Talk:List of child prodigies/Archive 1

Archive 1

AfD Result Notice

This article was the subject of an AfD discussion closed on 27 August 2006. The result was Keep. Xoloz 16:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)<

Opening remarks

I know I know. This was kind of a radical thing to do, but it seemed like the list had gotten so long it might as well be separated. I know there's a certain "listophobia" among some Wikipedians, generally with the battle cry "start a category not a list", but I've decided I'm pro-list. For me they are easier to deal with than categories as I don't really like following multiple columns. Besides that this is unrelated to that debate. This essentially was a list, not a category, already. Where it was it was crowding out an article.--T. Anthony 05:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sylvia Plath was NOT a child prodigy. Having a piece of poetry published at age eight does not make one a prodigy - this is just a farcical test given the number of people who have achieved such a feat. Her early work was facile, and she only really achieved success in later life. This article, and its sister article on Child Prodigies, are perfect examples of the failings of wikipedia. Constant editing by people without academic interest in a field doesn't necessarily lead to refinement of that article. Further problems exist with the sports section. Whilst the individuals listed may well have displayed remarkable skill for someone of their age, can you name me a professional footballer (soccer player...) who DIDN'T??? A cricketer playing internationally at the age of eleven, a basketball player in the NBA at nine. THESE would be child prodigies. As regards politics... Can someone explain how one can be prodigious at POLITICS?! It is an "achievement" to enter politics at an early age, but it doesnt qualify one as a prodigy... Bentham began reading at an early age, and began a study of latin at three, but that doesnt mean he was a child prodigy NOR A CHILD PRODIGY UNDER A POLITICS SUBHEADING. I'm uncertain that acting is a suitable category for child prodigies - i'd love to see an amazing performance of Henry VIII by a ten year old, but it's hardly likely to be convincing. Merely starting to perform at an early age, or appearing in critically acclaimed movies, doesnt qualify in my book. I'm rather less certain of this than my other criticisms, but I'd certainly say that one wouldnt be able to call a child actor a child prodigy - it would only be with hindsight that one could recognise that fact (Jody Foster was fantastic in Taxi Driver, but how many times have we seen a child act their arse off then fail as an adult actor??).

There are real problems with both articles, largely stemming fom the fact that people are confusing "ability at an early age" with being a prodigy. Surely a better test is that where one compares the child's abilities, skills and knowledge with adults who are recognised in the same field? Otherwise this entire area of wiki is merely talking about talented children.

There HAS to be a comparison with adults in the same field, and there has to be a distinction between talent and real prodigious skill. An acceptance that there are fields in which it is impossible to BE a prodigy would also help.

On another note, is there any other type of prodigy than a "child prodigy"?

Okay, I acknowledge your irritation. I'll take her off the list and the article. However when I moved this list here I just moved it. I hope you know I'm not to blame for all the content. I'll try for a strong edit though, okay? That said the statement about failing as an adult I don't think should matter. Sometimes child prodigies fail as an adult, but they are still noted as child prodigies. I'm leery of the whole acting category though, but I have a notion on "fixing" it, if such a thing is possible.--T. Anthony 23:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I moved Zerah to mental calculators as that's what he was known for. He had little, if any, importance in mathematics history. I changed politics to "political theory and law" as I think you could be a prodigy in that as age restrictions on voting don't come into play. I'm tempted to scrap acting, but if it's limited to actors who were comparable/competitive with adult actors it might fit. I ditched some whose accomplishments began at 16 or later. I have a feeling it's still unsatisfactory, I'm leaving sports to others for example, but it's a start. On sports isn't it kind of normal for teenagers to be competitive in gymnastics or skating? I'm tempted to take those off unless they were very unusual.--T. Anthony 05:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

On another note, is there any other type of prodigy than a "child prodigy"? Looking it up there actually seems to be. There are calculating prodigies who apparently gained note in adulthood. They may have had those gifts in childhood, but in some cases it sounds like they trained themselves to be prodigies using various tricks. In other cases the person seems to have found they had a prodigious ability in adulthood rather than in childhood. Galois was almost like that. Until 16 he showed no particular gifts as he had not being given a math class yet. Instead he'd had the standard Greek, Latin, rhetoric, etc classes. I think there are also people who develop what's deemed a "prodigious memory" in adulthood.--T. Anthony 09:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Erdos

Was Paul Erdos a child prodigy?

Acting

Although I've kept working on it I'm tempted to dump the acting section. I am trying to limit it to child actors who competed or won against adult actors, but I'm not sure that's fixing the problems as much as I hoped. Fred Savage was nominated against adult actors in a leading role at 12, but does he really fit as a child prodigy? I was the one to add him, but I don't know if him and McNichol really fit. Maybe I'll just limit it to film actors and directors. I'll take those two out then and wait for response on what I should do.

On another top I think Bentham should stay in his section. I've read more about him and for the life of me I don't understand why he wouldn't fit. He wasn't as prodigious as Mill, but pretty darn prodigious.--T. Anthony 06:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole section needs to be deleted, or shortened to maybe one or two examples. Even attempting to judge who is, or is not, a competitive/comparable with a adult actor is solely a matter of opinion. The opening to the whole section states that these are not really prodigies and being a child actor who is capable is very common.

The fact that Shirley Temple was described by Time Magazine as a 'prodigy' means nothing at all. Time Magazine does not determine who is or is not a prodigy. If Stella Adler, Sanford Meisner, or Maria Ouspenkaya had described her as a prodigy, that would carry some weight, but it would be expert opinion at most.

I think the section needs to be deleted, as it's inaccurate and off topic. If in time some 5 year old becomes know for playing Oscar Wilde in a one man show ob Broadway, then we can revive the section, but Jackie Cooper, Shirley Temple are not prodigies by any fair definition.

It's absolute idiocy to be putting everyone under the age of 16 who won an acting award on here as a prodigy. Either deletion, or an extreme shortening.

T. Anthony have you considered having someone other than yourself re-write the section for proper grammar and such?

(24.62.126.170 (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Future ideas, current complaints?

First I'll admit that I have let a few people in whose accomplishments started a bit after 13. I'm hesitant to be too strict on that "before 13" because then I'd have to take off several people that are almost universally recognized as child prodigies. Still I'm trying to avoid having many whose accomplishments started at 15 or later.

The politics deal is still there, kind of, but now it's political science/law. Mostly it's now people who accomplished things at a very young age, although not always under 13, and aren't necessarily politicians. Still I'm not quite sure on the two Germans. They seem like they fit, but maybe not. If demand is still for it to be chucked I could move some of those names to academics.

Anyway any ideas on improving?(Meaning I don't want "it sucks, it sucks" with no ideas on how to improve)--T. Anthony 13:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Musical prodigies

There are so many of these I'm tempted to make it, like chess, it's own prodigy list. I haven't decided though. Anyway comments, objections, questions?--T. Anthony 11:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay I actually did that, but I can undo it on objection.--T. Anthony 05:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Trying to organize

I hadn't worked on this list for some time, but it should be better sourced now. I actively took off many, but not all, names of people who did little before 14. There are things like being a professor at fifteen that I think likely imply you were doing something unusual earlier, but mostly I've limited.--T. Anthony 17:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What else is needed?

I think all names are sourced at present. I even took out gymnasts and skaters as it's normal for them to start early. I think there are still a few names of people whose accomplishments began at 14, but in those cases they are big enough accomplishments I think they count. I get the sense though this topic is just upsetting to some people for reasons I don't quite understand.--T. Anthony 06:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking off cleanup

Three reasons. One it's all verified and organized now. Possibly the arts, sciences, etc sections can be reorganized better but it's not a big thing. Two is that I've removed pretty much every name that doesn't fit the "twelve and under" standard, including names who were almost undeniably prodigies. The strictness standard now is almost maniacally maintained. Three is that the idea of this list seems to tick people off and there's nothing that can be done about that in clean up.--T. Anthony 09:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the main article this would apparently still not be deemed strict enough. I'll try for a bit stricter, but I don't see that I can go much stricter.--T. Anthony 09:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh

Okay what the heck is wrong with it now? Every name has a link, there are books referenced, etc. Look it irritates some people, I get that. If you want it deleted though put it up for deletion and explain why it shouldn't exist.--T. Anthony 02:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I haven't slept for about 24 hours. Still I don't see what's left wrong with this. It is sourced and I don't know what's POV about it.--T. Anthony 03:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The POV and verification though was clearly an error though so I put the clean up deal back instead. There's never been a POV dispute on this and no debate on that has occurred. Granted I don't agree with cleanup either, but I've been a tad imperious I guess. If you think it needs clean up state what or how or what have you.--T. Anthony 03:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I've slept better I still have no idea what needs fixed with this. Suggestions?--T. Anthony 17:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The cleanup

Could someone give me an idea on what kind of cleanup is desired? People got mad when I took it off, but they didn't come here to say what needs cleaned. What is it that's wrong?--T. Anthony 21:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This list looks perfectly valid to me, except for Ramanujan, which I took off. Everyone else fits the term perfectly.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 09:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ramanujan was a recent addition due to the discussion. The physics section is skimpier than I think is actual. Can Lev Landau, and James Clerk Maxwell be plausibly put back in? Landau was qualified to enter University at 13, and Maxwell had a paper read at the Royal Society of Edinburgh before he turned 15.--T. Anthony 11:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with achieving it at the age of 15 if he did although he didn't, they are still are still school aged people in most MEDCs. Sure you seem to be more of a youth rather than a child at that age but people at age 15 are not expected to do the Wechsler Adult Intelligence until they are aged 16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_adult_intelligence_scale

Anyone under 16 is expected to take the Wechsler intelligence scale for children's test. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Intelligence_Scale_for_Children

But if that don't seem like it is the reason then check this article proving that adolescent psychology ranges from the ages 10-20 meaning that maybe you should lower it to child prodigies being anybody under age of 10 because if 13 year olds are classed as child prodigies why not 15 year olds at most.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent_psychology

In the majority of the MEDC countries, 15 year olds are still school-aged and still in compulsory education. Post compulsory education are for 16-19 year olds and in those ages you are doing your A-levels, which includes studying calculus in A level mathematics which child prodigies in mathematics are able to do which makes them a math child prodigy. 15 year olds are still school-aged and they are not sixth form aged people.

:::Proving that sixth formers are aged 16-19

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_form_college

Proving that most MEDCs have children aged 15 still being school-aged

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_leaving_age

Proving that they're brains are still developing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontal_lobe

And also why didn't you include Marilyn vos Savant; she scored the world's highest iq of 228 at the age of 10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.101.202 (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know much about either of those two people. Just going by the wikipedia biographies, there seems to be a lack of information about either one's childhood (not total lack of information but much at all), so I think it would be prudent to not list them until more information is found.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 05:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. In case there's concern here I'm actually not a "booster" for anyone or think that being a child prodigy is a prerequisite for geniuses. In fact I started an article, somewhat awkwardly, titled Late bloomers for people who didn't really achieve until middle to old age. I have some interest in who achieves what and what ages so I'm mostly just looking for who is a good example of what.--T. Anthony 07:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

More prodigies

Jean Piaget should be on this list, but I'm not sure where to put him since his early papers weren't on the subjects for which he eventually gained fame. KSchutte 18:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I put him in even though this breaks my declaration of being a former Wikipedian. This and maybe one other thing are an exception. I plan no real return.--T. Anthony 10:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Kiwi Camara

I fail to understand how Kiwi Camara qualifies as a "child prodigy". He attended college beginning at age 13, graduated at 16, and went to Harvard Law School at 17 (which he is not the only person to do). SAT scores "meriting state and national recognition" is a very open-ended category into which hundreds of people fall; for instance, Johns Hopkins' talent search recognizes as "exceptionally talented" (at the national level) everyone who scores 700 on any one component of the SAT. Certainly not enough to elevate one to prodigy status. So, is the contention that publishing a paper before age 12 in itself makes one a child prodigy? [question added 3/27/2006]

Well yes of course. The definition states that they did something of adult status at 12 or younger. I recognize the guy sounds like an arrogant little bigot, but I don't see much besides that for removal. The information of him as a prodigy was sourced.--T. Anthony 03:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The "sourced" information links to two newspaper articles indicating that he was published in a Hawaii medical journal at 11. Who did he work with? What was his role in writing the article? Ordinarily reputable journals do not accept publications from an 11 year old (or a 21 year old or a 31 year old) without ties to reputable institutions or companies, so it seems overwhelmingly likely that he was affiliated with such an institution, and worked with someone else there. If the sole reason for his classification as a prodigy is this publication, then surely it must be supported by more than just two newspaper articles, which do not present what his role in the research and writing of the publication was.

Pls don't delete until it has been fully resolved and agreed that he should be removed from the list of child prodigies.--Jondel 00:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

>He attended college beginning at age 13, graduated at 16, and went to Harvard Law School at 17 (which he is not the only person to do).

Well, please feel free to list other 17 year old Harvard graduates. I would be very interested. --Jondel 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Doogie Howser

is a fictional person! Why does this keep getting added?--Jondel 05:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Are autistic savants prodigies?

I feel awkward about listing a.s. as prodigies. Prodigies can function by themselves. a.s. can't. A.s. can't buy cheap things or compare what is cheaper or expensive. Or compute if they have change left after purchasing something. Their savantness compensates for their auticity.--Jondel 08:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Savants are distinct from prodigies/geniuses. One difference between prodigies/geniuses and savants is that savants show little or very little understanding of their abilities due to average or below-average I.Q. Also, the accomplishments of savants are usually limited to their unique "specialty", whether that is lightning-calculating or sketching or something else.

I'm not sure how I feel on autistic savants. I think some are child prodigies of a kind and I had a few on List of music prodigies. This is inconsistent, but I think I'd favor keeping some and disregarding others. If they actually did something at 12 or younger that's generally thought of as an adult skill then keep. If not drop. For example just writing a poem at 9 I don't think is at all prodigious. Publishing one may not even count as I remember a kefuffle about Sylvia Plath being included. However if an autistic person had a poetry collection published at 9 or was in the Boston Symphony at 11 then I think maybe they should count.--T. Anthony 11:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I created a section for autistic savant prodigies at the list of music prodigies.--T. Anthony 12:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed following nonsense content

from "Other" Josh Stewart,14, has read two chapters ahead in his German book.

Thomas O'Brien went out with New Zealand's Brainiest Kid and got rejected twice.

P. Glasson has an obvious nametag.

Tom Perwick first successfully rode a bike at age 14.

Emma Price went out with New Zealand's Whingiest Kid and rejected him twice.

Channy Wu Jin finished Gamma at age 11. A book intended for 15 yr olds.

Rethinking Fictional child prodigies

Should a separate list be created or should they be included?--Jondel 06:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (Doogie Howser, MD., Little Man Tate, et al)

In my opinion, fictional and real-world child prodigies should have separate pages.

Proposed new child prodigies

I don't want to see all work on child prodigy articles drain into Vfds so I'm listing them here first. Do feel free to add comments, violent objections or die hard support.--Jondel 06:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Albert Wong

There does seem a bit of hostility to child prodigy articles, but the ones listed at present are mostly significant enough people their articles are likely to stay. I fixed some hoaxer, but mostly I'm trying to be inactive. Not succeeding mind you, but hoping to.--T. Anthony 13:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway if you're asking if this kid could be worth an article I think he might. He seems to be the same as the Albert Wong listed at Amazon[1], The New York Times[2], and Unsolved Mysteries[3]? That might be enough significance.--T. Anthony 13:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I will actually write one, but this list and discussion will be useful in the future for those who are considering it.--Jondel 07:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed Akrit Jaswal. Becoming a university student in a young age is not equal to the term "genious" or prodigy. Based on TV Documentary, the person is a child - unmature, common to his age - with a higly passionate interest in medicine. However his knowledge is not extraordinary and neither has he accomplished any of his goals.

We'll really have to define what genius or prodigy is. Many child prodigies are 'emotionaly' or 'psychologically' appropriate for their age. --Jondel 00:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Emotional maturity I don't think is related to whether someone is a prodigy or not. Several of the mental calculators on this list were described as ordinary acting kids with this one amazing talent. Truman Henry Safford was more successful than many of them in adulthood, as he became a director of an observatory. However an evocative quote concerning his boyhood skill talks about how when calculating he, "flew around the room like a top, pulled his pantaloons over the tops of his boots, bit his hands, rolled his eyes in their sockets" etc etc. Granted the idea was that calculating was real work for him, but I think it's logical to presume some of that was just a little boy being silly and hamming it up. Several of the sports and acting prodigies were emotionally similar to other kids. Added to that removing Akrit doesn't work when you consider Jake Freeman is still on the list and he may not even exist!--T. Anthony 08:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What about Michael Phelps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.163.142 (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed entry on David Yang 10 September 2012. His acheivement, notable as it is, was to have done well in the International Mathematical Olympiad. The Olympiad is a specific forum for children and therefore his success in this does not take him to the level of an adult. The comment that he had started to study graduate level was unverified and no institution was name. Research indiciates that as he his home schooled no university is involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.97.202 (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are we citing here?

The citations should not be here. They should be back in the article. If somebody's article gets AfD'ed, then too bad. The person is judged non-notable and is removed. It is not like, say, Deaths in April 2006 where there are a lot of red links. Right now, there is only one red link on the list. -- 67.116.252.146 22:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation is to verify that they were identified as a child prodigy and fit the list. (In certain cases permission of the person was asked. I feel a bit uncomfortable having Adragon De Mello on the list because of knowledge that he is somewhat uncomfortable with the attention and was in a sence an abused/forced prodigy) This article was recently put on AfD and the topic is controversial in some circles. At present I think every name left fits the definition and or was referred to as a child prodigy in the link.--T. Anthony 06:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom? This list was originally part of the article , child prodigies. The red linked prodigy probably deserves an article if anyone will work on it (or investigate if she is not a child prodigy). I'll put it under my (very long)to-do list.--Jondel 00:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing

Due to the deletion vote I did some pretty severe editing. I'm trying to eliminate self-promotional websites due to potential problems with their credibility. Dylan Scott Pierce's entry is, I believe, the only one left using a self-promotional site alone and I'm thinking that should be fixed. I also took out many names that, although I feel they are valid, do not meet the main articles guideline. As well as a few other touch-ups.--T. Anthony 08:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I added something from an online paper to Pierce's.--T. Anthony 12:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Jake Freeman, Stop it!

I don't get the joke here, but every few weeks someone adds a Jake Freeman and makes wild or bizarre claims about him. I think someone thinks this is funny, but it isn't. It'a childish and a waste of everyone's time.--T. Anthony 06:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Testing

I'm testing semi-protected on this due to it often being a vandalism magnet. I think the list is valid and well-sourced, I made it its own article, but its main fault is it attracts vandals.--T. Anthony 01:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Chess players?

I noticed there's no chess players listed. Some players like Judit Polgar or Bobby Fischer, both world-class players who became grandmasters in their mid teens, are often seen as prodigies. -- Pakaran 01:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's under Chess prodigy in the "see also" section. Some things had to be separate to avoid this becoming too huge.--T. Anthony 13:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like Samuel Reshevsky ought to be added to chess section--Jrm2007 (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Jean-Louis Cardiac

I have removed this boy because there is no convincing references to his life - the very few references recite the same formulation. TerriersFan 19:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Márton Szász

I have removed Márton Szász. The two references cited are both in Hingarian and there are no verifiable references that I can find in English. Also, the Portocom Prize, that it is stated he won gives no Google hits. TerriersFan 19:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Philippe Baratier

I know we don't need more red-links, but this one is in the German and French Wikipedias. I also found a picture of him at a Smithsonian related site.--T. Anthony 13:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing some athletes

Possibly we should set a different standard for athletes, but we hadn't made it clear we would. Hence if 14 year old cancer researchers get removed it seems like we should remove 15 year old basketball players and so I did. If applicable they can be moved to List of people youngest in their field.--T. Anthony 08:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam Konantovich

Why isn't Adam Konantovich listed in the article? --Jagz 02:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no article on Adam Konantovich and you'd need a source that he fits. If you can do one of those two feel free to add.--T. Anthony 12:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The guy is amazing! I'm glad you(Jagz) mentioned it. I missed this one. Do write an article if you have time.--Jondel 14:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

His actual name is apparently Marnen Laibow-Koser, Adam was the name in the study of him, so possibly the article should go there.--T. Anthony 03:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I can attest to the correctness of that last statement. :) --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) (desk) 21:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Albert Einstein

He's considered the smartest person in the world's history of science. You've got to be kidding me and not put his name. by the way Song Yoon something isn't really a genius based on the article. By official calculation, he was able to solve pre-calculus problems at age 14. Its pretty common to see 14 year olds do precalculus.

Einstein wasn't a "child" prodigy.--Jondel 02:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He was in fact a child prodigy. He started investigating calculus at age 12. Compared to the so called child prodigy that was only able to do precal at age 14.

I think precocious is a better term for him. --Jagz 05:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I'll have to agree then.

Ainan Celeste Cawley

I am requesting a page about him. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.231.0 (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Visual Arts: Don Van Vliet "Captain Beefheart"

" young age, Van Vliet demonstrated prodigious painting and sculpting talents, in spite of describing his working class family as lacking interest in art,[6] and he was noticed by Augustinio Rodriguez, who invited Van Vliet to sculpt with him on a weekly television show.[7] Van Vliet claims his parents discouraged his interest in sculpture, turning away several scholarship offers[2] and through their moving from California.[7] Van Vliet remained interested in art; his paintings, often reminiscent of Franz Kline's,[8] were later featured on several of his own albums."

Don Van Vliet was born in Glendale, California, on January 15, 1941. His first artistic achievements date from an early age. Beefheart still clearly re-members: "I could whistle when I was two and refused to talk until I was three and a half." Inspired by many zoo visits, the youthful genius attemp-ted to fashion all the animals in the northern continents out of wet soap; then he embarked on the fauna of Africa.

By the time he was thirteen, he could make a full range of aquatic crea-tures out of soap. That this was something more than a juvenile modelling craze was proved by a TV appearance along with a Portuguese sculptor, and by a six-year art scholarship that was awarded to him at thirteen but blocked by his parents. Their stated reason: all artists were "poofs." Don thereupon shut himself away for weeks at a time, made sculptures, and refused to go to school; not even his parents' move to the Mojave Desert made any difference. There, in 1959, he left school at eighteen. with a pass in art.

Ten years later, in 1969, with support from his old school"

http://www.beefheart.com/caucasian/stand.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.10.2 (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Beefheart#Early_life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.10.2 (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The current revert war

This list is a bit difficult to maintain, because in many cases the criteria for inclusion can be open to debate. There is a big problem with people adding themselves, their children that they feel are genius, or someone else they know personally. Myself and a few others I have noticed do a pretty good job of weeding out the self-promotion and spam, but every so often a Proud Parent comes along and thinks their brilliant child should be listed, so it's an ongoing issue.

That, among other things, is why it's important that new entries be properly referenced, NOT using a self-promotional website, but a reputable media article at least acknowledging that the subject is considered a prodigy. At the very least, it should be wikilinked to an existing proper article on the subject that establishes why this person is considered a prodigy. If you put an unsourced name that no one has heard of, and has no wikilink or a redlink, expect it to be deleted. If you link to a domain name consisting solely of the person you are adding, expect it to be deleted. If you post a link to an article discussing the individual, but the article has no mention of this person being considered a prodigy, expect it to be deleted. If you find your edit is not being accepted, don't keep reverting. Note the individual here on the talk page, stating why you feel they should be added, and reach a consensus. Freqsh0 (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, okay. CosmicAnthropologist (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You say okay, and then you go and blanket revert again. That doesn't really work. Freqsh0 (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Redefining to age 10

I am proposing that we lower the age from 13, to age 10. This is based on the following:

http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/25/child-prodigies-biographies-lead_achieve07_cx_lr_0301prodigy.html "The very definition of a child prodigy has been widely debated over time--it's sometimes difficult for even experts to recognize "genius" in a 5-year-old. At the moment, the most widely accepted definition is a child, typically under the age of 10, who has mastered a challenging skill at the level of an adult professional. But this much is certainly clear: Prodigies tend to appear almost exclusively in "rule-based" fields like music, chess or mathematics. Sam Vaknin, author of Malignant Self Love--Narcissism Revisited, likens child prodigies to computers: Both excel in symbol manipulation, but fail to impress when it comes to the fuzzier undertakings.

“Fields like literature require maturity and life experience,” he explains. “Prodigies, no matter how gifted, rarely possess the requisite emotional spectrum, an acquaintance with the nuances and subtleties of human relationships, or the accumulated knowledge that comes from first-hand exposure to the ups and downs of reality.”

I will look for a few more sources of widely accepted definitions, but so far this seems to be prevalent. This is also cited by the Child prodigy article.

This article is starting to go down a slippery slope again, into what got it nominated for deletion last time. Folks, please resist the urge to use this as a soapbox for someone that you personally find impressive. There is no shortage of highly talented kids out there, and many are worthy of recognition, but this isn't the appropriate medium. Remember, people that are the youngest in their field are NOT necessarily child prodigies. Children that win hold records over other children, are NOT prodigies.

This is a really good idea for a list - child prodigies are fascinating, and relatively little research has been done in this area. Linking to specific cases is useful. But, including any talented child dilutes the content, and detracts from the purpose. Freqsh0 (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Maximiliano Arellano

I've removed your re-revert to add Maximiliano Arellano for the following reasons.

I originally removed him because there were no sources, and his claim to fame was that he spoke at a university. The former is a reason for exclusion, the latter is not a reason for inclusion.

You have re-added him with 2 sources. Your first source is merely an image of him at a podium, with nothing to document or make a case for why he is a prodigy. Your second source was an article written in dutch. I do not know dutch, and apparently neither do you - I had the page translated, and the article actually says, specifically, he's a bright kid, but NOT a child prodigy. His own parents are quoted in the article saying he has a good memory, but he is not a prodigy.

"His parents say: 'Our Maximiliano has a great memory.Until it can beat the story. Maar ,,wonderkind is wellicht een brug te ver. But, prodigyis probably a bridge too far."

"The small Mexican may be a great memory, presumably he did not understand what he says."

Please refrain from re-adding him, and from reverting my recent work to quality control the article. You and a few other inexperienced editors, who apparently have a possible conflict of interest for the other subject that I have removed (I saw edits from all of you claiming you know the guy), are undermining my efforts and attempting to paint me as an unfavorable editor on my talk page. As I said, I did not blindly mass-delete, I went through each and every entry, verified the references (or lack thereof), and ensured they were consistent with the criteria and appropriate for the article. I am open to the idea that one or more of my removals may be appropriate for inclusion from another perspective, and invite discussion with anyone who has a difference of opinion on a case by case basis. However, mass-reverting me and ignoring my attempts to resolve conflicts via the talk page is not constructive.

Also, please keep in mind, if you are adding someone to a list that you know personally - especially a list that praises extraordinary abilities such as this one - you should probably think twice as to whether or not you are able to do it objectively. If other, unbiased editors disagree with the inclusion, chances are, those with a personal conflict of interest are not able to make the best judgement. This is simply human nature. Freqsh0 (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Jose Fadul, a child prodigy

• I was Jose Fadul's teacher, some forty years ago. Though afflicted with stuttering, he was indeed a child prodigy. Amazing knowledge. But he did not excel as a teenager as many of his teachers and schoolmates were expecting. Whether he was underachieving or simply became an ordinary guy, we didn't know. I lost track of him as I became busy with other things.
• As a special education major, I got involved with Ellen Winner's study when she went to Manila and I gathered that she came across a gifted boy who stutters who must be Jose Fadul. She would later cite his case in her book, Gifted Children.
• I never heard of Jose Fadul for four decades until 1998 when I learned that he now teaches in College; my grandniece became his student and she narrated his "encyclopedic" knowledge on Rizal. Am I glad the wonder boy I knew 40 years ago is back as a man with his recovered gift! MCLeander (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. I know the guy. HuntingTarsier (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • It appears that the Jose Fadul edits in this article, and on wikipedia in general, are a case of massive sockpuppetry. I am currently building a case on the matter here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fadulj -Freqsh0 (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Introdution

I removed the bulk of the introductory paragraph as it was inappropriate to list the information in the article itself. I agree, however, that the criteria outlined in the text are important.--203.129.58.2 (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Acting

Having people like Haley Joel Osment on this list is absurd. The criteria only indicates that they are able to impress award ceremony judges and voters, which isn't even close to suggesting that they are "prodigies".--209.89.155.96 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A little ignorant?

A little ignorant about literary child genius? You put Chatterton, Lovecraft and ye quoted the ones quoted by H.Bloom (all english and american). And you DO NOT tell anything about Giacomo Leopardi, the eoutstanding huge italian poet. And others too (Rimbaud, etc.). You corroborate the idea you are too often anglocentric. Or, if it's not so, you're very very ignorant.I don't know which the worst.

English speaking people tend to learn about English writers in school. Hence the bias. Non-anglo child prodigies should be added if they are notable and verifiable.HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Lebron

What about Lebron James?, he was called a prodigy by many when he was 16. He was even on the cover of Sports Illustrated, where they called him basketball's "Chosen One" and even said he was better than Michael Jordan. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1024928/index.htm Trunks8719 (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I believe Lebron James does belong on such a list. You have given notability, and the criteria are clearly met. He has been known to make casual full court shots in interviews, and meets the intellectual demands of his team sport (and has done so since quite young).Julzes (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove Roger Federer

Roger Federer is one of the greatest tennis players of all time, but there is absolutely no evidence of him being a child prodigy. Laky68 (talk) 07:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article/list is about child prodigies. Not notable in the category, his performance took off at a later age.Julzes (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Historical context

I believe this article would be improved if the dates of birth (and death if appropriate ) were added to each entry to show to which historical era the individual belongs. Lumos3 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Section headings

Technically speaking chess is both a sport and a game. Currently the chess section is in games, someone reading this article looking for sports prodigies would miss the chess players. SunCreator (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Chess could be a level three header under sports, but I think the entire page should be reorganized into an alphabetically sorted chart. Liquidluck✽talk 20:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Dkrasnov and {{verify source}}

I'd like to talk about this diff (2 revisions). It was added by User:Dkrasnov who is likely Denis Krasnov (also User:Deniskrasnov). Any suggestions for how to handle this? I'm not sure how to get ahold of a 26 year old Russian newspaper. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's cited so precisely that I don't want to write it off, but since the user's last edit was two years ago I doubt he'd get a message asking for a full quote. Perhaps the list's inclusion criteria should be tightened to "children who have been described as a child prodigy by multiple reliable sources". That's not simply a way of dealing with Krasnov, it's also a way of strengthening the quality of the list; many of the references simply state the child's accomplishments without actually calling him a prodigy. liquidluck✽talk 22:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"last edit was two years ago" he is editing as User:Deniskrasnov now. He'd get a message from us, but I'm not sure how this isn't a conflict of interest. Your idea of changing the definition of the list seems interesting, but it would also mean deleting most of its content. Are you sure that is best? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't check the contributions of the second account. It is COI, but COI's are allowed to edit information about themselves as long as they are cautious and their edits are verifiable and neutral. Perhaps if Krasnov can provide a scan of the article it can stay. Still, I do believe the requirements should increase, as (as far as I know) there isn't a definitive test for prodigies and the term can therefore be subjective. liquidluck✽talk 05:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations List for Articles Related to Intelligence and Giftedness

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Biographies of living persons policy is very strict; much of this list must be deleted immediately if still unsourced.

I thought I should let all of you watching this list know that soon much of its content must be deleted unless there are reliable sources that the living persons listed here are really prodigies with the characteristics claimed for them on this list. That's the rule on Wikipedia, under the Biographies of living persons policy, so look for sources right away if you want someone to be listed here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Here go the deletions. If the person is living, and the statements are unsourced and at all contentious, out go the statements. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sufiah Yusof: 12 vs. 13

This article states that Sufiah gained access to Oxford at the age of 12, but the article about her states the following:

• Sufiah Yusof first made headlines in 1997 when she gained entry into St. Hilda's College, Oxford University to study mathematics at the age of 13.

So, who is right? 195.212.29.179 (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is she even on this list in the first place. Her reputation only went downhill after initial publicity (as is evident from her bigrapahy on wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.19.168 (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wolfgang Pauli

As I stated in the edit summary, graduating with a PhD in Physics at the age of 21 is not within the scope of this article, and is irrelevant. Many people teach courses as teenagers, that's also outside the scope of this article. As per the lede, This is a list of people who, typically before 15 years old, showed abilities comparable to those of highly skilled adults in specific fields. The Wolfgang Pauli article does not demonstrate that criteria, and the He was compared to both Mozart and Gauss as a child statement by the IP is not mentioned in the article and is otherwise unsourced. Per WP:BURDEN, it is the IP's responsibility to demonstrate why he belongs on this list by providing reliable sources that reflect this, rather than edit warring. As it stands, however, the Wolfgang Pauli article and the sources in that article do not show that he belongs on this list, and it is otherwise not verified, thus does not belong here. - SudoGhost 07:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"This is a list of people who, typically before 15 years old, showed abilities comparable to those of highly skilled adults in specific fields."

He did show abilities before the age of 15 comparable to that of highly skilled adults, as is evident from reading almost any extensive biography of him. He read (and understood) some of the most difficult math books in the world at the age of 12. He was also reading the original works of Ernst Mach and Euler at the age of 13. Quote from the book Recasting Reality: Wolfgang Pauli's Philosophical Ideas and Contemporary Science By Harald Atmanspacher, Hans Primas: "Ernst Mach, who had given the seventh edition of his famous "Mechanics" as a gift to Pauli in 1913, also advised Pauli's father in the education of the precocious boy." http://books.google.com/books?id=v_YOBo-lMS8C&pg=PA15&dq=wolfgang+pauli+prodigy+mach&hl=en&ei=bRVgTqOWBIXniAKb8ISiDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

He was similar in mathematical precocity to other prodigies like Hamilton, Galois and Ampere. Almost every biography of him also lists him as a child prodigy. :http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=Wolfgang+Pauli+child+prodigy&pbx=1&oq=Wolfgang+Pauli+child+prodigy&aq=f&aqi=q-:w1&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=247l4261l0l4327l28l22l0l0l0l1l840l3720l4.14.3.6-1l22l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=b7e6040383bebbf&biw=1600&bih=767

Furthermore, dozens of books, including many from PhD physicists, mathematicians, scientists and historians of science, also mention him as being a child prodigy:

http://www.google.com/#q=Wolfgang+Pauli+child+prodigy&hl=en&safe=off&tbm=bks&ei=6-5fTt6IL_LXiAK6i9HLDg&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=df669c862df72ad&biw=1600&bih=767

Quote from William H. Cropper, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University, "Young Wolfgang was a prodigy at all levels of his schooling, not only in mathematics and physics but also in the history of classical antiquity. When the gymnasium classroom activities became boring, he read Einstein's papers on general relativity (only a few years after they were written), and published three papers on relativity that impressed the well-known mathematician and relativist Hermann Weyl." - Great physicists: the life and times of leading physicists from Galileo to Hawking by William H. Cooper.

He was also teaching courses at the University of Vienna while still a teen in high school.

http://books.google.com/books?id=gQzwxICtk98C&pg=PT36&dq=wolfgang+pauli+child+prodigy&hl=en&ei=T-9fTur1MObbiAKP873GDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=wolfgang%20pauli%20child%20prodigy&f=false

"He was a child prodigy given leave from attending high school classes so he could go to the University of Vienna to teach a course."

And Finally...

From the book Recasting Reality: Wolfgang Pauli's Philosophical Ideas and Contemporary Science By Harald Atmanspacher, Hans Primas

"Letters of his father and reports of contemporaries such as the Vienna physicist Hans Thirring testify that Pauli had the reputation of a mathematical genius already in his school days at the Gymnasium in Vienna.

"Hans Thirring recalled in a broadcast address at December 19, 1958, that Pauli already as an adolescent showed such extraordinary talent that he was described as a child prodigy "who - as Mozart - met all the expectations. ... During the first world war, 1915 or 1916, a younger colleague of mine, teaching at the Gymnasium in the XIVth quarter, told me one day: 'Imagine, in the fifth class we have a schoolboy with such a phenomenal talent for mathematics and physics that he promises to become a new Gauss or Boltzmann.'"

http://books.google.com/books?id=v_YOBo-lMS8C&pg=PA15&dq=Recasting+Reality+prodigy+mozart&hl=en&ei=Xu5fTvueJ4XhiALSsMW5Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thus, he was unquestionably a prodigy and certainly belongs here. If he doesn't quality as a prodigy then neither would 90%+ of the people on that list.

Schmoo1 (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with those are, none of those satisfy the criteria of the article. Different people have widely different definitions of child prodigies, and none of those links show any prodigy behavior at a young age. As I said, many people teach college courses while teenagers, that is not as uncommon as you may think, and older teenagers are not considered child prodigies by the scope of this article. - SudoGhost 21:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, if he is to be added to the article, the current "graduated with a PhD in Physics at the age of 21." needs to be changed. That is not a "child prodigy" action. It needs to be something that he is notable for as a child prodigy, and it needs to be sourced in the article, per WP:BURDEN. - SudoGhost 21:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"The problem with those are, none of those satisfy the criteria of the article."

Sure they do. "This is a list of people who, typically before 15 years old, showed abilities comparable to those of highly skilled adults in specific fields; hence the term child prodigy." He already showed a deep knowledge and understanding of mathematical/physics well before the age of 15. So Ted Kaczysnki is listed as a child prodigy but Wolfgang Pauli, who was far more mathematically precocious, is not? You have got to be kidding me.

"Different people have widely different definitions of child prodigies"

Yes and dozens and and dozens of PhD mathematicians, physicists and other scientist have all referred to him as a child prodigy in their works, along with people who personally knew him during early 1900's. He's listed in dozens of books and hundreds of websites as being a child prodigy. Even the people who personally knew him during his youth said that he was a child prodigy.

"As I said, many people teach college courses while teenagers, that is not as uncommon as you may think, and older"

Actually not that many really do. And most of the ones who do, like Michael Kearney, Pierre Bouguer, Saul Kripke, and Wolfgang Pauli, all qualify as prodigies. And he wasn't teaching a course at some cheap community college; this was the University of Vienna, one of the most prestigous universities in Europe at the time. Michael Kearney didn't start teaching until he was 16 and he is one of the most precocious child prodigies in recorded history.

"teenagers are not considered child prodigies by the scope of this article."

This point is moot as he already showed a deep understanding of mathematical/physics well before the age of 15.

Quote taken from the book Pauli and Jung: the meeting of two great minds By David Lindorff

"By the age of thirteen Pauli had achieved an understanding of advanced mathematics, and before his graduation in 1918, he had published more than one paper on Einstein's general theory of relativity." http://books.google.com/books?id=fkjSagZVzhwC&pg=PA10&dq=Pauli+advanced+mathematics&hl=en&ei=QA5sTvYUxPiYBYrx1Qc&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Pauli%20advanced%20mathematics&f=false

That pretty much tears your entire argument to shreds right there. Thirteen is not an "older teenager". Having an understanding of advanced mathematics by the age of 13 would put him right up there with other child prodigies like Ampere, Galois, Safford, von Neumann, Gauss (whom he was compared to), Terrance Tao, etc. In fact, this makes him even more mathematically precocious than many math child prodigies in some ways. Galois didn't even start studying mathematics seriously until he was around 14.

Some more quotes:

Deciphering the Cosmic Number: The Strange Friendship of Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung by Arthur I. Miller "At the gymnasium, Pauli quickly began to find his science classes too easy for him. By now he was receiving private tutoring in advanced physics from professors at the university and was soon discussing his ideas with them. link

The Discoveries: Great Breakthroughs in 20th-Century Science By Alan Lightman "Besides his childhood obsession with insects and minerals, Pauling had been a precocious reader. By the age of nine, he had read the Bible, Darwin's Origin of Species, ancient histories, and some of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which he often recited to a younger cousin. http://books.google.com/books?id=GGl5TaiPqtoC&pg=PT361&dq=wolfgang+pauli+read+and+understood+age+of&hl=en&ei=ngZhTofhGeaKmQXaleTzDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Deciphering the Cosmic Number: The Strange Friendship of Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung by Arthur I. Miller "Pauli was ten when he entered the prestigious Doblinger Gymnasium in Vienna. He was popular with his fellow pupils, who remembered him as instigating many pranks. He had a talent for imitating professors. One, a particulalarly diminutive man, used to pop up unexpectedly amidst large groups of students. Pauli gave him the colorful and apt appelation das U-boot (submarine). Four years later he had mastered geometry, calculus, and celestial mechanics, poring over books by the French polymath Henri Poincare." http://books.google.com/books?id=KR2EtBnmcRYC&pg=PA21&dq=wolfgang+pauli+had+mastered&hl=en&ei=DE1hTrT-E-yhmQXB4ZCJDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=wolfgang%20pauli%20had%20mastered&f=false

"Pauli grew up in a highly stimulating intellectual atmosphere. His great gift for mathematics and the natural sciences became evident at an early age and was fostered by his father who engaged junior high school teacher and later university lecturer Hans Adolf Bauer to give his son extra tuition in mathematics. Bauer also introduced to him to Einstein’s general theory of relativity." http://www.library.ethz.ch/exhibit/pauli/kindheit_e.html

Give it up, man. He was just as mathematically precocious as Ampere, Hamilton, or Galois, who were also child prodigies.

01:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmoo1 (talk • contribs)  

Page vandalized

In last weeks I have seen some strange changes here. Since I'm no expert, I hope someone could check the list. It seems that someone changed some links and added some entries which are downright ludicrous.

Specifically, you should check:

James N. Randall - under "mathematics" section. The previous entry, from what I remember, should have been Alexis Clairaut

Kiyanoosh Pardakhti - under the "Literature" section.

--188.217.180.194 (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Entries

• I have deleted the entry on Cameron Thompson from North Wales. His accomplishments are commendable, but he is not notable as a prodigy. The citation given is from an online newspaper that serves mainly a local readership. Cameron Thompson is not in the same echelon as Gauss, Pascal, etc. HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Cameron Thompson is disputed. It is simply not necessary for someone to be the same level as Gauss to be considered a prodigy. This is an 11 year old boy who was accepted to study with the Open University and currently doing a Bachelor of Science Degree. He is also not simply "local readership"; he has appeared in the Daily Mail, Radio Wales and ITV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.245.45 (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have deleted the entry on March Tian Boedihardjo. It says on his wikipedia page that: "He finished his A-level exams in Britain at the age of nine, gaining As in Mathematics and Further Mathematics and a B in Statistics. He obtained B+ and A- in most of the mathematics course in his first year examination which entered him into the Dean's List." He is not notable as a prodigy. HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have deleted the entry on Adora Svitak. The citation linked to her personal blog. I could not find any references indicating that her books are noteworthy either in terms of literary quality or in volume of sales.

• I've deleted the entry on Dominique Moceanu. She was not remarkably young in relation to her competitors. There are very few female gymnasts who are competitive beyond the age of 21 at the highest level of gymanstics.HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've deleted the entry on Ilia Kramarik. The citation linked to his personal website. --79.47.12.133 (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've deleted the entry on Keith Ferrer: there were no sources nor references on him. I have indeed found his youtube channel, but I do not think that makes him notable. --188.217.180.194 (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Should we change the criteria for inclusion on this list?

I was wondering if we should change the criteria for inclusion on this list. I was thinking that, rather than this being a list of anyone who has ever been called a child prodigy, that it be a list of notable adults who were recognized as being a child prodigy. Though we would NOT change the name of the article itself. In general, a "notable adult" would be someone who has a wikipedia page and is notable for activities and/or accomplishments that they did as an adult.

I think this change would give this article more of an encyclopedic quality. This would cut down on the number of non-notable entries that are added to the list by people using it as a promotional forum. Wikipedia is not a promotional forum. Also, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the Guiness Book of World Records. If someone is the youngest to do something, but is only a month younger than the last person to set the record, does that really make him/her any more notable as a prodigy than the person that last held the record.

I think we should assume that wiki is going to be around for many, many years. If someone makes an isolated achievement as a child, but goes on to live a conventional life, does it make sense for that person to be on the list 30 years from now. I think it would be better if this list included only notable people who were considered to be child prodigies.

Also, if we make this change, it will not affect that many people who are currently on the list.HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree with the suggestion above. It would be a straightforward and relatively uncontentious way to solve the problem of who should be in this article and why. The current Mathematics section is particularly bad and not consistent with the idea that for inclusion someone should be showing skill comparable with highly skilled adults in the field. A highly skilled adult "in the field" of mathematics is someone who is actively making contributions to that field, e.g. producing new mathematical results. So Ampere fine, Galois fine; Tao met that standard although the article doesn't say so; but most of the others don't have evidence of meeting that standard and almost certainly don't meet it. In particular, starting, or even achieving, a maths degree at a young age isn't evidence of anything much more than being bright, keen and having parents or others who facilitate it. It certainly doesn't indicate that one is a prodigy by the definitions this article is supposed to be using. Medals at the IMO are more convincing, but probably still only supporting evidence, not proof of being a prodigy in themselves. Much better to see which of these people end up being notable in mathematics, and then put them in this list. Educres (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The list should include people who achieved notability during childhood. Its sublists might rank them by their lifetime notability rather than chronologically or alphabetically.Julzes (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Pixton entry

I again removed this entry, as per the definition at Chess prodigy: one measure of chess prodigies is the age at which they gain the International Grandmaster title. This individual does not have this title, and there is no indication that a master title is indicative of being a child prodigy, and without a reliable source showing otherwise, the entry does not belong in the article. - SudoGhost 19:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As you said above, that's just *****one measure***** of chess prodigies. If you keep using that measure, then world-class prodigies such as Capablanca would never been called prodigies. 71.40.126.121 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that being a master is another measure, nor has any evidence of that been provided. Being a master is not an indication that one is a child prodigy, either one is a grandmaster per Chess prodigy, or a reliable source exists specifically stating that the individual is a child prodigy in chess. Anything short of those two, and the individual does not belong on the article. - SudoGhost 20:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the definition of "chess prodigy" in EN WP: "Chess prodigies are children who play chess so well that they are able to beat Masters and even Grandmasters, often at a very young age ..." As you can see, Capablanca, Fischer, Pomar, and Pixton were able to beat masters at very young age. 71.40.126.121 (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For one, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Secondly, if you want this person in the article, then provide a reliable source showing that he is either a grandmaster (which does not appear to be the case), or give a reliable source showing why this person's achievements are those of a child prodigy. As it stands, however, this is not the case. Being a master is chess is an achievement, yes. Is it an achievement notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article? No, because no reliable sources have been provided that show this, and none have been provided to verify that this individual is a child prodigy. Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth. SudoGhost 20:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you go to http://www.365chess.com/players/Aaron_Pixton, you will see that Pixton beat masters at very young age. 71.40.126.121 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And here: http://chesstempo.com/gamedb/player/165060. 71.40.126.121 (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not indicative of a child prodigy. The only thing that verifies is that he beat a master, not that this makes him a child prodigy. - SudoGhost 21:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, he beat more than one master before he turned 15. USCF publications may show more, but I'm not going to find them soon. 71.40.126.121 (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding the issue. It does not matter who he beat, this is not in question. The issue is that there is no evidence that this makes him a child prodigy. This is what is required, not a list of what he did, but evidence that what he did makes him a child prodigy. - SudoGhost 21:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying you're ignoring the fact that chess prodigies are children who play chess so well that they are able to beat masters at very young age. I think we better wait for another editor's opinion. Thank you for your interest in learning about chess prodigies. 71.40.126.121 (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what you need to verify. If you can prove that this individual's actions make him a child prodigy, then great, otherwise it's your opinion that "chess prodigies are children who play chess so well that they are able to beat masters at very young age" and that this individual has sufficiently met this criteria. I noticed that you left out a key wording you took from the lede of Chess prodigy: "Chess prodigies are children who play chess so well that they are able to beat Masters and even Grandmasters, often at a very young age." I'll assume you left this out because this individual does not meet that definition? - SudoGhost 21:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I left "grandmasters" out because many true chess prodigies such as Capablanca did not beat grandmasters before they turned 15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.126.121 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Capablanca was not known simply for his title, and for beating masters, and if this was all he had done, would not have met this criteria either. The two are not comparable by any means. Again, if you want to change the definition to suit this individual, you need a reliable source showing that this criteria makes him a child prodigy. I can assure you that Mr. Capablanca has plenty sources that can do this. - SudoGhost 21:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's another definition without your "grandmaster" requirement at http://www.chess.com/chessopedia/view/chess-prodigy: "A chess prodigy is a chess player that is very young yet can play chess very well. A chess prodigy can beat masters at an early age." And here's another true chess prodigy—Nick Patterson: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/science/12prof.html?pagewanted=all, http://www.chessgames.com/player/nicholas_j_patterson.html, and http://chesstempo.com/gamedb/player/159055. Again, they don't use your personal definition and requirements to call Patterson a chess prodigy. 71.40.126.121 (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That definition is too broad to be an acceptable criteria for determining if one is a child prodigy in chess. If the only requirement was to "beat a master at an early age", there would be thousands of chess prodigies on this page. Thankfully, this is not the criteria of determining a chess prodigy. For the same reason that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, an open Wiki that anyone can edit is not a reliable source, meaning the Chess.com link cannot satisfy this. A core Wikipedia policy cannot be ignored, and the entry still has no reliable source showing that the individual is a child prodigy. - SudoGhost 23:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What about all these other famous kids

What about the kids on those sitcoms. Family sitcoms normally have kids in them. Also, w[nn/d add them all in. --Mr. Comedian 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See the qualifier at the beginning of the section: age 9. That removes many child actors. Generally, they are not considered prodigies, if only because there are so many of them. Michaelbusch 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It was moved down to age 9 by an anonymous editor. Many entries here would not fit that move. It was 11 for most of its history and that is a more reasonable standard. I will fix it accordingly and remove unsourced names.--T. Anthony 10:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There I took off several names who were unsourced or who had not seem to have done anything by age 11. I took off Shirley Temple because she was not up against adult competition and was not necessarily a prodigy. She was like Baby Peggy or a half-dozen other beloved child actors, but it's not like clear from what was there that she did serious or challenging roles at a young age. --T. Anthony 11:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reluctantly put Temple back as she is described as a prodigy by enough sources. I also put Dakota Fanning back due to her SAG nomination. I've added a few other actors with sources. I considered adding Mary Badham and Quinn Cummings because they were nominated against adult competition at a young age, but neither seemed to have a source saying they were prodigies. The nominations seemed to be flukes. I'm keeping Justin Henry, also flukish, just for being a record-breaker.--T. Anthony 03:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to put Thomas Chatterton back though, I think one of those links called him a prodigy even if he started at the ripe-old age of 12.--T. Anthony 11:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the sources I had on Chatterton said he started at 11 so I put him back.--T. Anthony 11:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they are still children and are still able to do things many adults cannot. And what about the little 6 year olds that play as the younger siblings in those shows. And this article does say stuff like "startes doing this at age 12". Why should it say at or before 9. Is it really fair to say that children aged 10-17 who can act, sing, dance, write literature, play instruments, do smart things, etc. are not child progidies. Okay, I could understand maybe teenage children not progidies for this. But what about little 10 year olds. I mean come on. Those little 4 ft. babies. If they can do talented things, then they are progidies. Maybe not kids my age since by now most of us have found our talent, but young children. --Mr. Comedian 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My argument is that this group is already covered by List of child actors and therefore not needed here. Also, unless the actors are particularly good, I wouldn't class them as prodigies. Michaelbusch 22:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I try to largely limit it to child actors who were nominated or won awards against adult competition. Granted this isn't a flawless method either, but at least it's an attempt to fit the "adult skill at an early age" idea. --T. Anthony (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"adult skill at an early age" shouldn't be included as a prodigy. I baked a cake when I was five, but that doesn't mean anything. Along those lines, child actors should be eliminated. Winning an award simply means that people in the industry voted for them to win that award. It doesn't qualify anyone as a prodigy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.154.72.42 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Anne Frank

Why is Anne Frank not here? She wrote one incomplete book, but it is generally understood as a masterwork. To be sure, it was written under unusual circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a (talk • contribs) 06:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Make music more prominent

Given that there are more child prodigies in music than in any other field, should "Music" go higher up in the "Arts" category? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Macaulay

Why isn't the historian Thomas Macaulay included in this list? He was surely a child prodigy. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sho Yano

The page about Sho Yano has been vandalized (probably substituted with the description about the film Jumanji ). Can someone revert it to the original, since I don't know how to do it. 130.25.33.203 (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ruth Lawrence

Some one else who could be added to this list if Ruth Lawrence, who graduated in mathematics from Oxford University in 1985 aged only thirteen. See http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9877468.print/ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Since typing that comment,I have discovered that she does have her article in Wikipedia - it is available at Ruth_Lawrence - which makes me feel even more strongly that her name should be added to this list. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2012

Computer Science

The List of child prodigies#Computer Science section is seriously disappointing. Four people who were "Microsoft Certified" at a young age and worked with Microsoft. Well, hurray. Yes, they started programming at a young age (so did I) and did some impressive but non-computer science related stuff. But, is this really the best we can do? Most of the stuff listed in that section isn't even about computer science. Screw all that certified nonsense. The whole section should be about people like Santiago Gonzalez.[4] (That's just the first video I found. No doubt there are kids even younger than him out there who could be mentioned.) --82.170.113.123 (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You know, like Aaron Swartz. Plenty of places where he's called a child prodigy (like here), he helped creating the early RSS at age 14, and so on. As it is right now, the whole section should be renamed. Lets just make it "Systems Administration" or something and stop pretending it's about computer science. And isn't an MCP an entry level cert? Stop calling kids that memorized training manuals computer science prodigies. This is ridiculous. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Terra (b-girl)

B-girl Terra, member of the UK break dancing troupe Soul Mavericks. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Also called a "dance prodigy" on people.com and thetimes.co.uk. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Ryan Wang

Some sources calling him a prodigy are this, this and this. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

William Henry Perkin

Yes OK, he was 18 and that's over 15. But 18 is still young for a top chemist and young to create a large business. Either would be prodigious at 18 but both in one man is prodigious at any age. Besides, the chemistry section isn't exactly overloaded, unlike some. Budhen (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There are 2 problems: the entry (that I've removed by now) wasn't sourced and his article doesn't contain the prodigy claim either. BTW, being 18 years of age in his century wasn't seen as that young as we see it today and even today he would be considered an adult at this age.TMCk (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I suppose there has to be a boundary and 18 is a bit high. The WHP article is a good source and his achievements can be confirmed in any of the books cited there so I am not too impressed by that point, especially as so many other entries are unsourced. I feel the list as a whole is rather heavy with people who just did very well at exams and can't really offer a Notable achievement to back up their entry. For example your one Chemistry prodigy and most of the Computer Science people. Biology and Medicine look weak too and I could go on. My example was a very notable achiever in the real world and I would like to be able to use this list to find great real achievers who were also very young. Aren't you a little bit worried about this list? Budhen (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The list needs to be trimmed down, but that doesn't mean this individual belongs on the list. 18 is not a child prodigy, and in order to be included in this list, a subject must have at least one source descrbing them as a child prodigy, preferably more. - SudoGhost 20:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"In 1853, at the precocious age of 15, Perkin entered the Royal College of Chemistry in London" is a quote from the article. However I am beginning to lose interest now. I'll leave you to clean up the list with some extra criteria that show real-world achievements. Budhen (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Cesare Cacetti

There are several articles on italian newspapers about him. It seems he built a 2D printer first, and a 3D printer all by himself, and has been invited to follow several lessons at IUAV in Digital Architecture (consider the lessons he attended where post-graduate, meant for graduate students who whish to further specialize in their area of interest; this master is selective, only 25 people can attend it). Read here (National newspaper), and here (local newspaper) --37.117.237.67 (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Tightening up the sourcing here

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible.

I will refer to the sources listed in that bibliography, and others to be added to that bibliography, for the current formal definition of "child prodigy" in psychology research literature (pioneered by David Henry Feldman's research[5]) and for other facts about the identification and development of child prodigies. Many persons now listed on the list do not fit any reasonable definition of a child prodigy, and this list article will have to be extensively trimmed in the next few months. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting myself as a child prodigy

I am suggesting myself, Richard M. Freeman, as a child prodigy. My verifiable documents (which can be emailed and independently verified) show that I was born in 1965 (on June 25), outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and that I matriculated as a full-time undergraduate student at Syracuse University (Syracuse, NY) starting with the fall semester of the 1978-1979 school year (age 13). My official transcript shows I completed college calculus, with a perfect score (12 credit hours, A Grade) in the Fall Semester, 1979 (as a sophmore, age 14). My major was Political Philosophy. Sadly, I left the university after completing 90+ credit hours (senior class standing). Syracuse based their admission on my score on the college level exam program general exams (CLEP) which were administered to me during the summer of 1978. My scores on the exam were average (for a first year college student). I can submit my birth certificate and college transcript, as well as grant access to Syracuse University to release any other information regarding myself. I am the son of Murray F. Freeman, also a child prodigy in mathematics. He was a graduate math student at Princeton University in the late 1940s, is credited with significant theories in statistical analysis (Freeman Tukey Theory as listed in major statiscal terms dictionaries), developed with his professor John Tukey. As further example (but not known to be verifiable) my father also played chess with John von Neumann at Princeton. ```` misterric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterric (talk • contribs) 21:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest myself, Veer Bhatt, as a psychology and physics prodigy. I have come up with rules about theoretical particle physics and have a article in a published psychology journal "A treatise on cognative dissonance and its negative contributions to the community". I am currently taking online courses at Stanford University in Engineering: Quantum Mechanics taught by renowned David Miller. I have also tried to disprove Lorentz invariance in loop quantum theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.242.22 (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:N. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Age

WeijiBaikeBianji, I am glad that you think "one" reference is suitable to sum up this definition, but I don't. Please explain to me on why we have contrasting definitions with its main article, child prodigy . Your removal of my sources are noted.

"A prodigy has to be a child, or at least younger than 18 years, who is performing at the level of a highly trained adult in a very demanding field of endeavour." Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

References

I'll check the other article, which may have been edit-warred. You are aware, aren't you, that Feldman has written about the same issue more recently than 1993? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've checked. The sources agree with each other, and they are not alone. Thanks for mentioning the other article, which needed some fixing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic! Glad I could be some help. Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Charles Fefferman

Seems like a shoo in, ahead of some of Terry Tao's prodigal accomplishments in math. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_FeffermanPallen (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This should be wikilinked to the main article rather than citing Wikipedia itself as a source. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Remaining bare URLs

The following URLs remain bare:

http://www.21stcenturynews.com.au/10-child-prodigies-change-world/ 10 child prodigies Processing error (Fetching error)

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2004/072204/film1.html Montreal Mirror Processing error (Fetching error)

http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies /filmography.html?p_id=71921 New York Times Processing error (HTTP Error: 403)

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0874139/bio IMDB Processing error (Fetching error)

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of child prodigies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050115043036/http://www.umich.edu:80/~uac/threeweeks/storya26b.html?fpvol=3&fpiss=2&vol=3&iss=2&sto=13 to http://www.umich.edu/~uac/threeweeks/storya26b.html?fpvol=3&fpiss=2&vol=3&iss=2&sto=13
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050422093958/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/09/29/nspel29.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/09/29/nspel29.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080206190432/http://americanhistory.si.edu:80/archives/d9744.htm to http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives/d9744.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of child prodigies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/US/Parenting/tanishq-abraham-working-college-degree/story?id=16728917

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of child prodigies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927034958/http://www.keble.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/meet-our-students/anne-marie-imafidon-maths-and-computer-science to http://www.keble.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/meet-our-students/anne-marie-imafidon-maths-and-computer-science
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140821225323/http://www.21stcenturynews.com.au/10-child-prodigies-change-world/ to http://www.21stcenturynews.com.au/10-child-prodigies-change-world/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219223220/http://archive.inquirer.net:80/view.php?db=1&story_id=61741 to http://archive.inquirer.net/view.php?db=1&story_id=61741
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927081742/http://ugis.ls.berkeley.edu:80/cogsci/gs.php to http://ugis.ls.berkeley.edu/cogsci/gs.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Educating+Gabriel+charts+prodigy+Seattle/5561980/story.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.somdnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130501/NEWS/130509770/1045&&template=PrinterFriendlysomd
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051127090905/http://9.1911encyclopedia.org:80/B/BE/BETTY_WILLIAM_HENRY_WEST.htm to http://9.1911encyclopedia.org/B/BE/BETTY_WILLIAM_HENRY_WEST.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114163228/http://www.montrealmirror.com:80/ARCHIVES/2004/072204/film1.html to http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2004/072204/film1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060420235155/http://www.bartleby.com:80/65/ch/Chattert.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Chattert.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060704221945/http://dir.salon.com:80/story/books/letters/2005/02/15/lovecraft/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/books/letters/2005/02/15/lovecraft/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060217213113/http://www.bartleby.com:80/65/lo/LopedeVe.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/lo/LopedeVe.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060905054804/http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2003/13/smith_gregory.html to http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2003/13/smith_gregory.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060428101115/http://wise.fau.edu:80/~jordanrg/bios/Young/Young_bio.htm to http://wise.fau.edu/~jordanrg/bios/Young/Young_bio.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125041107/http://jamaica-gleaner.com:80/gleaner/20081214/sports/sports3.html to http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20081214/sports/sports3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sheila Sri Prakash

Sheila Sri Prakash shouldn't be under mathematics and science. While she later was an architect, which might fall under science, her achievements that make her a prodigy were in dance and arts.3Clara18,21 (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of child prodigies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.riaus.org.au/science/people/numbers_shapes_logic/terence_tao.jsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.keble.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/meet-our-students/anne-marie-imafidon-maths-and-computer-science
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23871210-gcse-hothouses-give-children-of-all-backgrounds-a-chance-to-excel
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gmin.org/innovate-salone/2012/finalists/creating-local-fm-radio-stations
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130903140520/http://www.open.ac.uk/platform/news-and-features/cameron-the-ous-youngest-graduate to http://www.open.ac.uk/platform/news-and-features/cameron-the-ous-youngest-graduate
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theage.com.au/national/obituaries/maths-ability-earned-human-computer-tag-20130430-2irec.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aip.org/pnu/1996/split/pnu281-2.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2012/04/02/the-10-youngest-phds-of-all-time/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jugantor.us/enews/issue/2012/07/30/news0781.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C809012%2C00.html%27%27
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1998%2F09%2F29%2Fnspel29.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett

User:‎Subuey, "Undid revision 786369321 by SmokeyJoe (talk) Please see his actual wikipage, where it is discussed at length and documented in the book "The prodigy's cousin", after she performed a memory test"?

• "Jacob Barnett is a child prodigy" is unsourced, and you should not put it back unsourced.
• Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources.
• "The prodigy's cousin", by Joanne Ruthsatz? Is this a reliable source for declaring child prodigies? I think not, and further think that Ruthsatz is a tainted source for this as she has benefited from media exposure associated with JB. There is a huge amount of puffery associated with the 12-year-old JB, how is this source different?
• Given the controversy, I think multiple sources are needed for Wikipedia to declare that JB was a child prodigy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think multiple sources are needed to declare he was NOT a child prodigy! Subuey (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

First, a source is needed that he is, thanks for adding http://newscenter.iupui.edu/index.php?id=5463. It is of challenged reliability, but is good for now. Wait for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (4th nomination), and whether the prodigy claims remains in the biography. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It's true, he is a child prodigy. Slug like you (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of child prodigies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090728042356/http://uttm.com/stories/2000/12/05/60II/main254786.shtml to http://uttm.com/stories/2000/12/05/60II/main254786.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014114226/http://www.goldenglobes.org/trivia/ to http://www.goldenglobes.org/trivia/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303210026/http://aid.jpm.hu/index.php?menu=4&lang=en to http://aid.jpm.hu/index.php?menu=4&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of child prodigies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303213212/http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Avicenna.html to http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Avicenna.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Claus Volko

From February to April 2018 this page contained a section about Claus Volko in the category "computer science". It was well documented by sources that Claus Volko had taught himself to program at age 8 and had written a programming tutorial at age 12, which is clear evidence that Claus Volko matches the criteria of this page. However, Claus Volko happens to have some enemies who noticed that he was listed here and eventually removed him (17 April 2018‎ Gargaj, 17 April 2018‎ 188.202.156.13). I would like to protest against that anti-social behaviour. No matter whether or not you like Claus Volko (for whatever reason), he definitely matches the criteria for being listed here. Adokhugi (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)