Talk:Child development/Archive 1

reference aspects of child development-motor development

The article required some sources to back up the statements under the heading: speed and pattern of development. I've found a source that largely matches with what is mentioned in your article (terms: locomotion, "walking on all fours" etc.): . So, I suggest you take a look at it and consider whether this was what you were looking for or not. Also, could you try to include more on age-appropriate behaviors, such as the appropriate age for unaided/aided waking, speech etc. according to research studies?

Page move

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

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

Merge with Developmental psychology?

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

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

Behavior analysis and child development

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

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

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

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

Education???

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

Autism

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

Language and Imitation

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

Adoption Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps a new article?

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

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

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

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

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

Definitely a new article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stages?

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

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

Milestones

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

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

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

Other topics

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

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

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

Themes?

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

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

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

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

ooops

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

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

milestones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topics: Aspects of child development-Cognitive & Emotional development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fruhreife

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

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

Language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birth, conception?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

subheadings

subheadings

subheadings

subheadings

subheadings

How do they look?

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

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

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

Good idea, to omit the "What is".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Klashorst's Experimental

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Untitled

We are working on this article for an FIU assignment and for the remaining of the article we will be working on expansion of the disorder section, rephrasing section on the turning on and off genes because sources were not verifiable, and expanding on developmental theorists and their theories of child development. In addition our main proposed change is to add verifiable references. Apina012 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Jointness

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

FIU article change assignment

We are working on this article for an FIU assignment and for the remaining of the article we will be working on expansion of the disorder section, rephrasing section on the turning on and off genes because sources were not verifiable, and expanding on developmental theorists and their theories of child development. In addition our main proposed change is to add verifiable references. Apina012 (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Goran Dzingalasevic - Think this will hwlp understanding autism For many years autism was rare - occurring in just five children out of 10,000. However, since the early 1990s, the rate of autism has increased dramatically around the world, with figures as high as 60 per 10,000. In March, 2012, the US Federal Centers for Disease Control that 1 in 88 children in the US is diagnosed with an ASD. What is Autism? Autism is a severe developmental disorder that begins within the first three years after conception. Most autistic children look like other kids, but do puzzling and disturbing things which are markedly different behaviors from those of typical children. In less severe cases on the spectrum (Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) or Asperger's Syndrome), children usually have speech and might even be intellectually gifted, but they have one or more "autistic" social and behavioral problems. People used to think that autism was irreversible. The good news is that there are now a range of treatments that can be really helpful. DSM-IV Criteria for ASDs

299.00 Autistic Disorder

A total of six (or more) items from (1), (2), and (3), with at least two from (1), and one each from (2) and (3):

• qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

• marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors, such as eye-to- eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction • failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level • a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest) • lack of social or emotional reciprocity • qualitative impairments in communication, as manifested by at least one of the following: • delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime) • in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others • stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language • lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level • restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities as manifested by at least one of the following: • encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus • apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals • stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting or complex whole-body movements) • persistent precoccupation with parts of objects • Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years: (1) social interaction, (2) language as used in social communication, or (3) symbolic or imaginative play. • The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett's disorder or childhood disintegrative disorder.

299.80 Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified

This category should be used when there is a severe and pervasive impairment in the development of reciprocal social interaction or verbal and nonverbal communication skills, or when stereotyped behavior, interests, and activities are present, but the criteria are not met for a specific pervasive developmental disorder, schizophrenia, schizotypal personality disorder, or avoidant personality disorder. For example, this category includes "atypical autism" --presentations that do not meet the criteria for autistic disorder because of late age of onset, atypical symptomatology, or subthreshold symptomatology, or all of these.

299.80 Asperger's Disorder

• Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

• marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors, such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction • failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level • a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people) • lack of social or emotional reciprocity • Restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following: • encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus • apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals • stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements) • persistent preoccupation with parts of objects • The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. • There is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g., single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years). • There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in childhood. • Criteria are not met for another specific pervasive developmental disorder or schizophrenia.

299.80 Rett's Disorder

All of the following:

• apparently normal prenatal and perinatal development

• apparently normal psychomotor development through the first 5 months after birth • normal head circumference at birth • Onset of all of the following after the period of normal development: • deceleration of head growth between ages 5 and 48 months • loss of previously acquired purposeful hand skills between ages 5 and 30 months with the subsequent development of stereotyped hand movements (i.e., hand-wringing or hand washing) • loss of social engagement early in the course (although often social interaction develops later) • appearance of poorly coordinated gait or trunk movements • severely impaired expressive and receptive language development with severe psychomotor retardation

299.10 Childhood Disintegrative Disorder

Apparently normal development for at least the first 2 years after birth as manifested by the presence of age-appropriate verbal and nonverbal communication, social relationships, play, and adaptive behavior.

Clinically significant loss of previously acquired skills (before age 10 years) in at least two of the following areas:
• expressive or receptive language

• social skills or adaptive behavior • bowel or bladder control • play • motor skills • Abnormalities of functioning in at least two of the following areas: • qualitative impairement in social interaction (e.g., impairment in nonverbal behaviors, failure to develop peer relationships, lack of social or emotional reciprocity) • qualitative impairments in communication (e.g., delay or lack of spoken language, inability to initiate or sustain a conversation, stereotyped and repetitive use of language, lack of varied make-believe play) • restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, including motor stereotypies and mannerisms • The disturbance is not better accounted for by another specific pervasive developmental disorder or by schizophrenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzingalasevic (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Language Section

Our group collaboratively edited the sections of this article from mechanisms of child language development to language and its relation to communication.

These are edits that are part of a class project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Program:Brock_University/NUSC_1P10_Professional_and_Therapeutic_Communications_%28Fall_2014%29 LynnMcCleary (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I have just made an edit to the Language section of this article. I changed the title "what develops" to "Mechanisms of child language development". I did this because "what develops" did not seem to appropriately fit the material being discussed under this heading. I also added new information to this little section, treating it as if it were an introductory paragraph to what would be subsequently discussed within the "Language" section of the article. I did incorporate the old material that was previously in the "what develops" section, but I was able to reword it to help organize the flow of this article. --Rebecca L 01:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl11ge (talk • contribs)

There will be a new subheading added to the Language section of the article. It will be titled "Components of language development" and it will discuss the components of language development, including syntax development, touching on a bit of milestone expectations when developing language. --Rebecca L 01:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl11ge (talk • contribs)

Addition of an image under the Language section of the article, of a male and female child engaging in a form of communication (holding an insect). think this would be a good addition to the article in order to add visuals to the text, to envision communication between children during developmental stages (or milestones) --Rebecca L 02:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl11ge (talk • contribs)

Title change from "Speed and pattern of development" to "Milestones of language development". "Speed and pattern of development" does not depict the theme appropriately to what material will be further discussed under this subheading appropriately as "Milestones of language development" encourages. --Rebecca L 02:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl11ge (talk • contribs)

Changed the title under the Language section "Mechanisms of language development" to "Theories of language development". This is more of an appropriate title for it foretells what will be discussed under the subheading, and this title is directly correlated to the material that is being discussed under the subheading. --Rebecca L 03:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have also reworded the original material in the first paragraph under this subheading. I also incorporated a little bit of new information and references to better organize the flow of speech--Rebecca L 03:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl11ge (talk • contribs)

deleted second paragraph under this subheading due to inconsistency of grammar, speech flow, and disorganization. I have incorporated some old material from the paragraph that I removed under this subheading, but added new information stating the current accepted theories of language development and how it came to be... still concluded with no single theory being accepted as the be-all-end-all theory. --Rebecca L 03:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl11ge (talk • contribs)

Addition of a new subheading to the Language section of the article titled "Language and its relation to communication". Under this subheading, material discussed includes the definition of communication, and how language acquisition/development is directly correlated and used as a form of (with) communication. Addresses the nonverbal language forms that amalgamate to create communication in infants and young children, as well as the verbal aspects of communication when children begin to develop vocal language of speech. In addition, milestones (or ages of this communicative development) of language in relation to communication (verbally and nonverbally) are addressed. Adding information about communication and how language is a form of communication and how it is used verbally and nonverbally for communication is an important addition to this article under the Language section. (forgot to sign) --Rebecca L 03:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Child Development page! I made some changes to the language section. First of all, under our new heading "Milestones of Language Development" with new content on the subject from reliable sources. I was also successful in finding the source of the information for all the citations that were needed previously. I have cited them all, you can find the source under P. K. Bal Education Psychology. I also added content to the new section of Components of child language development. Please feel free to provide any critiques or suggestions on what could be improved! Thanks Nicole 17:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm13su (talk • contribs)

Under "Phonology" of components of language development, I deleted quite a bit of information because it was going into too much detail about information secondary to phonology, and the biological mechanics behind sounds for phonology. To be broad in our coverage (as a good article criteria for Wikipedia) we shouldn't dwell on the specifics, just to be aware of any bias and to ensure smooth flow of speech and organization of the language section. Rebecca L 02:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl11ge (talk • contribs)

I have also re-shortened "Phonology" of components of language development in the language section of the article. I also removed information and reworded information from the "Lexicon", "morphology", and "pragmatics" sections of the components of language development in the language section. There was too much information in some that needed to be deleted in order to maintain flow of speech without dwelling again into the specifics of these materials (considering their are additional articles on Wikipedia about these components of linguistics). Rebecca L 03:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl11ge (talk • contribs)

I removed the "Semantics" heading and information out of the Language section of the article because semantics are not part of the components of language development and speaking of semantics would not be relevant material discussed under this section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl11ge (talk • contribs) 03:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I added internal links for "phonology", "lexicon", "morphology", and "pragmatics". I also added these components under its appropriate heading "components of language development" where they are bulleted for organizational purposes (and aesthetics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl11ge (talk • contribs) 03:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback for the Edits in the Language Section

Jessica's Critique

My name is Jessica and I hope you are open to receiving a little feedback for the edits you have done to the Language section on the Child Development page. I think this section of the page is very well written. I’m not a grammar master myself, but I did not notice any grammatical errors. This article contains a vast amount of references at the end, giving it a verifiable status according to Wikipedia’s good article criteria. I also picked some references at random just to see if they were verifiable and they were. For an article to be considered good, it needs to be broad in its coverage. This involves staying focused on the topic at hand. I think that this article does a worthy job at introducing how language development occurs throughout ones lifetime and the different mechanisms that are included without branching into anything unnecessary. For this article to be neutral it needs to exemplify everyone’s opinion is a nondiscriminatory way and I do think any of you incorporated your own opinion on language development without any hardcore facts. I have been monitoring this article for the past couple days now and I haven’t noticed any significant changes in the main content considering the changes were just made according to the history of the page and the due date given by the professor. I believe that this article is relatively stable at the moment since, again, all the changes were made recently. This section of the article depicts an illustration that would be relevant to the topic. I think an article should contain at least one or two more images that could potentially give the reader a better understanding of what is being said especially since having an illustration can add to the pages credibility according to Wikipedia's good article criteria. The links that were added, personally, I think they were great touch because readers can then look further and deeper into what you are talking about. Overall, I am pleased with the edits that have been made to this page.Jessica (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Jessica! I'm glad to hear that you think our additions were verifiable and neutral. We added in the image of the children communicating, and I worry that adding a second one to our small section will make it look a bit busy. That's just my opinion though, if my other group members disagree let me know! Nicole 17:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jessica. Thank you for your feedback. You mentioned that there were grammatical errors, but you did not specify where these errors were. Do you mind elaborating on that for us? If you do not tell us where our grammatical errors are, we will not be able to fix them. Also, would you like to give us a suggestion of an image that would better represent communication between children? I struggled to find an image that represents communication or language...do you have any ideas that could help me? Thank you again for your feedback. Much appreciated. Rebecca L 23:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

tagging you so you can see this as our professor said to do: Jessica (talk)

Diana's Critique

Hi! I have been assigned to critique your section of the child development Wikipedia article. Let me start by first off saying you guys did a great job. At a glance I can see that there is a lot of valuable content that you guys have added. I’ll start off reviewing your article by assessing if it follows Wikipedia’s six Criteria for a good Wikipedia article. The six criteria can be viewed in detail here.

A good article is:

1. Well written: Your article is written very well. I found that the vocabulary was Wikipedia appropriate. There were a few grammatical errors that I would like to point out.

• Underneath your components of child language development section, when you’re talking about different stages, there was an inconsistency on how you introduced the second stage. I think “in the second stage,” should be changed to “second.”
• “For this the child needs … to show he is doing this.” – I believe this is a sentence fragment.
• “((Skinner)”
• “The happens in three stages”
• “For example, a young child may say “mama” and means “Here is Mama,” “Where is Mama?” or “I see Mama.”
• There should not be a period after this subheading “Sequential skill development in learning to talk.”

These were simple errors that proof reading could have fixed, other than that everything written was clear and concise. I read through your rationales and thought you guys made the appropriate choices when changing certain (sub) headings. The new headings you chose fit the information better than what was there originally. Also, choosing to shorten the “components of child language development” was appropriate because looking at the original, I thought there was too much information as well (since each component has it’s own Wikipedia page, going too into depth was unnecessary).

Thank you for your specific examples of where you caught our few grammatical errors. Great catch! Rebecca L 23:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added a few more things. No problem! You guys did a great job overall! Diana Tat (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

2. Veritable with no research: All your sources seemed to be cited correctly. I checked some of your sources and they were all secondary and valid. There was also a large variety of sources. Great job!

Thank you for taking the time to revise our sources and check to see if they were credible and cited properly :) Rebecca L 23:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

3. Broad in it’s coverage: There were points about each range of age which is good.

4. Neutral: I thought this criteria was met well. I did not see any biased points.

5. Stable: Judging from the talk page you all seemed to agree on your edits and there was no contradictory points in your edits.

6. Illustrated, if possible by images: I’m not entirely sure if the image in your group talk page was the image you as a group put in, but if it was here are my comments! I thought the image was an okay choice. Maybe an image where the reader can see the children actually communicating would have been better! Regarding copyright issues, everything seems to be fine!

Thank you for the specific example you provided about an image change. Rebecca L 23:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional comments

• Correct me if I’m wrong, but your group added “language and its relation to communications” as a whole new section, correct? Adding a new section was a bold step! I found that the new section you added was very beneficial to the article. Since we are in a communications course, I think it was very important to include how language development in children effects their communication as a whole. I thought that whole section was written extremely well. Grammar was excellent and paragraphs flowed nicely.
• Underneath components of child language development section, as a reader, I feel it would be beneficial for understanding to add an example of what the second stage would consist of in regards to the child’s semantics, just like you did in stage one.
• “There is often an interest in rhyme” Please check out WP:WHATPLACE “there is often” is considered a general statement and according to the Wikipedia pillars, writers should avoid general statements and try to be specific.

Diana Tat (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct! We did add "Language and its relation to communication". Thank you for acknowledging this as a bold step. Your feedback has most definitely helped us. Rebecca L 23:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I added a few more points to my additional comments! Diana Tat (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Diana Tat (talk)

ss13zf's Critique

Hello Child Development:Language page! Before getting into my intense critique I'd like to say that this page has been transformed into an AMAZING article. I read through your talk page here. and I got to see all of the incredible conversation going on between you all. I did see quite a bit of disagreement, but you guys clearly made it work and have created a great page; so good job! For editing this page we've been told to focus on Wikipedia Good Article Criteria (information can be found here. I'm going to review that below! But PLEASE don't forget that this is an incredible article. In comparison to many other assignments (including my own) this article went through an almost COMPLETE re-working and that's a huge feat! So great job :) Good luck editing in the future!

1. Well Written: I agree with Diana with the grammatical errors. She beat me to posting the ones I found, but apart form those there aren't many others. Just a reminder to proof read. Maybe proof read someone ELSE'S section (getting a fresh set of eyes can be very helpful). Your edits were very clear, and compared to what the article was before - it had become a very easy article to read.

I recon that we did proof read each others information, but failed to acknowledge some of the minute errors you and Diana noticed. Despite our proof reading and our accidental fail to catch your errors, we appreciate your suggestion to proof read more, per say. Thank you. Rebecca L 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

2. Veritable with no research: most of your citations are correct. I don't know how to do this, but I know if you are citing the exact same source multiple times (here it is [Hoff, E. (2014). Language Development. Belmont, CA : Wadsworth Cengage Learning.], more text) you can cite it as a,b,c,d,e, etc. instead of citing it a multitude of times. A girl in my group figured out how to do this though it took her a little while. It isn't a major issue but it de-clutters your citations list.

In our sandbox we did not worry too much about citing the same source multiple times, hence why our sandbox page article has multiple citations of the same source. Though, in the real article, if you look at the reference list, we successfully cited the same source once in the "a,b,c,d,e, etc." format you mentioned above. Thank you. Rebecca L 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

3. Broad in it's coverage:You guys did an incredible job here, probably the best part of the article. You talked about development in every age range which is very impressive.

4. Neutral: There was almost no bias in this article, no intention bias at all. I checked out your sources and they were very impressive and neutral in their views; and your interpretations of them were neutral as well.

I noticed you said "there was almost no bias"...almost implies that a small amount of bias was present. If so, can you please describe and specify where this bias is, and how we can go about fixing it? Thank you. Rebecca L 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

5. Stable: Though there was no contradiction in your article, your talk page was a little messy. I mentioned previously that there seemed to be a lot of arguing or disagreements. A few posts seemed a little unnecessary and a little bit attitude filled; but it's very hard to interpret text so I may be in the wrong here. Maybe for future edits you guys could meet in person. Face to face communication can be a more positive experience and can be very efficient.

I understand that you have interpreted our talk page as being messy and attitude filled. Though you have addressed our talk page, there does not seem to be any misunderstandings in the real article talk page, which is what we are editing and are assigned to edit or interpret. I don't know about my group members, but I feel as though we were quite productive, there weren't any arguments, we've met in person, and no hard feelings or attitudes were experienced. But thank you for your future recommendations. I'm sure we learned and benefited from an outsiders interpretation. Thank you once again. Rebecca L 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: I noticed the very cute image of the girl that was posted on your page. It was a very smart move. Pictures are very hard to find and incorporate, so great job on that!

Thank you! Your compliment was very much appreciated. Rebecca L 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Overall you guys did a very impressive job. You bit off a lot, but didn't get bogged down by it. Very happy for you guys, you have really made this page great. If you have any questions about my comments please feel free to message me, hope they helped! Good luck in the future! Keep on being bold! :) Ss13zf (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. It has definitely helped. Rebecca L 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ss13zf (talk)

Copy Edits

I have inserted a new image to depict communication and language of children a bit better. I have also reworded one of the grammatical errors listed from our feedback, under the "Components of language development" section. 18:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Rebecca L

Also got rid of the extra bracket that was around "Skinner" under the "Theories of language development", thanks to Diana's catch! Rebecca L 18:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed the period in the title "Sequential skill development in learning to talk" and changed the grammatical error "The happens in three stages" to "This happens in three stages". Rebecca L 17:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Just fixing a few of the grammatical errors I found thanks to feedback

under phonology: " what are the rules" to "what the rules are" (makes more sense to me)

under milestones: "refer to self" to "refer to itself," " the child is beginning" to "the child begins," "children can indicate fantasy or make-believe linguistically" to "make-believe linguistics" (unsure about this one, but I did not understand the meaning of 'linguistically' in reference to the sentence) Thanks for all the feedback Zk13be (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

HURAITSDADROS??

dividual differences

Typical individual differences in motor ability are common and depend in part on the child's weight and build. However, after the infant period, typical individual differences are strongly affected by opportunities to practice, observe, and be instructed on specific movements. Atypical motor development such as persistent primitive reflexes beyond 4–6 months or delayed walking may be an indication of developmental delays or conditions such as autism, cerebral palsy, or down syndrome .[19] Lower motor coordination results in difficulties with speed accuracy and trade-off in complex tasks. Children with disabilitiesI=DISABLD,UZ??????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.246.181.3 (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Erikson’s Eight Stages of Development: added to the first five that cover all of the stages in Child Development.

Trust vs. Mistrust The first psychosocial stage happens during the first year or two of life. During this stage, the infant is uncertain about the world they live in. Therefore, the infant trusts those who show love and stability. If there is little to no love or stability, the infant will develop a sense of mistrust.

Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt Between the ages of 18 months and three years old, children begin to start making choices on their own, with what toy to play with or what to eat. Erikson stresses that it is critical for parents to allow their children to make their own decisions, to a certain extent, so that they can explore the limits of their abilities. If the parents don’t allow their children to make a choice on their own, then their children will become overly dependent on others.

Initiative vs. Guilt From around age three to age five, children will start to interact with other children at school. Through play, children will make up games and initiate activities with others to feel secure. Children will develop a sense of guilt and will become a follower if they are controlled or criticized.

Industry vs. Inferiority In this stage, teachers start to become an important role in the child’s like as they teach the child how to learn and do things on their own. If children are encouraged in their learning and growing, then they will gain confidence in achieving goals. If the child feels no encouragement or challenge, then the child will not reach his potential due to doubting his own abilities.

Identity vs. Role Confusion

Although this stage isn’t the last in Erikson’s theory, it is the last stage in Child Development. The rest are after the adolescence where children start to become adults. According to Erikson, this stage is the most important when transitioning to an adult. Children start to analyze their identity, learning their roles as a young adult. If a child in unsure about who he is in society, than the child will feel unhappy and insecure. 

McLeod, Saul A. "Erik Erikson | Psychosocial Stages | Simply Psychology." Erik Erikson | Psychosocial Stages | Simply Psychology. N.p., 2008. Web. 01 Mar. 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karraebed (talk • contribs) 05:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Child development. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2003/ANS01242.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 20:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Issue with the the first image

The first image was annotated "Exploring" - there are two issues with that, firstly the exploring Wikilink is about exploring in the global travel sense not this sense, also the word "exploring" is not used anywhere else in the article. For now I am changing it to a more literal description "Young child playing in habitual squatting position". Squatting is something that young children often do but they stop doing as they grow older.--Penbat (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Child development. 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/20121106003518/http://www.helpguide.org/mental/separation_anxiety_causes_prevention_treatment.htm to http://www.helpguide.org/mental/separation_anxiety_causes_prevention_treatment.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Child development. 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/20130218183140/http://www.headstartresourcecenter.org/Hispanic/Workshops/The%20Socio-Emotional%20and%20Cognitive%20Development%20of%20Migrant%20Children/Home%20Env.%20of%20Children%20in%20US.pdf to http://www.headstartresourcecenter.org/Hispanic/Workshops/The%20Socio-Emotional%20and%20Cognitive%20Development%20of%20Migrant%20Children/Home%20Env.%20of%20Children%20in%20US.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding Section About Gender Development

Fellow Editors,

I am a college student working with a class to improve Wikipedia articles that fall under the category of women and gender studies. I became interested in how gender, defined as the social construct, is developed in children so I came to this article to see what other Wiki editors had shared about how this crucial part of a person develops. However, it appears that there is nothing on this page about gender development. I believe there should be another heading added that deals with this subject and I would greatly appreciate any feed back about this idea and how I should execute it.

Thank you.

LateNightDrive (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)LateNightDrive

Fellow Editors,

I think this article is very well written but I would say that the lead is a bit much should be taken down just a little bit. I suggest that you can summarize the lead so the reader doesn't feel so overwhelmed. --Avbaltazar (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Poor sentence under motor abilities

There is a sentence at the end of the third paragraph in section 5.2 (Abilities > Motor > Speed and pattern) that seems poorly worded and out of place: "Critiques to the order of Executive Functioning leads to Motor Skills, suggesting Motor Skills can support Executive Functioning in the brain." The meaning of the sentence is far from clear, and the capitalisation of "motor skills" and "executive functining" is unwarrented.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Lucybec13, Agm3574.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arionnar3. Peer reviewers: Erd0617.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Karraebed.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Honors English 250H VL1

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 28 October 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Robeckk (article contribs). Peer reviewers: EmBean02.

— Assignment last updated by Robeckk (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Lets keep the age ranges as they currently are

Previously the ages kept getting bumped to the point of absurdity. They didn't align at all with the actual ages presented in the book and it seemed like people with personal agendas were changing the definitions and eventually it added to more confusion. Lets not make that mistake again. Idiocy building upon more idiocy. Somehow 12-14 got cut out of adolescence at one point, what a mess. The ages as currently listed align with the ones in the book.

I think some people make the mistake of thinking for example, if 12 is the end of the school-age range, then 13 must be the beginning of the next range. Not so. They often intersect. It's why 18 is simultaneously adolescent and adult. They should be politely reminded of this. Sometimes this leads to people knowing they intersect and then increasing the age range for shcool-age children up to 13, and then 14, and so on. It's the snowballing of confusion and mistakes made by various editors that go unchanged for years. Common sense takes a long time to kick in and of course there are users who make dozens of accounts to encourage this strange agenda.

Schwarbage (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Developmental Psychology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 February 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mar2203 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: 5150EditWiki, B2fjbL103, Nufinder.

— Assignment last updated by Explorepsych (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AnneMilo (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by AnneMilo (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Early childhood

birth to six years 72.27.62.176 (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Section about neglect

This entire section is a tangent of a subtopic (risk factors), is largely uncited, and seems like a coatrack. Why should neglect have an entire section while child abuse gets passing mentions when relevant? Unless someone thinks otherwise, I vote for deleting the entire section and folding the actually cited parts into the section on risk factors. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 01:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Project zorgo shut down YouTube and your year eve 2607:FB91:119B:8D56:AC39:5937:4F52:D9E5 (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)