wasting arguing over which picture to use. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion over past image conflicts

I've looked over the editing history, and I don't see fighting except over the image of a newborn.[7] I have faith that we've learned from past experience when to agree to disagree. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean you've "looked over the editing history, and [you] don't see fighting except over the image of a newborn", as if I'm lying? Stuff like this, this, this, this, this and this is fighting when it comes to the gallery that used to be in the article. And that's just 2017. There were IP hoppers who would add images of children above age 12, and others who would keep the age limit restricted to age 12. I personally felt that keeping it at age 12 made the most sense considering that this is not the Adolescence article. And while the Adolescence article has a lead image, it is there after discussions and is long-standing. I'm stating now that the Adolescence article doesn't need you going there and proposing an image of non-white people just for the sake of having a lead image of non-white people. And before this edit in June of this year, it did have two lead images. The second one was for a bit of diversity. If by "you don't see any fighting" with regard to images here at the Child article, you mean over any lead image? That's because we have been without a lead image at this article for years and have done just fine without one. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal revised

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[:Pinging prior commentors @Flyer22 Frozen:, @Kolya Butternut:, @Crossroads:. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)]

I am opening this up again because I changed my proposal midway for the above proposal for the other way around. I would like to get a fresh start on whether we should merge Childhood into Child since one editor has retired and would like to get opinions from editors who haven't commented here before. Please let me know your thoughts below. Interstellarity (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Just came by from the Vital Articles list, and honestly, I see it as a toss-up. Just as topics, having them in one place does make sense, but they also work as distinct facets (though there probably should be hatnotes linking them). The main argument I see against a merge is simply WP:LENGTH. Childhood is at 37,571 bytes while Child is at 22,654; even assuming 10% could be cut as redundant, that leaves ~54200 bytes, which is getting into "consider splitting" territory. I'd say unless the articles are expected to become noticeably more concise, they probably should stay separate. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support merging. I would say, first of all, that the overlap is more than 10%, and that there is much material in each article for which there is no good reason why it wouldn't fall under the other title. BD2412 T 02:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support in that case, if someone is willing to take the time to work on it. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose; there seems to be enough separation between the topics as distinct facets. And I don't see that anyone will necessarily in fact take the time to work on it. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UNP

Can we unprotect this article?P5409459045 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

help

Is this a good article or can i mae it one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalerossj357 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2021

What is a child? BobDaBulda (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Best, DanCherek (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Biological, legal and social definitions

There are so many problems in this section I don't even know where to start.

The wiki article states that "Recognition of childhood as a state different from adulthood began to emerge in the 16th and 17th centuries" and that "This change can be traced in paintings: In the Middle Ages, children were portrayed in art as miniature adults with no childlike characteristics. In the 16th century, images of children began to acquire a distinct childlike appearance."

First of all, what part of the world are they referring to? England? Europe? Feudal Japan?

Secondly, if the concept of "childhood" only emerged as late as the 16th century, how come the word itself has existed in the English language since the language's conception, around the 5th century?

Thirdly, what paintings are they even referring to?

And what about before the Middle Ages? What about the Ancient Egyptians? Ancient Greek and Asia? What were their views on childhood and children?

And finally, both of the claims at the top are disputed in the very same article they are sourced from: "From her intensive study of over four hundred diaries and journals, she argued that childhood experiences were not as grim as they suggest it was. She strongly denies that there were any fundamental changes in the way parents viewed or reared their children in this period;".

"It could be argued that the change in the portrayal of children was due entirely to the Renaissance influence on physical realism in portraits, and the development of superior artistic skills as a consequence."

Whoever sourced that page must've only read half of it. If you read the whole article it's fairly clear that the views on childhood have not changed as dramatically as the wiki article makes it seem. The current article glorifies the modern era too much, suggesting that people in the Middle Ages were barbarians who didn't care for their children. It ought to be revised so it includes both viewpoints. Or be rewritten completely, with more and better sources. It's all far too conjectural at the moment.

92.34.242.233 (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you are welcome to propose a rewrite of the section that follows the sources more closely (or that uses new WP:Reliable sources) and post it here. I can then post it to the article for you. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

10 year old missing

1year old , 2year old, ... , 9 year old, 11 year old.

Any 10 year old?

This is shocking how Wikipedia has the time to block innocent users, although can’t count to ten?

Go figure.

94.207.76.173 (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A more relevant question would be why there are so many images of children at different ages. The gallery doesn't need yet another image, it needs pruning. --bonadea contributions talk 10:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The gallery has included ages from infancy to age 12, mainly via IP editing, because editors have felt that it's beneficial to show children at different ages and to not go past age 12 since age 13 and higher are more so the adolescence realm. But I've argued with an IP on my talk page before that the gallery is not too beneficial since the way children look at different ages can vary. I noted that I'd been thinking of removing the gallery per WP:Gallery and because the section has been subject to persistent edit warring. With the article currently semi-protected, the section hasn't been a problem. But the section still is not needed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Saw this yesterday, but just noting here that S Marshall removed the gallery. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• There shouldn't be a gallery there. We've had a full RFC about this exact subject and the community decision is crystal clear. And nobody who's capable of looking up "child" on Wikipedia could possibly benefit from an image gallery to help them identify what a juvenile human looks like. The gallery should not be replaced.—S Marshall T/C 21:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Teenagers are kids but the third stage of being a kid :)

Besides adolescents are children because they still grow and the only reason why they are called teens is because their numbers end with a teen,but the truth is if they are not little kids anymore,then they are the bigger ones,and juvenile means young,young defines a child,kid,kiddo,teen,adolescent,puberty and more youngsters.And plus everbody who is under "18" is a minor or a young human being,and it is true that adolescence is the third stage of being a child :)Just remember why they are called teens is bcos their numbers end with a teen word,but they are children because they are not adults yet.This is why they say kids and adults right?They did not include"kids,teens and adults. " because being a teen is a part of being a child,a big child.It is by stage:1-4yr old-toddler 5-12 primary school 13-18 secondary school and 19-22 college.It is a long bracket from 1 up to 18.But when u become 18,it is a legal age to vote or to go to college. 49.149.212.134 (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saniabenie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)