Talk:Child development

Page move

Ive moved the page that was originally here across to Child development stages as 95% of the content was itemised on an age by age basis. I moved the page rather than do a heavy duty cut and paste as that would retain a better history in the under Child development stages. I think this page should refer to broader concepts of child development, or at least refer to stages as a number of years with a reference to Child development stages where age specific. With less now here, I think there is better space for this page to be the main article in this area, and as such building better alignment with other articles in this space would be good. Yes it was bold, no offense is intended to any, all content hasdfdfdff been retained with the shift at Child development stages. --Evolve2k 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, now people need to fill in the gaping holes... -- Beland 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Developmental psychology?

Though this article could differ from Developmental psychology if its focus included significantly more information about biological development, as it stands, almost all content overlaps with the Developmental psychology article, and thus might be merged. This article also has some Freudian developmental psychology theory in isolation which might best be considered alongside other development theories or more thoroughly in the Psychosexual development article. Dialectric 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous idea. Child development is a unique field of study within developmental psychology, the reach of which influences literally thousands of activities, ideas, and policies affecting millions of young people every single day. This is a poorly written article that should state that better, but there is absolutely no necessity to merge this article. • Freechild'sup? 15:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Behavior analysis and child development

I added a section on behavior analysis of child development. The theory has been remarkable in applied developmental psychology but seems to receive little attention in mainstream developmental texts. Jcautilli2003 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the concept of excess reference is a good one. Failure to reference is poor Jcautilli2003 (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about my edits -- we only need one reference per point - I'm trying to reduce the double references that interrupt the flow. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I find with academics if you reference one person and not them, they tend to get insulted and insist that their contribution was more important. with the Watson reference though, one was a chapter and the other was a book. They did have some overlap but the book, whihc was removed was much more controversal and more in depth. Jcautilli2003 (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Education???

This is unrelated to Behavior analysis can I move this somewhere else "In education, there are many different kinds of learning that are required for later interaction in the world. Such aspects of learning include social, and language. These different areas of development are crucial for a growing child. And as technology continues to increase, its power has been spread to all areas. Technology can be used for good but too much of a good thing can have negative effects on a child or person. According to the NWREL (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory), too much technology will hinder a child’s social interactions with others. There is always a fear that later in life, this early computer interaction will become an addiction and lead to antisocial behavior. Not only is education and technology a big factor in child development, language always plays a big role. Language development doesn’t seem to have the same need for technology as social development does but studies show that some technology helps motor skills develop more efficiently. It is said that by the age of 18 months, a child will start to learn and know about 5 -20 different words It is then understood that once the child knows these words, they go explore in the world and get a better understanding of this world." Jcautilli2003 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Autism

I added a section on autism and some more information on developmental retardation. I hope that this satisfies my critics in these areas Jcautilli2003 (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Language and Imitation

I ave stated a section on language and imitation. I plan to finish it later tommorow or during the week. Allcommetns welcomesJcautilli2003 (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Adoption Study

I'm not sure where this belongs...seemed out of place to me...I've commented it out -- what are everyone's thoughts?

"Following the fall of the soviet backed government in Romania in 1989, international adoption became a legal practice again. In 1991, a study was started that followed the development of orphans from the Romania orphanage to their new homes four years later. In total seventy Canadian children were divided into three different groups. These groups related the orphanage against a normal childhood upbringing. The researchers interviewed the subjects and paired each of them with a similar subject in an opposing group, matching exact age and gender. The groups were Romanian Orphans, Canadian Born, and Early Adoption.

There were twenty-four Romanian orphans were followed after adoption. These children stayed in the orphanage for at least eight months of the first year of their life. Also children in this group where monitored to see if they were favored by the workers at the orphanage, to see if they received special care or attention. The twenty-four Canadian Born children were set up as a control group. These children were born in traditional, nuclear families. These were not Romanian children; the only thing they had in common with their counterpart was exact age and gender. The third group was a smaller variable group where the researchers looked at eleven children that had been adopted from the orphanage less than four months from birth. These children were picked to determine if the amount of time in the orphanage had any effect on development at all.

When the children were on average, two researchers would interview the parents and the child separately. The parents were interviewed to determine the type of environment the child had lived in. The child was given a Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale IQ test. The preconception was that the Romanian group would score lower than both the Canadian group and the early adopted. The results show that the Romanian children have what is considered healthy brain activity, but show a deficiency in higher power motor skills and cognitive processes. This supports the researchers claims that early childhood institutionalization directly affects the cognitive development of a child.

The early adoption group proved little results against either group. All eleven children in the group scored in between the Romanian and the Canadian groups in the IQ tests, yet there were not enough subjects in the group to give it credibility. But, one can take from this data that adoption before four months does increase the child’s chances of cognitive growth. "

Thanks! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If the section is couched as support for deprivation, then it fits. Remember, Herrnstein and Murray argued in the Bell Curve that behavioral programs and most social programs would fail because of the large correlation between social problems and IQ, which as they suggested was largely determiend by heredity. The problem with Herrstein's arguement is that most of the twin studies have a restricted environmental range (usually they survey twins from middle class backgrounds). It is often by looking at the deprived environments that we see influences. For example, hight is largely genetically determined- yet the average hight in Japan post WW2 increased by close to 5 inches. Why? Environmental reason- influx of protein foods. Probably the best arguement that I ever heards around these types of issues was by Jerry Patterson. He was not convinced that most of these "traits" were measuring the important things. He argued that what test contruct theorist (and I would suggest intellegence theorists) did was observe a dance through a tube and conclude that the most important thing about dancing was that both partners wore shoes (see Patterson, G.R. (1993). Orderlychange in a stable world: The antisocial trait asa chimer. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 911-919. Jcautilli2003 (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a new article?

I've moved Behavior analytic theory under contemporary theories -- and realized how large it has become -- perhaps it is ready for its own article now -- and we can just have a summary here. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is approproaite Jcautilli2003 (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll hold off until we get the part here cleaned up, then we can move to a new article. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have created a new article Child development in behavior analytic theory with the extensive dissertation here. behavior analytic theory is one of a number of approaches - these others are mentioned here but get lost with the extended presentation of BAT. I will leave a summary here with a link to the full article. See WP:Weight Paul foord (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to meJcautilli2003 (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a new article

I propose replacing this material with an article that discusses child development as a field of study and summarizes some of the major questions it deals with. There seem to be other articles that stress "facts' of development.Jean Mercer (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jean, explain what you're proposing in more detail, please Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This was initially a review or introduction to Child development. The detail of each theory justifies their own article. Paul foord (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How about arranging it in terms of topics or themes, like cognitive development, attachment etc etc rather than listing the theorists at the outset? Then have brief vignettes on major theorists linked to individual pages if necessary. Fainites ^barley 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Another article using a theme approach could add value. It does not have to replace this one. Something that complements this and Child development stages. Paul foord (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was for the article to discuss the field of child development, with the major assumptions, questions, and research approaches it involves. So, for example, what is development? Does the development of young humans involve a stage-like pattern? Are there sensitive or critical periods when environmental factors have an especially strong impact? What aspects of development appear to be largely genetic in mechanism, and in what ways do genetic and environmental factors interact? In what ways is the field of child development using dynamic systems theory? What are currently the major topics in the study of child development? What research methods are generally used in investigations of CD topics?

As for discussion of specific aspects of development, I like the questions Everett Waters suggested some years ago, which could be applied to each major topic (e.g. physical growth): 1) What develops? What observable changes occur in the aspect of development under consideration? 2) What are the speed and pattern of developmental change? 3) What are the mechanisms of this type of development? 4) Are there normal individual differences in this aspect of development, or are there clinical reasons to study most atypical cases? 5) Are there population differences in this aspect of development?

My suggestion is to describe the field of study and the characteristics that make it different from, say, the study of personality, and then to report in an organized way on some major topics of interest. I would like to see up-to-date work emphasized, and some of the historical contributors like Piaget referred to only very briefly. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is a sociology article.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Stages?

In the lead, was it intended to say a "sequence of states", or was "stages" intended?Jean Mercer (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case a serious but brief discussion of the stage concept is needed-- it's deceptive simply to continue as if stages are "real". I'm surprised that the behavior analysts ahve not worked on this.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Milestones

I don't understand a thing about what is now the second para under "milestones". Could someone clarify? Jean Mercer (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Jean Mercer (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of it doesn't seem to relate to milestones as such but I can't see an obvious paragraph to put it under. I've rationalised it a bit.Fainites ^barley 11:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Other topics

Note to self, or anyone else who wants to lend a hand: two topics that need discussion are plasticity and gene-environment interactions. But i haven't looked to see whether there are articles discussing these.Jean Mercer (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

One way to see if there's an article is to try linking and see what comes up - as I am doing above. Fainites ^barley 22:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Two hits! Fainites ^barley 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Themes?

How about a list of themes that different people could handle? I like motor development, myself.Jean Mercer (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

How about parent-family relationships/peer-relationships/language/play/cognitive development/social development? Is that the kind of thing you meant? Fainites ^barley 22:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those are all good. I guess I mean topics, not themes (whatever that would be). I could do sensory development and growth together with motor development, or as separate topics. I don't really know how long each one should be.Jean Mercer (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And-- almost forgot-- I'd like to see whether we can organize the topical information according to the five questions i listed under research issues, rather than just a plain narrative. What do you think?Jean Mercer (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

ooops

Sorry, I put the topics in the wrong place, and now I can't figure out how to move them so "see also" comes last.Jean Mercer (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Sorted. Fainites ^barley 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

milestones

"practice and research OF"?? Try reading this out loud to yourself. Jean Mercer (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} oh Great Grammarian.Fainites ^barley 21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh very well. (Thinks: Must be careful not to make any mistakes-- will be struck with devastating sarcasm.)Jean Mercer (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What is all that stuff about "teaching" creativity etc.? I had been ignoring it, but now i have to ask a)what it means b) why it's there. Jean Mercer (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It clearly doesn't belong in 'milestones' but I couldn't think where else to move it to. Do you have the original paper? Fainites ^barley 21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have it-- it seems to be a book by Rutter. I can't imagine what it means. He may have said encouraging creativity. How about putting it under mechanisms, in a little section about the effect of environmental factors?Jean Mercer (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Its the bit that says "All of these traits should be taught at a young age and practiced frequently" that I find odd. Anyway - Wiki isn't a 'how-to' manual. Fainites ^barley 23:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I say hoick it out. If the author comes forward to protest, perhaps he or she will explain what was meant. Jean Mercer (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Topics: Aspects of child development-Cognitive & Emotional development

Most of this section is unreferenced. It is also incorrect. For example, considerable research and several meta-analyses shows attachment to be a learning based construct. 72.94.75.120 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm coming to add references as soon as I can.

Are you arguing that attachment is not a matter of experience-expectant plasticity?Jean Mercer (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the very word "familiar" says that learning is involved, and experience is mentioned as one of the mechanisms of social and emotional development, so I'm not sure what the issue is.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

72.94, I put a message on the behaviorism talk page requesting a behaviorist addition to the Attachment theory article. Maybe you could do that? Jean Mercer (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There already is a small one there - from JCautilli i think. Fainites ^barley 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot that could be said, though, and especially whether they argue that their approach predicts more of what happens, or whether it's the same but more parsimonious. That's why i hope a proponent of behaviorism will take on this task.Jean Mercer (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fruhreife

Wouldn't Entwicklung be more suitable? Jean Mercer (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Frühreife - precocity, prematurity Entwicklung- development Northwolf56 (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Language

Are you going to do more on this? Language continues to develop through adolescence.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm going to do more! I stopped because a) I got side-tracked by kingsleys stuff about monotropy not being a feature of Bowlbys attachment theory and b) when I looked at what i'd written so far it was beginning to look like a list of stages, which this article is trying to avoid. I'll finish it off and then people can comment. Fainites ^barley 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you follow the pattern I was using, it won't look like a list of stages, or even be one for that matter. Jean Mercer (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to bug you, but I didn't want to step in if you had an ongoing plan. Jean Mercer (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a very complicated plan. Only to write the section on language development - without getting to sidetracked. I think I'll write - then prune. Fainites ^barley 21:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(Memo: the 5 questions. "1) What develops? What observable changes occur in the aspect of development under consideration? 2) What are the speed and pattern of developmental change? 3) What are the mechanisms of this type of development? 4) Are there normal individual differences in this aspect of development, or are there clinical reasons to study most atypical cases? 5) Are there population differences in this aspect of development? Fainites ^barley 23:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

Your 5 questions are too tricky for me without explaining what language development is.Fainites ^barley 21:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i was at a conference all day-- found out some new stuff about language too-- so I'll be along in the next couple of days. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Should I add a few words on dyslexia as it affects so many? Fainites ^barley 22:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would go under individual differences. Jean Mercer (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Righty ho. Fainites ^barley 21:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Birth, conception?

Why not conception, Linda? Most child development courses spend a good chunk of time on genetics and prenatal events. Jean Mercer (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I did that edit to make this page match the wiki pages on Child and Fetus. Those pages both have footnotes for the definitions. An unborn human starts as an "embryo" and then after a couple months is called a "fetus" until birth; the term "child" is used when the baby is born.

In the child developement article it says: "Age-related development terms are: newborn (ages 0–1 month); infant (ages 1 month – 1 year); toddler (ages 1–3 years); preschooler (ages 4–6 years); school-aged child (ages 6–11 years); adolescent (ages 11–18) (Kail, 2006)." --- None of those terms mention anything about an unborn fetus.

I'm sure you're right about prenatal events affecting the child's development after birth and that those things are taught in child development courses but that's different than including an unborn fetus in the definition of the term "child". --Linda (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a very brief summary and explanation and then a link in the right place to the right article? Fainites ^barley 17:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm-- I see what you mean, but it didn't say that fetus was one of the terms related to age, only that child development includes the study of prenatal development. What if I include a statement to the effect that study of children from birth on also includes consideration of genetic factors and the effects of prenatal events? Then it wouldn't imply that a fetus was a child, but would correctly describe the study of child development. Is okay? Jean Mercer (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'd argue that "infant" covers the period up until 2-3 years, with "toddler" as a colloquial term for part of that period, but it's a minor point.Jean Mercer (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How's that? Have I avoided any untoward implications?Jean Mercer (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the new version reads very well, thanks. --Linda (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

subheadings

subheadings

subheadings

subheadings

subheadings

How do they look?

I'll be back to go on about population differences in language development.Jean Mercer (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Neat arrangement. Suppose it said eg "Speed and pattern of development" rather than "What are the speed and pattern of development". Less busy and more encyclopaedic. I'll show you what I mean.Fainites ^barley 06:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On physical growth, there's a theory that infants in utero adapt to information about the world outside - in the sense that being small is not just a response to lack of nutrition because you don't get enough, but an adaptation to percieved future environment. I'll see if I can find it.Fainites ^barley 07:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, to omit the "What is".

About fetal growth-- is that too much detail? I'm just comparing it to other information we've used.Jean Mercer (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah probably. Do you think the ref you've used ought to go in each section. Otherwise if people add things your sentences will get orphaned.Fainites ^barley 23:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should, I didn't think about that when I began. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it if you like. Fainites ^barley 10:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a couple of in-line citations in the article with no proper citation attached. One to (Kail 2006) and one to (Hart and Risley). Does anybody know what these refer to? Fainites ^barley 20:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I do, and will fix shortly. Jean Mercer (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I did the H & B, but the Kail isn't mine. I don't know who wrote that introductory piece, do you? Jean Mercer (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Here it is.[1] Its their only contrib.! I assume its "Children and their development" by Robert Kail. I'll get the deatails from Amazon. Fainites ^barley 19:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Would 203 etc. please explain the reason for deleting the physical growth material? Jean Mercer (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If its just a drive-by wholesale deletion of sections with no edit summary and no explanation on the talkpage then just treat it as vandalism and put it back. That IP has done similar things on other articles. It may be an IP used by a school or something.Fainites ^barley 08:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats now three separate acts of vandalism, two to the physical growth section, in as many days. Weird! Fainites ^barley 21:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist persons of small stature? Jean Mercer (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Some IP number has changed the age ranges from Kail in the lead. I don't know if they're right or not as I don't have Kail - but the only other two edits from that IP elsewhere are pure vandalism. Has anyone else got Kail to check? Fainites ^barley 21:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

An IP has removed most of the 'aspects' section and all the refs leaving a mess of headings. Someone else has cleaned up the headings but I don't know whether the IP's activities were vandalism or trenchant comment as there's no edit summaries of note.Fainites ^barley 21:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced them for now and left a message on its page.Fainites ^barley 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fainites, looks like you've taken care of the problem. Any help still requested? -DoctorW 21:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I was just a bit hesitant in case the wholesale removal wasn't vandalism but was in pursuit of a different focus in the article - but perhaps the first instinct was correct! On another point - do you have a cite for saying Bronfenbrenner was groundbreaking? I've found one that says "influential conceptualization of development" if thats any help. Fainites ^barley 21:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Can you add the reference and change the wording? -DoctorW 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. I just got a bit sidetracked by the whole ArbCom hooha. Fainites ^barley 21:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter Klashorst's Experimental

The picture used in this article is Experimental by a Dutch painter, sculptor, and photographer Peter Klashorst. Name of the work and the artist must be mentioned when using artist's original works. See: Moral rights (copyright law). Klassikkomies (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, captions serve the interest of articles. If this photo present a problem in this regard, another photo can be used. -DoctorW 03:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I provided an alternative picture, but someone didn't like it as well and reverted. No other article on a similar topic seems to require specific attribution of the photographer in the caption; rather those captions are designed to best illustrate some theme in the article, and the photographer credit is clearly displayed in the image file. I will change the caption of the original picture back to its long standing form which best serves the articles purposes. If Klassikkomies doesn't like it, he can either look more deeply into Wikipedia procedures or vote with me to use a different picture. -DoctorW 19:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I changed the picture back because the reason given in the edit summary was that it was being changed to one that was less controversial - which seemed a poor reason to change it. If there are other reasons to change, like a new one suits the article better, feel free. As for your point on attribution - you are correct I believe. The name of the artist doesn't need to be mentioned on this page as it is available when clicking through. This is the case throughout WP. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 20:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is illegal and immoral to use professional artist's artwork without mentioning artist's name. If professional artist's artwork is used in this or any other article the name of the artist must be mentioned. This is not a matter of opinion. The laws and the moral rights of the artist require that. I don't understand how this picture is controversial and in my opinion it is not controversial in any way, but if you use it the name of the artist must be mentioned. The most common way to do this in Wikipedia is to write "Artworks name by Artist Name". This is the case throughout WP. Klassikkomies (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This work is licensed under CC Attribution 2.0. This license requires that "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).". When this work was uploaded to Commons, no requirement was given. The original source on FlickR has been deleted. So, we should be free to attribute it in any reasonable way - in this case via the details on the image page at Commons. Moral rights are not a separate issue here because attribution is a requirement of the license and also of the relevant "moral rights" law in the US. From the article you linked to, moral rights in the US allow the artist the right to claim authorship. This has been claimed, via the license, and given. In this case the authorship is recognised where we are hosting the image. Remember, what you are looking at is a thumbnail of an image that is hosted elsewhere (on Commons) where the full attribution is given. If you were right, then Google would be breaking US law every time it showed a thumbnail image. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Even though we have the right to publish the picture, picture or artwork can not be published in such context that might violate the original idea of the work. The original idea of the work is to be artwork titled Experimental by Peter Klashorst not just "A child experimenting". Think about a situation you had written for example a poem and we'd borrow a line or two from it without mentioning the author or the title of the poem, how would you feel? How about a situation that we would use some artist's couple of hundred years old classic painting to illustrate a book without mentioning the artist's name? In my opinion mentioning the artist is important because of moral as well as art educational reasons. Klassikkomies (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be willfully ignoring the points I mad. We (i.e., Wikipedia) are not publishing it. Commons is publishing it, we are displaying a thumbnail of it, in the same way that, for example, Google does when you do an image search. When you go to the publisher's site - Commons - it is fully attributed. Also, more importantly, if the artist want it attributed differently he shouldn't have published it with a license that requires him to specify how he wants it published and then provided no details. If he wanted it to be fully attributed with the work name, etc., this needed to be included in the license - and it wasn't. Your points are you think the artist wouldn't agree with the way it is being published. My point is, his actions in publishing on Flickr under CC by Attribution 2.0 with no provisions given means that HE did agree by default to what we are doing. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 11:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to acknowledge both of your contributions here. Unusual? Quite has knowledgeably explained details of Wikipedia policy and functioning, and I have to compliment Klassikkomies for his civility in discussing the matter here and restraining himself from edit warring. On one template I've been policing there are some anonymous IPs (8 IP addresses - 7 beginning with 12.76.1 - all pretty familiar with Wikipedia policies - probably the same editor, using them to claim consensus) who reverted with no discussion and was/were rude when they finally made several comments.

Anyway, my thanks for the way you both handled this are sincere. On the substance of the issue, I'd just like to reiterate that I believe captions should be what best serves the particular article, as seems to be the case all over Wikipedia. This article is not about Peter Klashorst; it's not even about photography. But the complete attribution information is one click away (easier to find than a quotation reference in a footnote/endnote in a book), because the image file displays the Commons description. -DoctorW 07:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The picture now seems to have been removed because of 'no parental permission' and the whole file of photos has been deleted - apparently all the other photos except this one were a bit obscene or something. I don't know as they're now gone. The one of the child covered in yellow paint looked OK to me. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jointness

To the IP who added this - I removed the link only because it didn't derive from the source given, (Patterson). The only source I can find for this as a psychoanalytic term is this one - Solan, R. (1991). "Jointness" as Integration of Merging and Separateness in Object Relati... Psychoanal. St. Child, 46:337-352. - If you want to add something on this I can help formulate a ref for you. Is this term in general use? Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)