Talk:Infant/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Broken Link

Under "Internal physiological changes at birth" there is a link labeled "see suction in biology" which does not link properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Biggest Newborn

Anyone know what was the biggest new born on record? I remember seeing it on the news years ago. This massive Tongan thing about 3 times the size of an average baby. I've not been able to find any details about it since. If it was born in America, man we wouldn't stop hearing about it. Can anyone dig this info up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So far all I have found is this 17 pounder: 17-pound baby born in Russia. It's not specified if this is in fact the largest baby on record though.-- (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Learn to Spell

I have to say it is the highest pinnacle of ignorance to lock a page with obvious grammar and spelling errors. Do you not see that there is something seriously wrong with "Children need a relatively larger amount of sleep to function correctly... specially after feeding."? I wonder if there is something specially wrong with that sentence. I don't see anything specially wrong, or specially bad, specially considering this page has been locked it must be specially perfect.

As for the "races of babies" nonsense, let me just note that the photos are photos of the contributors' children. The racial makeup of these baby pictures has a lot to do with who edits Wikipedia articles. The lack of diversity here reflects a greater need for diversity in Wikipedia editing as a whole. Throwing out percentages like a gauntlet isn't going to get people to scour the internet for non-copyrighted images when they can just pull a picture of their own kid off their SD card. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing destroys wikipedia's credibility like spelling errors SamanthaG (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


is the naked picture required? Samphex 20:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It does help to illustrate the appearance of a newborn. Have you never seen a naked child before? --Mad Max 02:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

DanP, thank you for removing the most blatant accusations from the circumcision paragraph. About my edits, the second sentence was redundant, and the third sentence ("lasts until adulthood") is obvious - I've removed them. Rhobite 22:22, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, genital cutting is frequent enough in the US as to merit discussion in this forum. Inclusion of the obscure practice of infanticide is pretty irrelevant in most cases, yet it's OK to sprinkle ample POV and description of that. If you want to find a compromise and describe how male infants are routinely abused without "blatant" POV, let's do that. But some doctors are clear enough that circumcision is their view of what a male baby, is and what should be done with it. Not just a separate issue, but one built into the birth hospital itself. DanP 14:25, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At least let me fix the grammar in that paragraph. All I am removing is poor grammar, POV, and redundancy. The word "committed" has a negative connotation. The "to remove a portion of the genitalia" is redundant with the first sentence. No need to repeat is. Saying it lasts until adulthood is obvious, and calling it mutilation is POV and contentious, as you should be aware from previous debates. Rhobite 14:59, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
OK, I fixed a few things to clear up POV. However, lasting into adulthood is in no way obvious, as many boys have believed their foreskin would grow back. You should know mutilation is a neutral term, as it's defined in the English language-- it makes no value judgement, though that is a cultural association, not a literal one. I think the term "Muslim" was redundant, as the description refers to matters of a parent's religion and the related debate and issues. DanP 15:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is just plain silly, " many boys have believed their foreskin would grow back." What you say ?! Look, I think my suggestion was simple enough: neither infanticide or circumcision needs to be a part of this article. Simply link to those articles with Also Related, and deal with the controversial nature of them on those pages. Why spread a controversial subject to each and every single page that is even remotely related to it? AdmN 20:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"This is just plain silly, " many boys have believed their foreskin would grow back." What you say ?!"

Point of fact, some young children believe in things like regeneration and Santa Claus. This is neither here nor there though:

"Look, I think my suggestion was simple enough: neither infanticide or circumcision needs to be a part of this article. Simply link to those articles with Also Related, and deal with the controversial nature of them on those pages."

This is an excellent suggestion. As much as I want to save babies, all of this work is no fun at all. I would rather create relaxing articles about palæocontinents. I created Laurentia, Pannotia, et al. I want to start an article about Avalonia. I have a life in meat-space too. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but in the circumcisiophiliacs will leave this article alone, so will I.
Ŭalabio 01:35, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)


Point of fact, Saint Nicolas was intact. He had intact genitals. I should have taken the opportunity to point this out when I mentioned Santa Claus as something in which children believe.
In addition to "see also," ¿may we also keep our external link? as it may help parents realized that the Ob/Gyns just want more money and mutilating babies is bad for the baby. I cannot speak for others, but although, I would like our external link, I would settle for just "see also."
Ŭalabio 02:10, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

The phrase "this is just plain silly" is not fact-based. If you bothered to look up regeneration you'd see that children have regenerated lost fingertips in some cases. It is obvious only to some people, but clearly not all people, that modification/mutilation by removal of foreskin in infancy can affect an adult man. How it affects the man might be POV, but whether it does is worthy of mention with regard to infants. With regard to controversy, I do not know why every issue must be sequestered to a sandbox. Circumcision is an automatic part of the birth process in many parts of the US, so this is relevant to expectant parents. In any case, Rhobite and I seemed to settle on a relatively neutral definition, so please leave that in. DanP 18:50, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry you misunderstood me, but I agree with Theresa and Vina - circumcision pov does not belong here. A link to the article in see also is fine. Please stop expanding the scope of your circumcision pov. Rhobite 19:05, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
You beat me to the edit. Basically, that paragraph you (DanP) added, the only information that is relevant is the first sentence, and some is blatantly false. (not done outside of the United States?) I support linking in the see also field. -Vina 19:09, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nothing was false, as the description said "frequently", but you clipped it off to make your point. Outside the US, RIC is not frequent. Let's keep relevant links in. But it seems strange to leave out this much info about infants, as the process of cutting them up is routine in some places, as was done to me. Expectant parents I guess you think should work without having this info immediately available, I take it? DanP 19:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Disagree, a quick perusal of the circumcision article proves you incorrect, there are countries that definitely do it "frequently". that are outside of the US. It is factually incorrect. Expectant parents can take a look at the see also articles. btw, CIRP is hardly a neutral site, which is needed if this is all you're going to link to. In any case, it is referred to from the circumcision article. I will remove. -Vina 20:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't believe I am wrong on this one. Male newborns are most often left intact in other countries, except based on a parent's religious motivation. The handful of routinely circumcising nations out there usually have a higher instance of childhood or puberty initiations. The US is the only one that does RIC most of the time, to my knowledge anyway. In any case, CIRP is the most diverse link out there. Infant is the subject in this case, and pure neutrality of every issue does not exist anywhere. Pain and feelings of violation are not something omitted from descriptions of human experience, you can find countless examples in this encyclopedia. DanP 23:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue anymore about the paragraph removed, as I'm satisified with the link in the see also section. However, I have yet again removed the cirp link. Again, I remind you that people interested in Circumcision can easily get to that link from the appropriate page. and that Circumcision is not, in any way shape or form avoided. The see also section is pretty prominent. There is no justification in adding it here when the same information is repeated elsewhere, and when it is of questionable neutrality. -Vina 00:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not want to get involved in an edit war (which is why I only edited infant once), but I would like to point out that both sides misunderstand each other:

R. I. C. is an abbreviation for Routine Infant-Circumcision.

All of this time, both side have written at crosspurposes. DanP is right about RIC. Basically U.S.-Ob/Gyns and jewish mohelim are responsible for > 90% of RIC. Moslems almost never bother mutilating babies.

It is important to remember that not all know our abbreviations.

As for the link it does have valuable information about infants, such as one need not mutilate them and how to clean intact infants (intact genitals of intact infants require no special attention). It is a good link.

Ŭalabio 00:34, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

My main problem is actually not that circumcision is referenced here. My main problem is that the entire point of the edit war over at circumcision is about the cirp link. To include it here is to invite the edit war here also, which has arguably already started. This issue is best resolved at circumcision. Even after concensus is reached there, I'm not sure that it belongs here, as it is duplicate information, which is easily gotten to by clicking on the circumcision link in the see also section. I haven't really decided on my position in that regard. -Vina 01:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As I stated, I like the link, it is a good link, but I would settle for a mere "see also." As long as the circumcisiophiliacs do not add a link promoting Routine Infant-Circumcision as a way of preventing blindness and insanity or whatever lie they use this weekis so that they should get their jollies at the expense of a poor innocent baby, I would be willing to let the link go. I cannot speak for the other Intactivists, but as long as the circumcisiophiliacs have no links, I would be happy with no links other than Also Related."
Ŭalabio 01:37, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
I absolutely hate comments like this. They accomplish nothing except to infuriate. You know perfectly well that those who disagree with you are not conspiring against you or the world's uncut babies, so please stop implying it. Thank you. 03:33, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
Nice. That seems like an emotional outburst, Ardonik, not relevant to this article. I was an uncut baby once. Discussing the motives behind an act, or who is subjected to the act, is perfectly relevant to these articles. I hope you can agree. DanP 15:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not to this article though, it is completely off topic here. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 00:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Freebies/cheapies - how would we know why?

It used to say this: Fees for transportation and entrance fees at locations such as amusement parks or museums are often waived; this is generally because the baby is not there for its own enjoyment, but because it cannot be left at home. I've changed it to this: Fees for transportation and entrance fees at locations such as amusement parks or museums are often waived. I changed it because I cannot see how this is other than speculation. There are plenty of possible reasons why this might happen but I don't see any reason for going for this particular one, unless you have serious evidence from museums, transport operators, amusement parks etc confirming that this is so. Otherwise, I think it is just a guess and do not think that is useful in this article. 17:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention being speculation, its also hideously POV. Babies often enjoy flashing lights and noises, general outdoor things and seeing stuff when they are well rested! Zaphraud (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The image

I notice that all the pictures are of little white babies. Maybe we can have some diversity here? Believe me, I work in a hospital that serves a minority population and our little Mexican, African-American, and Asian babies are just as cute! -- 23:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If you can find any copyright-free images of babies of other races, add one or two. But note that it would be an unreasonable standard to represent every race proportionally... we don't have enough space to pull that off. Kasreyn 07:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the image of a baby is not suited for this article because in the image the baby's legs arent shown, and one might think infants dont have legs! Foant

I do not think that people would be as stupid to think that because a picture does not show a baby's legs the baby doesnt have legs!!

HAHAHAHA --vex5 06:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Let us hope you are right. But to be on the safe side, I recently uploaded a picture showing a newborn infant, legs and all. --Every1blowz 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Title of article

This article was recently moved. For an encyclopedia, the more formal "infant" should be the correct term, not "babies". Babies can redirect to "infant". If no one objects, I will make arrangements for this. Samw 00:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorted. violet/riga (t) 01:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! That was quick; I was trying to be polite in reverting the move. Thanks though. Samw 01:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
There's a thin line between formality and pretention. Most people refer to children under the age of a toddler as a baby. The word "baby" might not be standard in medical textbooks - but its clearly not so informal that, say, journalists avoid it. I find the whole way the article studiously avoids the word baby throughout very grating - it sounds like hacky 3rd-rate legal drafting. However, I don't object to the title 'Infant' - the real reason for the title is surely that the word Infant has a more precise medical definition, and has nothing to do with the "formality" of different terms. --Danward 00:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[img] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird error

The article says: "A human infant less than 28 days old is a newborn, and a newborn infant is called a neonate during the first three months of life." There is clearly something wrong with this statement. 28 days is less than 3 months, so saying that a newborn is a neonate during the first three months is wrong when the status of 'newborn' itself lasts for less than a month! I don't know what the correct term is, but this surely isn't it.

Thanks for flagging; I've fixed it. Most dictionaries define neonate as an infant under 1 month. Samw 03:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Images of normal babies

Is there anyone in the whole world who does not know what a normal baby looks like? If not, why do we need to show normal babies sleeping etc? 8-(--Light current 00:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What is "normal"? Isn't that a subjective definition varying by culture and time period? How can Wikipedia make a subjective claim like calling a baby "normal" without it being original research? Kasreyn 15:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

We dont need to show a pic of a health baby- everyone knows what they look like. 8-|--Light current 15:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not a good reason for excluding something from Wikipedia. Then we get into subjective debates over what readers are "likely" to know, which is a waste of our time. A more meaningful standard is to find, for any particular article, an image showing first and foremost the subject matter in general, and then later have images showing different sub-types (such as the images of infants in incubators and such, which aren't how infants typically appear). By your reasoning, we could remove the header image from George W. Bush, because "everyone knows what he looks like". It's not our place to assume that. It may seem stupid and wasteful to you, but it's simply best encyclopedic practise: don't assume your readers know anything. Kasreyn 22:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Infant Mortality

It's rather a grim subject, but from my readings it would appear that an additional cause of infant mortality, beyond SIDS, is various forms of infanticide, including outright killing as well as passive neglect or abandonment, are causes of death for infants, especially in impoverished/starving nations and, in some cases, it has been reported that instances of these killings of infants are higher in countries which do not allow abortion. Assuming, of course, that I can find a reliable source and an NPOV phrasing, would anyone object to my adding this information to the Infant Mortality section? It may be unpleasant but from everything I've read it does happen quite frequently. Kasreyn 16:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Moved from User talk:Samw:

Reverting infant [1]

Why remove the formal medical definition from the article, but maintain mention of the legal def'n (which probably is less familiar to a layperson)? I find this particularly interesting-- as if one looks at an other version of the W-B it is right there: a child in the first year of life.[2] Nephron  T|C 21:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The cited page doesn't specify "one year" as the hard definition? Anyways, I'll move up the general discussion. Samw 23:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

seven toes?

Babies have also been known to be born with seven toes.

is this really necessary? 20:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

True - but they have been born with many other deformities too - they don't need to be listed. Maustrauser 22:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Are babies children?

I changed it from very young child to extremely young person because I think you have to be older to be considered a child. They're not even todlers yet. SamanthaG

"Childhood" lasts from birth until puberty, so, yes, babies are children Junulo 16:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WTF are "uber" infants?

Will the writer who added the mention of them please prove that they didn't get this idea from the Weekly World News? 08:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, duly removed. SWAdair 08:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. 08:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


What does circumcision have to do with neonates? I'm removing the link from this article 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Good call! SamanthaG 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


Why is this whole article centred around HUMAN babies and infants - are we forgetting the other zillions of creatures who have babies? Surely this definition needs 'tweaking'.... Yyem 13:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC) DONE :)

First, I moved your comment down to the bottom where it would get exposure (nobody really looks at the top for new content). Second, please sign your posts in the "talk" pages with 4 tildes. Third, I haven't come across too many dictionaries that define "infant" other than for human babies - although there are "infant industries" and such, but "infant" is only part of the phrase. Feel free to add a distinction, if you like. Ciotog 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, We're not talking about kitties or chicks, it's infant and infant is human's baby. ;-) --Arad 02:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, if the user would like to write about baby cows he/she is more than welcome to edit the calf article. LOL! You guys are a riot! SamanthaG 16:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

anyone is totally welcome to do their own research, but a quick search a la [3] produces numerous references to Infant Animals. This is my point and backs up what I have experienced in my many dealings with VETS, who also continually refer to the very young animal as an infant. --Yyem 10:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Put the word human in the lead para to stop this kind of petty quibbling. --Orange Mike 14:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I sometimes wonder if it will come to that. SamanthaG (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

External links section

I cleaned up the external links section - there were a lot of low value web sites there that were basically ad portals or trying to sell stuff. I'm somewhat torn about the link to Baby Supply Kits though - it's not exactly relevant for an encylopedia article... Ciotog 21:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! SamanthaG 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Breech Birth

Shouldn't we say something about breech births? Littleghostboo[ talk ] (Win an argument and leave your mark in history.) 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, in the childbirth article. Ciotog 03:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Um theres alot of vandalism in this page should we request it for protection? Uchiha23 21:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested at RFPP. (O - RLY?) 21:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Why would anyone want to vandalize an article about infants? Sad world SamanthaG (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


The section on infant feeding looks rather biased towards breastfeeding over formula feeding. Is this necessary? For instance infant formula is described as "heavily processed industrial milk product" and later "only breast milk is considered to have all that an infant requires to grow normally (thrive)". Not only is this not factual- it implies that infants who drink formula cannot grow normally. In fact, nearly the whole paragraph sounds like a pro-breastfeeding forum. Surey, this should be left to the breastfeeding page? Seems like all this page requires is a few sentences stating different methods to feed an infant, with links to further pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliditas (talkcontribs) 07:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It could mention that breast milk is superior but certainly shouldn't push it on this page. violet/riga (t) 22:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I added a direct quotation from the AAP Policy on Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk, as published in the journal Pediatrics. I believe it is the place of this article to mention that all major infant health organizations promote breastfeeding of infants.Ciotog 16:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it could mention that breastmilk is the recommended method of feeding by doctors and/or health organizations, but the quote seems superfluous. After all, the section is simply there to provide information on how infants are fed. Any more information on breastfeeding can be found on the breastfeeding page if desired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to include the recommendation and the reference, but removed the quote. I think this seems much more appropriate. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliditas (talkcontribs) 18:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, although I'd prefer to have more than the AAP cited. Ciotog 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Newborn's Senses

This section might sensibly refer to The World of the Newborn by Daphne Maurer and Charles Maurer, which is devoted entirely to this subject and won the book award of the American Psychological Association. --Maurerc 01:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great source! SamanthaG 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

External Link Request

I have a site that gives information about babies and the parents. One section in particular suggests things that new parents might need for their new baby. This section has comments from me (the site author) about our experience of having babies and the things we found we needed to make our role easier. The site is at:

  • Concerning Aging Baby - Information about the baby stage of life from pregnancy up to toddling including the pregnancy, prenatal care, baby showers, baby gifts, baby equipment, and advice about babies.

And the section with the Things Babies Need is here:

Hope you all like it and decide to include it on the External Links page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I visited the site and can't say I found it terribly informative.Ciotog 02:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I wont check it out then?SamanthaG (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Babies Wiring

There is nothing in this article about an infants wiring. I recently read in a scientific article that babies are born with extra wiring.I watched a show about this as well. It was on the National Geographic channel. And it was after they had tested a few infants. They understand patterns far better then any stage of human life. They understand other languages, but are cut out once at a 1yr or 6 months of age to its primary language may it be English or Hispanic. A baby can do as math, but this has to do with a lot showing a baby six beans and taking away four to make two. They understand human emotions better then we do. A infant is all about studying life. And after 6 months or 1yr(can't remember)the baby cuts out all wires to its primary systems. And the other wires kind of die. (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

What the article you refer to is describing is sometimes called the "plasticity" of the developing brain. It's not so much that babies understand more, but that their brains haven't undergone the "pruning" of connections between neurons. It is correct that there are more connections between neurons, but this doesn't mean they are smarter, it just means they haven't "hardened" the connections that are reinforced by use and eliminated the ones that don't get used. An analogy would be a patch of tall grass between several buildings. As people start to walk between buildings there are a very large number of possible paths, but all of them are not easy to travel. However, as the most popular buildings get visited, some connecting paths become established and this encourages more people to use those paths because they are easier to walk. The other less used paths fade away. This pruning of possible connections is part of the process of making travel, or in the case of the brain - thought, more efficient. Agree this is a fascinating topic, but is more appropriate under neurology or development. - See Neural development article (although it could use some further discussion as well).Hallbrianh (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Anybody cares about sources?

This page has a LOT of bold claims without any sources. According to Wikipedia policy, sources must be found or these claims must be deleted. Since this is one of a lot of pages where anonymous editors are permanently blocked out because of some vandalism in the past, there is nothing I can do to change this. -- (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well some claims are so well known and established that no one bothers to cite them. Citations usually become an issue when controversial claims are made. SamanthaG (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What about: "Despite common misjudgements against the notion, the BPT theory, which hypothesizes that the bite of a human infant secretes a dangerous poison which contains a deadly hormone known as Bipostinitin Prelopetisinii 2-7, is currently undergoing scientific studies". I can't find any references on the page, nor any mention from some Google searches. Can any see if there are any other sources referencing this claim? (Scyon (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)).

infant playing with toys picture

If someone can give me a reason to keep it, I shall remove it. It seems out of place, and is not constructive (although cute)Tnayin (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Babys are cute little kids.

LOL! I guess cuteness is not in the wikipedia rule book. SamanthaG (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Babys are small kids.

You could just as easily say kids are big babies. SamanthaG (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Giant baby, Opinion

I added this, since I had never heard about this. If you think this is not proper here, then please edit:A giant baby however, was born in the Philippines. Maria Victoria Cervantes Santiago of San Rafael, Rodriguez, Rizal gave birth on June 11, 208 to 7th child 12.7 pounds “Renz” by normal delivery by a midwife. Newly-born babies in the Philippines usually weigh between 7 to 8,'Giant baby' born to 41-yr-old mom--Florentino floro (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. Thanks for your efforts. SamanthaG (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So cute!

I think babies are so cute!

I weighed 3310 gm.and 51 cm.(35 3/4 cm. head).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:15, 6 October 2008

They have to be cute because they are totally dependent on others SamanthaG (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Information about infants in general

I failed to find any real information as to physical dimensions of infants in this article. What are the usual sizes of infants? Weight, height... I often hear people telling each other how big they or their children were when newborn. Even though there's reason enough not to say that "all infants are born weighing 3 kilograms and are 43 centimeters tall" it would be nice to know the normal variation. --Khokkanen (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


I think that the image of the baby breastfeeding is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killer X4 (talkcontribs) 02:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There are many reasons a picture might be inappropriate, can you provide a better explanation of your concerns? I think It might be good for you to read about censorship on wikipedia before answering the question though. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 02:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly removing evolutionary bias

Beginning of article states humans and other primates which leads to the believe of evolution rather than being neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ICaughtAGreaseUpDeafGuyOnce (talkcontribs) 02:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a discussion to hold here. Please visit Objections to evolution, then switch off your computer. --- Rixs (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Primate is a classification. One can accept the classification without accepting evolution. SamanthaG (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Time axis

The time axis in the outline of development is wrong! There is not such a thing as "zeroth" year, or month, or week in anybody's life. After we are born we live in our FIRST year of life, until we pass 365 days of life and begand living in the SECOND year. Zero is NOT an ordinal number. The Ordinal Numbers begin with ONE. -- (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say "zeroth"? The diagram is counting completed periods. The diagram is correct. -- Rixs (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Poop Machine

Can anyone explain to me why "Poop machine" redirects to "infant"?--RM (Be my friend) 02:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I have no idea; tho it can be taken uo with an administrator. (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)unknown68.70.14.63 (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Average length (height) of newborn baby is 48-50 cm

See here Purple owl (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Prohuman69, 19 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} i wish that,Human development (biology) was in front of "An infant or baby is the very young offspring of humans," because infant is an actual stage of human development, so there should be a link to it and Human development (biology) page has a link to the infant page, check it out for yourself.

"A newborn is an infant who is within hours, days, or up to a few weeks from birth" the birth should be changed to birth, and this text: "but certain vernacular actually claims a fetus is an baby or infant" between "offspring of humans" and  "A newborn," 

it will look like this: An infant or baby is the very young offspring of humans, but certain vernacular actually claims a fetus is an baby or infant. A newborn is an...

Prohuman69 (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done for reasons given to you elsewhere (edit summaries). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Spam in External Links

The fourth entry in external links has the anchor "The impact of buggy orientation on parent-infant interaction and infant stress", but it does not link to that study -- instead it links to which appears to be a spam site. The actual article that the link should point to is (a report about the study) or (a DOC file containing the study itself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

DoneBility (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Dichotomy issue

Stages_of_human_development#Physical_stages_of_human_life lists the first two subsets of Child (birth - puberty) as:

  • Neonate (newborn) (0 – 30 days)
  • Infant (baby) (1 month - 12 months)

Only infant (this article) is linked, I found out why because all 3 of the other terms redirect to infant. The only thing is, if neonate/newborn is a separate preceding class of individual, why is it that it lacks its own page and directs here? If this article is about both, then it should be about a group that encompasses the others. DB (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Weight conversion

7.5lb ~ 3.4kg, not 3.2kg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct SamanthaG (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Link remove from external link for being spam?

I had inserted a link to a blog with information about babies health and made by new parents. I'm told it's spam and my link was remove? I don't understand that. I'm well aware that you use nofollow on your link and I just though our website could be a good addition to the external links as we're told by a lot of parents that they liked the advices that can be found on our page.

I find it a bit offensive to be told that our site is spam when I consider it's all good contant and well designed. for review :

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philgaut (talkcontribs) 17:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the external links guideline we don't link to blogs. - MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Human Reaction to Infants

Should there be a section on human reaction to infants? Discomfort and disgust, for instance, are quite common, outside of the infant's immediate family. - MSTCrow 21:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Also one can feel a pang of hunger or sexual lust. This is not to say that I would eat a baby or have sex with it. I'm merely providing examples of the human range of emotion towards babies. (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a purpose to all your postings?? You appear to enjoy making changes to articles and discussion with references to sex. You really are quite strange. --Nuttycoconut 08:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

File:Persianchild.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Persianchild.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

races of babies

Considering only 16% of the world population is white, and probably no more than 6-7% of newborns, why are all the images of white babies. Even in the USA, probably 50% of newborns, if not more, are hispanic or black. There should be some diversity in the pictures of the newborns.babys are so cute!!!

Good idea! Please add some. Ciotog 12:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree... there should be some multi - cultural images. Spicy Banana 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. A baby is a baby. The skin color of the organism is quite immaterial in this case. - MSTCrow 21:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is apparently owned by white people so black babies are not needed.

Stop being so easily offended. It is ridiculous. I am Asian, and I am not threaten by seeing a white baby. Keep that white baby, he is funny. What is next? Pick baby picture based on their sex? Too many baby boys instead of baby girls? How about too many babies lying on their backs instead of their tummies? I will tell you what is unrepresentive. There are too many happy baby pictures. Babies are not alway happy. We should have some crying and angry babies here.

Chemicalkinetics 4:55, 29 October 2007 (ETC)

Yes way too many happy babies! I want pictures of crying babies too! And there are way too many cute babies (not saying only white babies are cute I have cousins that were adorable babies and weren't white)! Lol if you have a problem with the race and or gender take it up with the babies or maybe just add pictures of babies that aren't white. I would like to point out that babies are cute and babies are babies. Do you really think that wiki cares what color a baby is??? Smileyface 12 91 08:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
16% of the world is white? Where did you get that stat? SamanthaG (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How can people tell they are white babies? The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that they probably aren't black babies. None of them is obviously "white" as far as I can tell.Zebulin (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Stop being so ignorant. What is ridiculous is the justification of symbolic racism by a person who claims to be Asian. It's not about being offended. It's about creating the most accurate images to represent humanity. What is also ridiculous is talking about "cute" when beauty is subjective. The comments above are irrelevant. Also, "crying or angry babies" are unrepresentative as well, since babies are quiet and content the great majority of the time. These statements are purely argumentative and not academic. The bottom line is that there does need to be more representative images across ALL of wikipedia's articles, including this one. --Kontar (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that people who solely look at the color of skin is ignorant. Aside from the first baby who looks like he has fetal alcohol syndrome, most people look at the pictures and say "look at the cute baby." But now that you mention it, I've noticed that white babies are now under represented in this article. For the sake of real diversity, do any of you care to fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the only people getting easily offended here are those who think it isn't at all weird that 11 out of these 12 infants are white. It is highly naive to believe there isn't anything significant to this fact. Does this ratio represent English Wikipedia's editor base? Does it represent English Wikipedia's user base? It is so stupid to act like a white-to-non-white ratio of 11/12 is the same as a crying-to-not-crying ratio. It is so insulting to say "Well I'm not white and I'm OK with this therefore everyone should be OK with this." Post-racial world my ass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

a new food source

babys are food (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Yes they are. creep... —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarcistPig (talkcontribs) 03:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
What? Sounds like a perfectly modest proposal to me. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 15:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Whole bunch of white folk

Do we have any photos of babies that are not Caucasian that we could insert or use to replace one or more of the existing photos? The current photos are very nice but not terribly diverse. --ElKevbo 11:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? An article that purports to be about a universally-human topic but only shows images of persons of one ethnicity or race is not representative of the subject. --ElKevbo 22:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing the images of other ethnicity children that you will upload and use in this article. I get your point, but if there aren't any suitable images then we can't do anything about it. Maybe there are such photos already, so it will be even easier to find if you have a little browse. violet/riga (t) 22:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Replying to one who is asking if there are such photos by telling him to "take them yourself" is neither helpful nor friendly. A simple "I don't know of any but would welcome them" would have sufficed. --ElKevbo 22:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I also said you could browse for them, which isn't difficult. My point is that if we haven't got any such photos we can't really fix this "problem". violet/riga (t) 22:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong on this, but several of the photos already on the page look like they may be of infants from other ethnic backgrounds. Certainly more than one of the infants featured could be Latino (maybe the infant under "The newborn's senses") and the first photo could be an Asian infant. Of course, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish what ethnicity a young infant might be, and none of the infants are blonde. To that end, perhaps a photo featuring both the infant and the parent of another ethnic background (to clarify matters) would suffice? Possibly the breastfeeding photo if one is able to be found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliditas (talkcontribs) 19:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The children shown are definitely (still?) overwhelmingly white. The page could do with at least one or two images of children of other ethnicities. Whoever feels up to the task doesn’t necessarily have to take a picture himself. You can always just look around the Wiki or the net for pictures of children released under free, open licenses. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 15:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Category:Babies. - dcljr (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

is anyone else here embarrassed by the fact that all seven images on the page depict Caucasian babies?

What kind of encyclopedia are you writing, here? (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's probably accidental. I doubt people here are trying to promote a racist agenda about babies. Zazaban (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? theres a black one near the bottom, a arab one in the middle, and what might be an asian at the very top.♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a community effort, and this article is in the English-speaking part, attracting a lot of people whose first language is English. Therefore, it doesn't seem wholly unreasonable that most of the contributors are white. Since Wikipedia encourages non-commercial images, especially those created by its contributors and released into the public domain, a lot of the pictures (in this article in particular) will show white babies. Don't take it personally - not everything here is designed to keep you down!  :-) Leevclarke (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find a non-white free baby images to add a bit of diversity.SamanthaG (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Category:Babies. - dcljr (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Too many "cute baby" pictures

The article is plastered with too many pictures of random babies. Is it supposed that the reader has no idea what a baby looks like? Or are people obsessed with putting a picture of their darling little one up for everyone to admire? Pictures should illustrate something and not be a redundant image farm. Show: preemies, fat infants, malnourished infants, different races, infants with some diseases or conditions. Not just a bunch of photos of typical babies. Some cleanup is needed. Edison (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree, both in principle and with some of your specific examples of what should be depicted. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
There appear to be certain articles on Wikipedia, and this is one of them, where contributors just cannot resist the exhibitionistic urge to post pictures of their own. There currently are TWELVE pictures of "example infants" in this article. Yes, yes, YOU'RE special. YOUR <article_subject> is the most bestest and purrdiest and most exemplary and encyclopaedic <article_subject> in the whole wide woarald. I validate you. I validate you all. Now can we stem this ego- and fertility hormone-powered flood of pictures? (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree, the length of the article in no way supports the number of pictures currently crammed into it. The newborn baby and breast feeding pictures fit in with the sections on feeding and changes at birth. They should probably be worth keeping in. Other than that, it's a matter of picking the best of the rest. I would probably suggest one crawling stage and one of the toddler ones and seeing how it looks with only 4 pictures. --GraemeL (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, just noticed the 1st post mentioning it is from September. since there have been no objections in 3 months, I'm ging to have a cull (pictures, not infants). --GraemeL (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Done, just waiting for the threats of bodily harm now. --GraemeL (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Delta Airlines"


There is no Delta Airlines but there is a Delta Air Lines. When I become autoconfirmed I will return to correct that error --Above others (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

InfantBabyBaby is the common term for such in English. Infant is Latin. Voortle (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose: No, Infant is not Latin. The Latin term is Infans. Infant, on the other hand, is very definitely English. It is also commonly in use in terms such as Infant mortality, Infant school, Infant feeding, Infant affinity, Infant malnutrition, Infant formula, Infant policy, Infant fever, Infant carriers, Sudden infant death syndrome, Infant car seats.... Skinsmoke (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose "infant" is English. Further, "baby" is increasingly ambiguous with the shift in language. People are referring to 6 year olds as babies increasingly frequently. Not to mention 30-year-olds. -- (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment per the discussion above about baby animals, we should have a generalized article that's not focused on humans as well. (so "baby" could be stubbed out to be about that) -- (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
This proposal is raised not infrequently on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine, where people want animal diseases, body parts, and medicines represented somehow in articles about human things. No one opposes this, but I know of no great effort by anyone to make parallel Wikipedia articles for animals to go along with the human articles. It would be a massive undertaking not yet begun. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
We have a generalized article about such already, it's titled Juvenile (organism). (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Someone should add that to the hatnote -- (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PRECISION, "infant" has a much more clear definition than "baby", and this definition drives the article's scope. Zad68 15:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article's content consists of technical content coming from sources which prefer the precise term "infant" to the more ambiguous term "baby". Based on the sourcing of this article's content, I prefer to keep the current title. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment there are a lot of words used in modern english that are derived from latin. I am missing your argument here... Lesion (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose infant is much more precise than baby. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose infant is more precise. It also sounds more formal and encyclopedia-ish. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request on 8 May 2013

This site has been put on facebook and imported pictures of my family and friends without authorization , I would like this page taken away and a full blown apology to the hundreds /thousands of people that this is causing unrest to , I do not want pictures of my grandchildren broadcasted over the internet for the likes of perverts and other sick padophiles to see , I am not the only person who feels strongly about this and would request a response!!!!!!!!!!

This is a matter of great importance , and you can contact me on the email address below

[email redacted] (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry you are so upset, let's try to fix it. Which picture exactly are you talking about? They all appear to have been uploaded with proper licensing. Zad68 23:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This is actually a Facebook function which takes pictures from your Facebook account (and your friends) and includes them on pages that contain text from Wikipedia. We've had a number of OTRS reports similar to the complaint here. I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that Facebook only shows your pictures to you and your friends. --Versageek 00:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Wait, so you're saying the IP is talking about one of those Wikipedia mirror pages Facebook has, like how if you're logged in to Facebook and search for "Paris" you can find a general page for Paris, France that imports the text from the Wikipedia article Paris and also shows you images from your friends' pages related to France? Now I am not even sure the editor asking this question is even talking about an image hosted by Wikipedia. More context is needed here. Zad68 02:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Zad, yes - exactly - the image(s) in question aren't hosted by Wikimedia. --Versageek 04:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Marked this as answered, since there doesn't seem to be an actionable edit request here. RudolfRed (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Baby animals

I originally searched baby in order to find out about baby animals, not only human infants. Why does this article only mention humans? Humans aren't the only ones that are babies. The baby article should be expanded into an actual article/stub with descriptions and images of many different baby animals, otherwise having baby redirect to infant is a bit biased towards human babies. What's up with this systemic bias? Anyone want to help turn the redirect into a stub? - M0rphzone (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC) are you taking the piss I have followed the links from facebook from a page the has pics of my children on which I have not given permission for what the hell is this all about ????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 May 2013

Just to inform you there is a Facebook page 'About new borns' linked to Wikipedia who is hacking into Facebook accounts and using personal photos without permission. Is there any way this can be removed as its an infringement of our personal data. (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

From what I understand, Facebook is showing its users Wikipedia text along with personal images that are hosted on Facebook. This confuses Facebook users into thinking that the images are coming from Wikipedia when they are not. Wikipedia is not hacking into Facebook accounts, nor does Wikipedia have any access to personal Facebook photos. Deli nk (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

then If you know about it stop it from happening — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

Mothers suckle whereas infants suck so "The need to suckle is instinctive" should be changed. Source: Professor Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Citation

The page is semi-protected so I can't add this myself:

This sentence says citation need:

"It has been shown that neonates show a preference for the smell of foods that their mother ate regularly, since the amniotic fluid changes taste with different foods eaten by the mother – as does breastmilk."

Here is a suitable citation: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satur9nine (talkcontribs) 23:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2014

Change the last sentence of the paragraph on weight from: After the first week, healthy term neonates should gain 10–20 gram/kg*day. to: After the first week, healthy term neonates should gain 10–20 gram/day.

Note, from a mathematical perspective 10 gram/kg*day = 10/1000 * day = 1/100 * day.

Also consider the citation of in addition. Chtompki (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)  Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Bairn wrong

the Bairn article does not indicate it is synonymous with baby, but with child and possibly baby too. Should be changed and a link put here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

American World View

Regrettably, this is another example of the American View being presented without qualification as the World View. The narrow American definition of the term Infant is not echoed everywhere in the English-speaking world. In the UK, for example, Infant School refers to children aged between four and seven, as mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia. . --621PWC (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Wording sounds racist

In first world nations...Why not use developed countries/nations — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation Provided

Sources for Response to sound section-;jsessionid=E75CC836C1671F0A70F055B9662C3D86.f01t04. I can Provide more such citations but I cannot edit because article is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of term "infant"

The link is clearly very helpful IMO and I have returned it. Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

re soft or downy, please see [4] Gandydancer (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)