Talk:Early childhood trauma
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 25 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaleighbrennan (article contribs). Peer reviewers: GraceRinaldi, Seaturtle524.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kruderian.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amritaatwal.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lombare.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Significant rewrite: reasons and consequences[edit]
I came here after reading User:Pundit's article in mainstream press [1] which mentioned that "An article about early childhood trauma and resilience is a great example: While the knowledge contained in the article is really useful and well-developed, it is different stylistically from typical encyclopedic articles, and it does not follow the typical referencing syntax. It is perfectly understandable why it may be easier to delete the article rather than help improve it." It was interesting to note that around that time (Pundit's article is dated to March, so I cannot say it happened after or before publication), the principal author of this article, User:Pagloor, cut 90% of the content, following the declining of his draft by User:Robert McClenon (pre-cut revsision with Robert's verdict at [2], cut). Pagloor has stopped editing shortly afterward. Would be interested to her from the parties on what they think of the situation in light of Pundit's claims. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- User:Piotrus brings back memories. Yes. I can see that the article now is much shorter than it was when it was submitted. I remember that User:Pundit, while referring to a very extensive background in Wikipedia including as some sort of functionary (maybe a bureaucrat or an arb), was unable or unwilling to use Wikipedia terminology accurately, and as a result made discussion difficult. I have not yet read the mainstream press article, but I did have the feeling that he had come in in order to conduct some sort of experiment and to criticize the reviewers and editors. "It is perfectly understandable why it may be easier to delete the article than help improve it." The article wasn't deleted; it was declined at AFC. They are not the same, and I remember trying to explain, and I vaguely remember Pundit not being interested in details that matter within the community of Wikipedia reviewers. Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Robert, I did link the article back then. I'll gladly use the 100% correct Wikipedia terminology with you, as long as you're willing to switch to Polish. Sounds good? :) Nevertheless, anyone can find the discussion from back then and decide for themselves if it was difficult to understand. Ad meritum: the problem that Wikipedias all around the world suffer from is hostility towards new contributors. If a new editor is trying to make a valuable contribution, a responsibility of experienced editors is rather to foster this enthusiasm and help, than smother it. Whether it is a speedy deletion, a normal deletion, or declining at AFC, it matters quite little when you consider that the new good-will editor basically is lost at why their contribution is not published. Pundit|utter 10:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- User:Piotrus this edit quite clearly is ...useful and well-developed while different stylistically from typical encyclopedic articles. What I'd really like to see would be helping new good-will quality contributors make such articles better and wikified, rather than frustrated and gone. Maybe its just me. Pundit|utter 10:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- User:Pundit - The original article consisted mostly of advocacy. There is debate at AFC about accepting somewhat flawed articles. This was an article that was very far from ready for Wikipedia. Had it been put directly into article space, it would have been heavily tagged and reworked. It isn't just you. You didn't help things by misusing terminology, by referring to deleting of the article when it was declined. I still don't know why you persisted in misusing terminology (and you did persist), but that is only you. The problem with those editors who complain about the reception of new editors is that there are relatively few volunteers handling a floodgate of mostly cruddy input, and we are also fielding a lot of complaining, like yours, that we are not providing enough outreach and encouragement to new editors. I am sure that some of the editors who handle the floodgate get discouraged because of the critics who say that we are not sufficiently welcoming, and go away, or at least withdraw from NPP or AFC. I agree that it would be good if there were more editors who volunteer to welcome and mentor the few new contributors who are contributing in good faith and need to make their articles better. I will only note that the problem of volunteer burnout applies, and the constant nagging about the need to be more welcoming is only a further burden on the volunteers that we do have. I will comment more later. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Let me refresh your memory. At the time you claimed you did read the article (now above you claim you didn't). In the discussion then it was you who decided not to reply to my question about the perceived problem with precision in wording. In any case, my point was and is quite clear (I'm surprised you're having trouble getting it): if we turn good-will valuable editors away just because they don't know the format, we'll lose. Pundit|utter 14:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, okay. I thought that you meant that you had written a new article after the fact. Okay. I will read your article again. However, while your point about new good-faith editors is of course true, it also has a tiresome quality when heard over and over again by the volunteers who are constantly scolded with it when they try both to keep crud out of Wikipedia and to welcome those new editors who should be welcomed (and too many new editors are not good-faith editors). I will read your article again. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I stand by what I wrote three months ago. I said that User:Pundit was using terminology sloppily, even after having the terminology explained. I also said that the article in question, which, as reviewed, was long, had very little to do with the title of the essay, which was supposedly about short articles, in particular, very short articles or stubs. I thought at the time that User:Pundit was taking cheap swipes at Wikipedia reviewers. I stand by what I wrote three months ago. The piece by User:Pundit seemed unfriendly to Wikipedia volunteer reviewers, and still seems unfriendly to Wikipedia volunteer reviewers. I agree that good-faith new editors should be welcomed, but perhaps User:Pundit has no idea how hard it is to tell which new editors are good-faith useful contributors as opposed to crud mills, or maybe User:Pundit would be happy to see the English Wikipedia expand to fifteen million articles, of which eight million are spam and three million are stubs with no future. Let's take this to a more public forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that you stand by what you wrote. I don't think I ever suggested that I'd like to see eight million spam articles and three million stubs with no future. It is paradoxical that you believe I'm unfriendly to Wikipedia volunteer reviewers, as it is the hostility of Wikipedia editors to each other that I would like to get rid of. I don't think that labeling your interlocutor as "taking cheap swipes" is civil or productive, for that matter. For me it is EOT, I don't really believe I can persuade you to be more friendly to newcomers (which is a shame). Pundit|utter 09:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Let me refresh your memory. At the time you claimed you did read the article (now above you claim you didn't). In the discussion then it was you who decided not to reply to my question about the perceived problem with precision in wording. In any case, my point was and is quite clear (I'm surprised you're having trouble getting it): if we turn good-will valuable editors away just because they don't know the format, we'll lose. Pundit|utter 14:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- User:Pundit - The original article consisted mostly of advocacy. There is debate at AFC about accepting somewhat flawed articles. This was an article that was very far from ready for Wikipedia. Had it been put directly into article space, it would have been heavily tagged and reworked. It isn't just you. You didn't help things by misusing terminology, by referring to deleting of the article when it was declined. I still don't know why you persisted in misusing terminology (and you did persist), but that is only you. The problem with those editors who complain about the reception of new editors is that there are relatively few volunteers handling a floodgate of mostly cruddy input, and we are also fielding a lot of complaining, like yours, that we are not providing enough outreach and encouragement to new editors. I am sure that some of the editors who handle the floodgate get discouraged because of the critics who say that we are not sufficiently welcoming, and go away, or at least withdraw from NPP or AFC. I agree that it would be good if there were more editors who volunteer to welcome and mentor the few new contributors who are contributing in good faith and need to make their articles better. I will only note that the problem of volunteer burnout applies, and the constant nagging about the need to be more welcoming is only a further burden on the volunteers that we do have. I will comment more later. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- User:Piotrus brings back memories. Yes. I can see that the article now is much shorter than it was when it was submitted. I remember that User:Pundit, while referring to a very extensive background in Wikipedia including as some sort of functionary (maybe a bureaucrat or an arb), was unable or unwilling to use Wikipedia terminology accurately, and as a result made discussion difficult. I have not yet read the mainstream press article, but I did have the feeling that he had come in in order to conduct some sort of experiment and to criticize the reviewers and editors. "It is perfectly understandable why it may be easier to delete the article than help improve it." The article wasn't deleted; it was declined at AFC. They are not the same, and I remember trying to explain, and I vaguely remember Pundit not being interested in details that matter within the community of Wikipedia reviewers. Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The introduction paragraph appears to lack more in-depth information related to the definition of the term and lacks the use of citations. The introduction can be improved by incorporating the distinct mental health problems that can arise due to childhood trauma, with relevant citations included. In addition to more details about the adverse effect of childhood trauma, the introduction can include a couple of sentences highlighting the importance of psychological resilience which can create a better transition into the concept. There is very limited information about all concepts covered in this article, adding more citations from distinct studies can improve the article by demonstrating the importance of this topic. Mercedes P. Palacios (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the introduction paragraph should be expanded upon. Specifically, I think this topic would benefit from more example of types of trauma that are commonly experienced in childhood. This would allow for a smoother transition into the Adverse Childhood Experiences section. I appreciate the mention of health outcomes associated with childhood trauma. However, there does not appear to be much mention of why one child may be more resilient than another. this would explain variability in how individuals react to trauma, both in terms of psychological and health outcomes.Jwatson22 (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwatson22 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the article could also expand on how attachment can affect children who have experienced trauma. The article lacks in populations that are more vulnerable to trauma such as foster youth. It would also be interesting to talk about how culture plays a role in the outcomes of children. I am wondering if there is literature on how children from cultures other than America are affected by trauma and if resiliency plays an important role in their presentation. Caseymcginnis (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Need for page?[edit]
This entry is not much different from what is or could be included in childhood trauma.? or in Causes of mental disorders#Adverse childhood experiences. --Iztwoz (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 30 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PatriciaSherrill (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by PatriciaSherrill (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)