Talk:Child

Puberty occurs in adolescence

Puberty occurs in adolescence. Couldn't we just define a child as a human being between the stages of birth and adolescence? There are plenty of references that state this such as this one. [1] --Eivmeidwl (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Whole article a bit random

This article is strange; it has a strange selection of information, and is laid out oddly.

For example, if you're going to include a piece on age of maturity, it would make more sense to list the ages at which children become legal adults in a few of the leading nations, or compare more fully the difference between a legal child and a legal adult in terms of crime, voting, marriage and so on.

Or - add some medical science about what makes children different from adults (devvelopmental stages etc). Or - expand the bit on cultural attitudes towards children around the world.

There's too much to do for me to feel up to taking it on (I currently have my own very small child to worry about!) but someone with an interest should get bold and really redo this article from scratch! raining girl (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

About the source

The source does say that children are expected to cooperate with everyone. This teaches social skills and in the end will have positive relationships. Esthertaffet (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Socialization of the child

The section titled “Socialization of the child” is very vague and somewhat confusing. The passage uses the terms “infant” and “very young child” which could refer to anywhere between birth to five years old. It would be beneficial to give approximate ages as to what is considered an “infant” and what is considered a “very young child.” Also, the passages state that once a child enters kindergarten they will be able to participate in group experiences yet there is no reference to the appropriate age children enter kindergarten. Stating the ages would help non experts identify what age groups fit in which categories and thus clarifying the content of the passage. In addition, there are no links in this passage. Including a link to the Wikipedia page “Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development” would articulate the message of the paragraph. Other links to past research in developmental psychology would be beneficial as well, including the Wikipedia page “Freud’s psychosexual development.” In the second paragraph, ADHD should be clarified as “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.” Also, a brief description of what “impulsive characteristics” are evident in ADHD children would erase the ambiguity in the sentence. Providing a link to both the Wikipedia pages “Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder” and “learning disability” would direct the reader to more information regarding how these deficiencies effect socialization in children. As a whole, the page on “children” is short and could be strengthened through addition sections and links to related topics regarding children such as psychology, education, and sociology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesshau (talk • contribs) 03:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

Out of all the random and unncessary facts and tidbits on wikipedia, we have a bunch of humbojumbo seemingly lack of attempt to research, write, critique, examine, discuss, and share on one of the most important processes, concepts, and beings in the human life. So I cede, the human race has regressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.167.205 (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we should put some sort of lock to users that are not auto-confirmed, or temporarily lock it to admins. OMGWEEGEE2 (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

OMGWEEGEE2 , you have responded to a four-year-old comment above. The Child article has changed drastically since then. So, in what way, is the Child article ridiculous to you? Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "Child" (again)

An editor changed the definition of "child" here.

I question if or where the term "child" is used as a legal term. I'm not saying it isn't; I don't know. But I would like to see references. Does the state law of Colorado or any other American state, for instance, contain a passage saying "A child is any person under 18..." or whatever? Maybe it does, but can we get a cite? I don't see why a law would need to define a general term in this way,

Granted the United Nations defines a "child" as any person under 18. However, UN definitions do not have the force of law, I don't think. This definition was made by bureaucrats in a political document. That is different than a legal definition.

Absent any cites, I'm inclined to edit the definition back to what it was before. Herostratus (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the prior version was better and I've restored it. It's also a definition that has consensus by several editors here, so if it is to be changed, let's gain a new consensus. Whatever the legal definition, the word "child" is used most widely by far as a noun that refers to a human between birth and puberty. Perhaps it would be useful to create a new article to address Child (legal term), since that is not the same concept. For this article, the primary definition should be featured most prominently, with due weight. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's my !vote for the new consensus. I fully agree that a child (in this article) is a human between the stages of birth and puberty. Lova Falk talk 17:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Iota's change to the lead is not much different than the consensus version, except that it does not put the biological definition first. I had previously reverted Iota's change because it seems best that the biological definition should come first, especially since we link to this article from the Pedophilia article for the term prepubescent, but I of course know where Iota is coming from. I believe that the common definition of child is anyone under 18. Think about it. How many times do we hear parents, or just older adults in general, refer to underage teenagers as children? It is just that I believe the "technical" definition should go first. As for Herostratus's question about whether or not there is a legal definition of child, I say of course there is. We call this a minor (as the lead notes). Flyer22 (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not change the lead. The reverted change you talk about was made by Iota (talk · contribs). As I stated above, I think it is fully correct to state that a child is a human between birth and puberty. Lova Falk talk 17:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for that. I also recently mixed up editors on Talk:Gender. It's weird. But, yeah, sorry again, and I corrected the name. Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree. The definition of child also applies to people in puberty. "Child" is a very inclusive term that defines any person that cannot live without a guardian/parent by the legal definition of the modern Western society. Thus a Child is a human being until the age of 18 or even higher depending on culture and law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickymaster (talk • contribs) 06:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Puberty is part of adolescence. Adolescence includes puberty. So shouldn't we use the more inclusive term? ShadowReflection (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Trickymaster, and we mention the legal definition right after the biological definition. That legal definition does not pertain to the entire world, however, no matter how prominent it is. Further, from my experience, when people say the word "child," they most often think of little children, not teenagers; when they are speaking of teenagers, they most often specify that they are. Plenty of medical sources also often distinguish between the two, by saying "children and adolescents" or "children and teenagers." I completely get your point about calling pubescent individuals "children," though. I certainly consider a 10-year-old pubescent boy or girl to still be a child (because of how young 10-year-olds look and their usual mental capability), but all we have done with the lead is list the biological definition first and the legal definition second. Perhaps, there is a better way to approach this. I could go ahead and alter the lead by adding in "biologically" at the beginning. The only problem with that is, as the Adult article says, some sources consider "adult" to mean people who are post-pubescent, rather than simply people who are capable of sexual reproduction. Adding "biological" in still should be okay, however, since [biological] is what we mean anyway. We could also obtain sources to state how "biological adult" means something different according to other sources.

ShadowReflection (I know that you are currently blocked, but...), saying "between birth and puberty" is more clear cut than saying "between birth and adolescence." Adolescence is socially constructed and is more of a varying definition. And while puberty varies, it is more of a timing thing. Flyer22 (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The current lead sentence "Biologically, a child (plural: children) is a human between the stages of birth and puberty.[1]" is unsupported by the citation provided, which instead states "a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority". The source says nothing about birth as a lower limit for the term. I will edit the lead to reflect the source, but feel free to add another source that holds that birth is a lower limit of the term. 121.208.40.196 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IP. I changed it back, per this edit summary. As can be seen in that edit, I re-added the source that was there before; it shows that sources, at least dictionary sources, generally define a child as being "between birth and puberty." Here is the discussion for how that source got removed. I argued in that discussion that the Oxford English Dictionary source alone did not support that entire sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't true. The American Heritage Dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary and Random House Dictionary all clearly include "fetus" as a "child." In fact, in the OED and Webster, that's the first definition provided for child. Desire Mercy (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wipe and restart

I agree with the other posters. This artical needs a majer overhall. Lex Martin (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Main picture

I think "a picture which best describes the subject" should be used as the main picture, not a -let's say- "marginal" or "shocking" or "interesting" one.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree! Lova Falk talk 10:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to a more appropriate one.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DCC6 (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply: Transgender

Transgender children may almost always identify as a boy or girl, but thats because there are usually no provisions for a third category and babies with an ambiguous gender are surgically operated on. Germany this year became the first European country to permit for a third category (indeterminate gender) on birth certificates. The fact that some government agencies make this community invisible, does not mean that wikipedia should do the same. Pass a Method talk 17:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

My answers to you on this matter are here, here and here, obviously. And since you think that the reason that the vast majority of transgender people identify as either a male/boy, male/man or female/girl, female/woman is because "there are usually no provisions for a third category" (such as third gender), I suggest you thoroughly study gender, gender identity and transgender topics. I'm quite certain that many transgender people would be offended as to your assertion with regard to this matter. Furthermore, it's significantly more accurate to state "ambiguous sex" than "ambiguous gender," since "gender" is more of a social category...while "sex" is more of a biological/anatomical category. And stating "The fact that some government agencies make this community invisible, does not mean that wikipedia should do the same." is more of your WP:Activism. You already know that we have WP:Undue weight, which is policy, to follow. Stop trying to give "equal validity" to matters that are not on equal footing; in addition to reading and understanding the initial section of WP:Undue weight, scroll on down to its Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" sections, understand them...and follow them.

Furthermore, like I've stated before, your vague talk page headings do a disservice to other readers, which is why I added on ": Transgender" to the above heading. Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

7 Year Old Picture

Of all the possible pictures of 7 year olds that we could use, do we really need to use Heinrich Himmler? Yes, I know he is indeed 7 years old in the picture, but isn't that being provocative for it's own sake? It is a little annoying seeing him here. Maybe we could use the picture of someone who didn't go on to perpetrate the genocide of millions based on racial hatred. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.146 (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the picture.2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A10F (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Wordsworth

What is wrong with the Wordsworth quotation? The beginning of this article is so boring. "Children can be raised by parents, in a foster care or similar supervised arrangement, guardians or partially raised in a day care center." Thanks. Who doesn't know this? Is it really so wrong to include the view that childhood experiences are believed by many to have a significant influence on adult personality? I don't understand what seems to be an unreasoned, almost irrational hatred for my minor edit, adding an interesting, important, relevant quotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 07:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Besides, this is possibly the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Almost anything would improve this article. Kingshowman (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

The WP:Lead is for summarizing the topic, especially material that is already found lower in the article. It doesn't matter if a lot of people already know, or if everyone already knows, about what the lead addresses.

You know that I've reverted you twice now with regard to adding material to this article, as seen here and here (the latter being lead material). The reasons why are explained in the WP:Edit summaries. You need to give the WP:Reliable sources guideline a good read-over. Adding that "childhood experiences are believed by many to have a significant influence on adult personality" is fine with a good source supporting it, and with the deletion of the "are believed by many" WP:Weasel wording. It's still not WP:Lead material unless covered significantly lower in the article. Your edits have yet to improve this article.

Also, I moved your section down; newer sections go at the bottom, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. Flyer22 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about new sections. I added citation of the opinion that childhood experiences affect adult personality and worded my statement more carefully and with more hedging.. I can find more verification if you would like. I think the paragraph I've added is certainly quite a bit more useful and relevant than the pointless paragraph before it that tells no one anything of interest or usefulness. The previous paragraph, and many in this article, read as if they had been written by a text-writing robot trying to explain humans to their fellow robots. I hope this is not Wikipedia's house style.Kingshowman (talk)Kingshowman — Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this and this edit by you, that is still not lead material. Once again, material like that, if it is to be included, should be covered lower in the article before it is covered in the lead. I've repeatedly pointed you to the WP:Lead guideline, and it's like you haven't even bothered to read it. And specifically addressing the line "Psychoanalysts in particular, but also many other theorists of personality and psychologists generally, commonly believe (though not without significant controversy) that childhood experiences (particularly traumatic ones) often have a large impact on the formation of adult personality.", you make it sound like this is just a theory that has no consensus among researchers. As anyone who has studied domestic violence, child sexual abuse and other topics that significantly affect childhood know, childhood experiences commonly do "have a large impact on the formation of adult personality." If you want your text to stay, it needs to be moved to a different part of the article, out of the lead, and worded much better than it is. Furthermore, there is no need to focus on Freud. I know you like him, but there is no need to mention/reference him in this article.

Also, don't mark your edits as WP:Minor unless they are minor (read WP:Minor for what it considers minor). Flyer22 (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I read the lead. I think you are frankly just wrong on not thinking Freud is relevant to the childhood article. All current psychological theory simply assumes with Freud that it is true that early childhood experiences, especially traumatic ones, profoundly affect adult personality. This was insufficiently appreciated prior to Freud and the invention of psychotherapy. All subsequent psychotherapies are a modification of Freud's technique. Even if you disagree with Freud, it is ludicrous to say that Freud is not notable in an article on childhood. Without being rude, you don't know what you're talking about if your opinion is that Freud isn't relevant to an article about children. Look at the recent Sagepub reference I listed for example. Any existing psychotherapy is in some sense based on Freud's principles even if not psychoanalytic. I don't think I'm saying anything particularly today controversial by saying that childhood affects adult personality in a profound way, which is the core insight I'm trying to convey. I don't really understand what point you are trying to make. Kingshowman (talk)Kingshowman — Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If you read the WP:Lead guideline, then you should go ahead and adhere to it with regard to what you added to this article. I agree to disagree about the inclusion of Freud. But either way, the text you added to the lead will not be staying in the lead for long since it is not lead material. And its "often have a large impact on the formation of adult personality" wording will be altered per what I stated above. I never stated that you are "saying anything particularly today controversial by saying that childhood affects adult personality in a profound way." I stated that "you make it sound like this is just a theory that has no consensus among researchers." In other words, it is silly to act like it is significantly debatable that childhood experiences commonly "have a large impact on the formation of adult personality." Researchers know from topics like domestic violence, child sexual abuse and so on that childhood experiences commonly "have a large impact on the formation of adult personality." There is no need to frame it in an "Oooh, this train of thought is so controversial" way. Flyer22 (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

And as for Freud, the most I would agree to with regard mentioning/referencing him in this article is a bit of his views being placed in a History section. This is the Child article, after all, not the Childhood article. Flyer22 (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I only said it was controversial to placate you, because YOU kept objecting to it, frivolously. Why exactly is it not lead material? You keep sending me to that page, but not saying why. It is the most relevant sentence in the entire lead. And if you agree that it is not significantly debateable that childhood trauma significantly affects personality, then why do you keep deleting it when I add the information? It is certainly more relevant than all the other gibberish in the lede. And if you agree with this opinion, where do you think it comes from? Where do you think that research on "domestic violence" "childhood sexual abuse" and so on, came from? Hmm? That is the point of referencing Freud. He is the source of these discoveries, or "theories", if you prefer.Kingshowman (talk)Kingshowman

And honestly, this article should just be deleted, and started again, because it is terrible. Not a sentence in here reads like it was written by an actual human being with linguistic capabilities. Kingshowman (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

I did not keep objecting to anything frivolously; I have reverted you twice at this article thus far, and the reasons are explained in those WP:Edit summaries and above. And acting like Freud is responsible for the research on domestic violence, childhood sexual abuse and so on and/or that the research is relying on Frued is silly. I don't care about you insulting this article, especially since I am not responsible for the vast majority of its content. As for the rest of what you stated, I am done discussing these matters with you. Flyer22 (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course Freud is responsible for the research on childhood sexual abuse. Are you really being serious here? Or do you just not know anything about this topic and are just stubbornly arguing against whatever I say? Look up Freud's seduction theory if you think research on childhood abuse comes from somewhere else than Freud.Kingshowman (talk)Kingshowman — Preceding undated comment added 10:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Or just simply tell me, since you're so confident about this, which psychological researcher do you think it was who was studying childhood sexual abuse prior to Freud? Kingshowman (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

The more you talk, the more I am inclined not to listen. You speak of me being hostile, but you should be looking at your own behavior, including when you were this IP. I meant to state the following before your latest posts: You stated, "Why exactly is it not lead material? You keep sending me to that page, but not saying why." I already told you above: "The WP:Lead is for summarizing the topic, especially material that is already found lower in the article. It doesn't matter if a lot of people already know, or if everyone already knows, about what the lead addresses." I also told you: "Once again, material like that, if it is to be included, should be covered lower in the article before it is covered in the lead. I've repeatedly pointed you to the WP:Lead guideline, and it's like you haven't even bothered to read it." So, yes, I am done discussing these matters with you. If you can't be bothered to read a WP:Guideline, can't comprehend and adhere to it, any further discussion with you is futile. And since you act like all of the research on domestic violence and child sexual abuse is based on Freud, it's futile discussing anything with you regardless. I can guarantee the scholarly papers I would cite on such matters (and they are the vast majority, as compared to Freud's discredited ideas) don't mention Freud at all. Flyer22 (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall mentioning domestic violence, which I don't know much of anything about. I thought we were talking about child abuse. As regards to the contemporary researchers, whether or not the contemporary researchers are aware of it or not (and here's a hint, most scientists tend to be sadly ignorant of the history of their own fields), any research on childhood sexual abuse is traceable ultimately to Freud. If you disagree, tell me who was the person writing about childhood sexual abuse and the problems it caused for the formation of adult personality prior to Freud? Let me know if you can find an answer. As far as I can tell, I see no one who writes about the problem of childhood sexual abuse prior to Freud. Thus, whether or not the contemporary researchers cite him is irrelevant- he is the ultimate source of research on childhood sexual abuse, and is the instantiator of child sex abuse as a topic for serious study, and connecting it to the formation of adult personality. Saying "Well the contemporary researchers don't cite him" is a non-sequitor. And I sent you a citation where he's cited. I think Freud is still cited a lot more in personality theory than you seem to think. Yes, specific parts of his theory are often described as "debunked", but the general framework itself is today a part of common sense, something that no psychologist would dispute- that childhood experiences are crucial for adult personality, especially traumatic ones. That unconscious desires crucially affect personality, etc...Kingshowman (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Nor did I say "I can't be bothered to read the Guideline Article." I read it. It didn't tell me why you thought my contribution wasn't "lead material." Kingshowman (talk)Kingshowman — Preceding undated comment added 11:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: To anyone else reading this section, I suggest that if you want information about how actual research, not speculation or similar, began on child sexual abuse, then you start with this section of the Child sexual abuse article while you're still here at Wikipedia, and then move on to good scholarly sources that are not too hard to come by. As many at this site know, child sexual abuse is one of the topics I am well-educated on (and I don't shy away from noting it on my user page). Flyer22 (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you just proved my point. The page you sent me to says only this: "The first published work dedicated specifically to child sexual abuse appeared in France in 1857: Medical-Legal Studies of Sexual Assault (Etude Médico-Légale sur les Attentats aux Mœurs), by Auguste Ambroise Tardieu, the noted French pathologist and pioneer of forensic medicine."

So there is almost nothing prior to Freud in the 1890's other than a few minor precusors, whom when you click their article, are DIRECTLY cited as being influences on Freud. Are we done here? I'm glad you're an expert.Kingshowman (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Since you want to keep talking about this, I will go ahead and state right now: There is no valid source whatsoever that states the research on child sexual abuse is because of Freud. Above, you stated, "Look up Freud's seduction theory if you think research on childhood abuse comes from somewhere else than Freud." and "Of course Freud is responsible for the research on childhood sexual abuse." Clearly, you were not aware of Auguste Ambroise Tardieu. If one goes by sources citing Tardieu or how this field of research began, Freud is not responsible for the research on childhood sexual abuse. He is not even cited as the first work on the matter; that "honor" goes to Tardieu. There is also a difference between actual research and speculation/a theory. You act like everything that has to do with psychology and/or sexology is because of Freud. So many of the man's ideas have been so thoroughly discredited that it is silly to act like all of the actual research we have now is due to him. He played a big part in psychology and sexology, but he also came up with misfires time and time again. And with regard to being the first to do some of the things he did when it comes to ideas, others surely would have researched those areas at some point. People commonly think up the same ideas. A person being first to think up an idea doesn't mean that we owe future knowledge of the subject to that person or that future research on the subject is based on that person's work. No valid child sexual abuse research is based on Freud's work. I'm glad you're glad I'm an expert on these matters. And because of that, and because debating you nearly gives me migraines, I'll truly go ahead and allow you WP:The last word. Flyer22 (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Of cours some of his ideas have been discredited, but the relevant idea that we are discussing is that traumatic experiences in childhood play a significant role in shaping adult personality! I don't think that's been discredited last I checked, and that seems to be the relevant idea. Yes, Tardieu does appear to be a precusor, as I conceded once you pointed him out to me, but the article mentions a fairly direct line of influence on Freud via Krafft-Ebbing (and I'm guessing Janet as well). Freud seems to have the important idea for our purposes, on the role of childhood trauma and its repression from memory on adult personality."A person being first to think up an idea doesn't mean that we owe future knowledge of the subject to that person or that future research on the subject is based on that person's work. " It doesn't? Seems to me like it does mean that. Kingshowman (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman