Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:51, 20 September 2006

picture?

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

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

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

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

At least let me fix the grammar in that paragraph. All I am removing is poor grammar, POV, and redundancy. The word "committed" has a negative connotation. The "to remove a portion of the genitalia" is redundant with the first sentence. No need to repeat is. Saying it lasts until adulthood is obvious, and calling it mutilation is POV and contentious, as you should be aware from previous debates. Rhobite 14:59, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I fixed a few things to clear up POV. However, lasting into adulthood is in no way obvious, as many boys have believed their foreskin would grow back. You should know mutilation is a neutral term, as it's defined in the English language-- it makes no value judgement, though that is a cultural association, not a literal one. I think the term "Muslim" was redundant, as the description refers to matters of a parent's religion and the related debate and issues. DanP 15:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Ŭalabio 01:35, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

Errata

Point of fact, Saint Nicolas was intact. He had intact genitals. I should have taken the opportunity to point this out when I mentioned Santa Claus as something in which children believe.

In addition to "see also," ¿may we also keep our external link? as it may help parents realized that the Ob/Gyns just want more money and mutilating babies is bad for the baby. I cannot speak for others, but although, I would like our external link, I would settle for just "see also."

Ŭalabio 02:10, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

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

I'm sorry you misunderstood me, but I agree with Theresa and Vina - circumcision pov does not belong here. A link to the article in see also is fine. Please stop expanding the scope of your circumcision pov. Rhobite 19:05, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

You beat me to the edit. Basically, that paragraph you (DanP) added, the only information that is relevant is the first sentence, and some is blatantly false. (not done outside of the United States?) I support linking in the see also field. -Vina 19:09, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nothing was false, as the description said "frequently", but you clipped it off to make your point. Outside the US, RIC is not frequent. Let's keep relevant links in. But it seems strange to leave out this much info about infants, as the process of cutting them up is routine in some places, as was done to me. Expectant parents I guess you think should work without having this info immediately available, I take it? DanP 19:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disagree, a quick perusal of the circumcision article proves you incorrect, there are countries that definitely do it "frequently". that are outside of the US. It is factually incorrect. Expectant parents can take a look at the see also articles. btw, CIRP is hardly a neutral site, which is needed if this is all you're going to link to. In any case, it is referred to from the circumcision article. I will remove. -Vina 20:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe I am wrong on this one. Male newborns are most often left intact in other countries, except based on a parent's religious motivation. The handful of routinely circumcising nations out there usually have a higher instance of childhood or puberty initiations. The US is the only one that does RIC most of the time, to my knowledge anyway. In any case, CIRP is the most diverse link out there. Infant is the subject in this case, and pure neutrality of every issue does not exist anywhere. Pain and feelings of violation are not something omitted from descriptions of human experience, you can find countless examples in this encyclopedia. DanP 23:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue anymore about the paragraph removed, as I'm satisified with the link in the see also section. However, I have yet again removed the cirp link. Again, I remind you that people interested in Circumcision can easily get to that link from the appropriate page. and that Circumcision is not, in any way shape or form avoided. The see also section is pretty prominent. There is no justification in adding it here when the same information is repeated elsewhere, and when it is of questionable neutrality. -Vina 00:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Ŭalabio 00:34, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

My main problem is actually not that circumcision is referenced here. My main problem is that the entire point of the edit war over at circumcision is about the cirp link. To include it here is to invite the edit war here also, which has arguably already started. This issue is best resolved at circumcision. Even after concensus is reached there, I'm not sure that it belongs here, as it is duplicate information, which is easily gotten to by clicking on the circumcision link in the see also section. I haven't really decided on my position in that regard. -Vina 01:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I stated, I like the link, it is a good link, but I would settle for a mere "see also." As long as the circumcisiophiliacs do not add a link promoting Routine Infant-Circumcision as a way of preventing blindness and insanity or whatever lie they use this weekis so that they should get their jollies at the expense of a poor innocent baby, I would be willing to let the link go. I cannot speak for the other Intactivists, but as long as the circumcisiophiliacs have no links, I would be happy with no links other than Also Related."

Ŭalabio 01:37, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

I absolutely hate comments like this. They accomplish nothing except to infuriate. You know perfectly well that those who disagree with you are not conspiring against you or the world's uncut babies, so please stop implying it. Thank you. --Ardonik.talk() 03:33, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Nice. That seems like an emotional outburst, Ardonik, not relevant to this article. I was an uncut baby once. Discussing the motives behind an act, or who is subjected to the act, is perfectly relevant to these articles. I hope you can agree. DanP 15:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not to this article though, it is completely off topic here. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 00:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Freebies/cheapies - how would we know why?

It used to say this: Fees for transportation and entrance fees at locations such as amusement parks or museums are often waived; this is generally because the baby is not there for its own enjoyment, but because it cannot be left at home. I've changed it to this: Fees for transportation and entrance fees at locations such as amusement parks or museums are often waived. I changed it because I cannot see how this is other than speculation. There are plenty of possible reasons why this might happen but I don't see any reason for going for this particular one, unless you have serious evidence from museums, transport operators, amusement parks etc confirming that this is so. Otherwise, I think it is just a guess and do not think that is useful in this article. 138.37.188.109 17:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The image

I notice that all the pictures are of little white babies. Maybe we can have some diversity here? Believe me, I work in a hospital that serves a minority population and our little Mexican, African-American, and Asian babies are just as cute! --64.131.187.185 23:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

HAHAHAHA --vex5 06:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

those babies might not be white. i looked very white as a baby, and i am far from it, now. but i do agree with the diversity thing. it's just harder to tell with a baby. --Colorfulharp233 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Title of article

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

Sorted. violet/riga (t) 01:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! That was quick; I was trying to be polite in reverting the move. Thanks though. Samw 01:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a thin line between formality and pretention. Most people refer to children under the age of a toddler as a baby. The word "baby" might not be standard in medical textbooks - but its clearly not so informal that, say, journalists avoid it. I find the whole way the article studiously avoids the word baby throughout very grating - it sounds like hacky 3rd-rate legal drafting. However, I don't object to the title 'Infant' - the real reason for the title is surely that the word Infant has a more precise medical definition, and has nothing to do with the "formality" of different terms. --Danward 00:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Weird error

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

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

Images of normal babies

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

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

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

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

Infant Mortality

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

Definition

Moved from User talk:Samw:

Reverting infant

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

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