Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Broken Link
Under "Internal physiological changes at birth" there is a link labeled "see suction in biology" which does not link properly. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.89.240.117 (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Cute Newborn Pictures Video
Biggest Newborn
Anyone know what was the biggest new born on record? I remember seeing it on the news years ago. This massive Tongan thing about 3 times the size of an average baby. I've not been able to find any details about it since. If it was born in America, man we wouldn't stop hearing about it. Can anyone dig this info up? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.96.111 (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
So far all I have found is this 17 pounder: 17-pound baby born in Russia. It's not specified if this is in fact the largest baby on record though.--124.171.90.100 (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Learn to Spell
I have to say it is the highest pinnacle of ignorance to lock a page with obvious grammar and spelling errors. Do you not see that there is something seriously wrong with "Children need a relatively larger amount of sleep to function correctly... specially after feeding."? I wonder if there is something specially wrong with that sentence. I don't see anything specially wrong, or specially bad, specially considering this page has been locked it must be specially perfect.
As for the "races of babies" nonsense, let me just note that the photos are photos of the contributors' children. The racial makeup of these baby pictures has a lot to do with who edits Wikipedia articles. The lack of diversity here reflects a greater need for diversity in Wikipedia editing as a whole. Throwing out percentages like a gauntlet isn't going to get people to scour the internet for non-copyrighted images when they can just pull a picture of their own kid off their SD card. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.138.104.253 (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
picture?
is the naked picture required? Samphex 20:27, 20 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)
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 ?!"
"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."
Errata
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 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.
?alabio 00:34, 2004 Sep 3 (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)
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!!
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)
http://www.marnscda.com/LMR1_23_2006/DSC02924.JPG[img] --Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.94.254 (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
http://www.marnscda.com/LMR1_23_2006/DSC02924.JPG --Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.94.254 (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Weird error
The article says: "A human infant less than 28 days old is a newborn, and a newborn infant is called a neonate during the first three months of life." There is clearly something wrong with this statement. 28 days is less than 3 months, so saying that a newborn is a neonate during the first three months is wrong when the status of 'newborn' itself lasts for less than a month! I don't know what the correct term is, but this surely isn't it.
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)
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)
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 [1]
Why remove the formal medical definition from the article, but maintain mention of the legal def'n (which probably is less familiar to a layperson)? I find this particularly interesting-- as if one looks at an other version of the W-B it is right there: a child in the first year of life.[2] Nephron T|C 21:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
seven toes?
Babies have also been known to be born with seven toes.
is this really necessary? 24.234.170.197 20:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Are babies children?
I changed it from very young child to extremely young person because I think you have to be older to be considered a child. They're not even todlers yet. SamanthaG
WTF are "uber" infants?
Will the writer who added the mention of them please prove that they didn't get this idea from the Weekly World News?
72.49.220.185 08:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Circumcision
What does circumcision have to do with neonates? I'm removing the link from this article 201.23.32.2 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Human-Centric
Why is this whole article centred around HUMAN babies and infants - are we forgetting the other zillions of creatures who have babies? Surely this definition needs 'tweaking'.... Yyem 13:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC) DONE :)
anyone is totally welcome to do their own research, but a quick search a la [3] produces numerous references to Infant Animals. This is my point and backs up what I have experienced in my many dealings with VETS, who also continually refer to the very young animal as an infant. --Yyem 10:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
External links section
I cleaned up the external links section - there were a lot of low value web sites there that were basically ad portals or trying to sell stuff. I'm somewhat torn about the link to Baby Supply Kits though - it's not exactly relevant for an encylopedia article... Ciotog 21:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Breech Birth
Shouldn't we say something about breech births? Littleghostboo[ talk ] (Win an argument and leave your mark in history.) 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Protection?
Um theres alot of vandalism in this page should we request it for protection? Uchiha23 21:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Feeding
The section on infant feeding looks rather biased towards breastfeeding over formula feeding. Is this necessary? For instance infant formula is described as "heavily processed industrial milk product" and later "only breast milk is considered to have all that an infant requires to grow normally (thrive)". Not only is this not factual- it implies that infants who drink formula cannot grow normally. In fact, nearly the whole paragraph sounds like a pro-breastfeeding forum. Surey, this should be left to the breastfeeding page? Seems like all this page requires is a few sentences stating different methods to feed an infant, with links to further pages. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliditas (talk o contribs) 07:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it could mention that breastmilk is the recommended method of feeding by doctors and/or health organizations, but the quote seems superfluous. After all, the section is simply there to provide information on how infants are fed. Any more information on breastfeeding can be found on the breastfeeding page if desired. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.129.180 (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed it to include the recommendation and the reference, but removed the quote. I think this seems much more appropriate. Thoughts? --Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliditas (talk o contribs) 18:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The Newborn's Senses
This section might sensibly refer to The World of the Newborn by Daphne Maurer and Charles Maurer, which is devoted entirely to this subject and won the book award of the American Psychological Association. --Maurerc 01:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
External Link Request
I have a site that gives information about babies and the parents. One section in particular suggests things that new parents might need for their new baby. This section has comments from me (the site author) about our experience of having babies and the things we found we needed to make our role easier. The site is at:
- Concerning Aging Baby - Information about the baby stage of life from pregnancy up to toddling including the pregnancy, prenatal care, baby showers, baby gifts, baby equipment, and advice about babies.
And the section with the Things Babies Need is here:
- Concerning Aging Baby - Things Babies Need (well at least in our experience)
Hope you all like it and decide to include it on the External Links page! --Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.240.139.101 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Babies Wiring
There is nothing in this article about an infants wiring. I recently read in a scientific article that babies are born with extra wiring.I watched a show about this as well. It was on the National Geographic channel. And it was after they had tested a few infants. They understand patterns far better then any stage of human life. They understand other languages, but are cut out once at a 1yr or 6 months of age to its primary language may it be English or Hispanic. A baby can do as math, but this has to do with a lot showing a baby six beans and taking away four to make two. They understand human emotions better then we do. A infant is all about studying life. And after 6 months or 1yr(can't remember)the baby cuts out all wires to its primary systems. And the other wires kind of die.71.142.210.56 (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
What the article you refer to is describing is sometimes called the "plasticity" of the developing brain. It's not so much that babies understand more, but that their brains haven't undergone the "pruning" of connections between neurons. It is correct that there are more connections between neurons, but this doesn't mean they are smarter, it just means they haven't "hardened" the connections that are reinforced by use and eliminated the ones that don't get used. An analogy would be a patch of tall grass between several buildings. As people start to walk between buildings there are a very large number of possible paths, but all of them are not easy to travel. However, as the most popular buildings get visited, some connecting paths become established and this encourages more people to use those paths because they are easier to walk. The other less used paths fade away. This pruning of possible connections is part of the process of making travel, or in the case of the brain - thought, more efficient. Agree this is a fascinating topic, but is more appropriate under neurology or development. - See Neural development article (although it could use some further discussion as well).Hallbrianh (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Anybody cares about sources?
This page has a LOT of bold claims without any sources. According to Wikipedia policy, sources must be found or these claims must be deleted. Since this is one of a lot of pages where anonymous editors are permanently blocked out because of some vandalism in the past, there is nothing I can do to change this. --84.178.96.89 (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
What about: "Despite common misjudgements against the notion, the BPT theory, which hypothesizes that the bite of a human infant secretes a dangerous poison which contains a deadly hormone known as Bipostinitin Prelopetisinii 2-7, is currently undergoing scientific studies". I can't find any references on the page, nor any mention from some Google searches. Can any see if there are any other sources referencing this claim? (Scyon (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)).
infant playing with toys picture
If someone can give me a reason to keep it, I shall remove it. It seems out of place, and is not constructive (although cute)Tnayin (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Babys are cute little kids.
Babys are small kids.
You could just as easily say kids are big babies. SamanthaG (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Giant baby, Opinion
I added this, since I had never heard about this. If you think this is not proper here, then please edit:A giant baby however, was born in the Philippines. Maria Victoria Cervantes Santiago of San Rafael, Rodriguez, Rizal gave birth on June 11, 208 to 7th child 12.7 pounds "Renz" by normal delivery by a midwife. Newly-born babies in the Philippines usually weigh between 7 to 8 pounds.abs-cbnnews.com,'Giant baby' born to 41-yr-old mom--Florentino floro (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
So cute!
I think babies are so cute!
I weighed 3310 gm.and 51 cm.(35 3/4 cm. head).
--Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.210.50 (talk o contribs) 19:15, 6 October 2008
Information about infants in general
I failed to find any real information as to physical dimensions of infants in this article. What are the usual sizes of infants? Weight, height... I often hear people telling each other how big they or their children were when newborn. Even though there's reason enough not to say that "all infants are born weighing 3 kilograms and are 43 centimeters tall" it would be nice to know the normal variation. --Khokkanen (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
inappropriate
I think that the image of the baby breastfeeding is inappropriate. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Killer X4 (talk o contribs) 02:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Possibly removing evolutionary bias
Beginning of article states humans and other primates which leads to the believe of evolution rather than being neutral. --Preceding unsigned comment added by ICaughtAGreaseUpDeafGuyOnce (talk o contribs) 02:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Time axis
The time axis in the outline of development is wrong! There is not such a thing as "zeroth" year, or month, or week in anybody's life. After we are born we live in our FIRST year of life, until we pass 365 days of life and begand living in the SECOND year. Zero is NOT an ordinal number. The Ordinal Numbers begin with ONE. --193.71.38.142 (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Poop Machine
Can anyone explain to me why "Poop machine" redirects to "infant"?--RM (Be my friend) 02:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea; tho it can be taken uo with an administrator. 68.70.14.63 (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)unknown68.70.14.63 (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Average length (height) of newborn baby is 48-50 cm
See here http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/BronislavaBanar.shtml Purple owl (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Prohuman69, 19 February 2011
{{edit semi-protected}} i wish that,Human development (biology) was in front of "An infant or baby is the very young offspring of humans," because infant is an actual stage of human development, so there should be a link to it and Human development (biology) page has a link to the infant page, check it out for yourself.
"A newborn is an infant who is within hours, days, or up to a few weeks from birth" the birth should be changed to birth, and this text: "but certain vernacular actually claims a fetus is an baby or infant" between "offspring of humans" and "A newborn,"
it will look like this: An infant or baby is the very young offspring of humans, but certain vernacular actually claims a fetus is an baby or infant. A newborn is an...
Prohuman69 (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Not done for reasons given to you elsewhere (edit summaries). Choyoo?'??hí:Seb az86556 > hane' 21:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Edit request: Spam in External Links
The fourth entry in external links has the anchor "The impact of buggy orientation on parent-infant interaction and infant stress", but it does not link to that study -- instead it links to http://www.babypramsonline.com/ which appears to be a spam site. The actual article that the link should point to is http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/130340.php (a report about the study) or http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/assets/0000/2524/Buggy_research.doc (a DOC file containing the study itself). --Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.188.239 (talk)
Dichotomy issue
Stages_of_human_development#Physical_stages_of_human_life lists the first two subsets of Child (birth - puberty) as:
- Neonate (newborn) (0 - 30 days)
- Infant (baby) (1 month - 12 months)
Only infant (this article) is linked, I found out why because all 3 of the other terms redirect to infant. The only thing is, if neonate/newborn is a separate preceding class of individual, why is it that it lacks its own page and directs here? If this article is about both, then it should be about a group that encompasses the others. DB (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Weight conversion
7.5lb ~ 3.4kg, not 3.2kg. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.143.5.160 (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Link remove from external link for being spam?
I had inserted a link to a blog with information about babies health and made by new parents. I'm told it's spam and my link was remove? I don't understand that. I'm well aware that you use nofollow on your link and I just though our website could be a good addition to the external links as we're told by a lot of parents that they liked the advices that can be found on our page.
I find it a bit offensive to be told that our site is spam when I consider it's all good contant and well designed. for review :
Thanks -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Philgaut (talk o contribs) 17:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Human Reaction to Infants
Should there be a section on human reaction to infants? Discomfort and disgust, for instance, are quite common, outside of the infant's immediate family. - MSTCrow 21:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Also one can feel a pang of hunger or sexual lust. This is not to say that I would eat a baby or have sex with it. I'm merely providing examples of the human range of emotion towards babies.86.178.52.122 (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
File:Persianchild.jpg Nominated for Deletion
races of babies
Considering only 16% of the world population is white, and probably no more than 6-7% of newborns, why are all the images of white babies. Even in the USA, probably 50% of newborns, if not more, are hispanic or black. There should be some diversity in the pictures of the newborns.babys are so cute!!!
I agree... there should be some multi - cultural images. Spicy Banana 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. A baby is a baby. The skin color of the organism is quite immaterial in this case. - MSTCrow 21:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is apparently owned by white people so black babies are not needed.
Stop being so easily offended. It is ridiculous. I am Asian, and I am not threaten by seeing a white baby. Keep that white baby, he is funny. What is next? Pick baby picture based on their sex? Too many baby boys instead of baby girls? How about too many babies lying on their backs instead of their tummies? I will tell you what is unrepresentive. There are too many happy baby pictures. Babies are not alway happy. We should have some crying and angry babies here.
Chemicalkinetics 4:55, 29 October 2007 (ETC)
I think we can all agree that people who solely look at the color of skin is ignorant. Aside from the first baby who looks like he has fetal alcohol syndrome, most people look at the pictures and say "look at the cute baby." But now that you mention it, I've noticed that white babies are now under represented in this article. For the sake of real diversity, do any of you care to fix this? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.136.176 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like the only people getting easily offended here are those who think it isn't at all weird that 11 out of these 12 infants are white. It is highly naive to believe there isn't anything significant to this fact. Does this ratio represent English Wikipedia's editor base? Does it represent English Wikipedia's user base? It is so stupid to act like a white-to-non-white ratio of 11/12 is the same as a crying-to-not-crying ratio. It is so insulting to say "Well I'm not white and I'm OK with this therefore everyone should be OK with this." Post-racial world my ass. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.12.40 (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
a new food source
babys are food 69.76.52.74 (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Whole bunch of white folk
Do we have any photos of babies that are not Caucasian that we could insert or use to replace one or more of the existing photos? The current photos are very nice but not terribly diverse. --ElKevbo 11:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I could be wrong on this, but several of the photos already on the page look like they may be of infants from other ethnic backgrounds. Certainly more than one of the infants featured could be Latino (maybe the infant under "The newborn's senses") and the first photo could be an Asian infant. Of course, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish what ethnicity a young infant might be, and none of the infants are blonde. To that end, perhaps a photo featuring both the infant and the parent of another ethnic background (to clarify matters) would suffice? Possibly the breastfeeding photo if one is able to be found? --Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliditas (talk o contribs) 19:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
is anyone else here embarrassed by the fact that all seven images on the page depict Caucasian babies?
What kind of encyclopedia are you writing, here?146.6.25.210 (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Too many "cute baby" pictures
The article is plastered with too many pictures of random babies. Is it supposed that the reader has no idea what a baby looks like? Or are people obsessed with putting a picture of their darling little one up for everyone to admire? Pictures should illustrate something and not be a redundant image farm. Show: preemies, fat infants, malnourished infants, different races, infants with some diseases or conditions. Not just a bunch of photos of typical babies. Some cleanup is needed. Edison (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
"Delta Airlines"
There is no Delta Airlines but there is a Delta Air Lines. When I become autoconfirmed I will return to correct that error --Above others (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Requested move
Edit request on 8 May 2013
This site has been put on facebook and imported pictures of my family and friends without authorization , I would like this page taken away and a full blown apology to the hundreds /thousands of people that this is causing unrest to , I do not want pictures of my grandchildren broadcasted over the internet for the likes of perverts and other sick padophiles to see , I am not the only person who feels strongly about this and would request a response!!!!!!!!!!
This is a matter of great importance , and you can contact me on the email address below
[email redacted]
94.174.53.165 (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Baby animals
I originally searched baby in order to find out about baby animals, not only human infants. Why does this article only mention humans? Humans aren't the only ones that are babies. The baby article should be expanded into an actual article/stub with descriptions and images of many different baby animals, otherwise having baby redirect to infant is a bit biased towards human babies. What's up with this systemic bias? Anyone want to help turn the redirect into a stub? - M0rphzone (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC) are you taking the piss I have followed the links from facebook from a page the has pics of my children on which I have not given permission for what the hell is this all about ????? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.190.33 (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 20 May 2013
Just to inform you there is a Facebook page 'About new borns' linked to Wikipedia who is hacking into Facebook accounts and using personal photos without permission. Is there any way this can be removed as its an infringement of our personal data. 86.149.4.144 (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
then If you know about it stop it from happening -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.190.33 (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Edit Request
Mothers suckle whereas infants suck so "The need to suckle is instinctive" should be changed. Source: Professor Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.254.222.53 (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Suggested Citation
The page is semi-protected so I can't add this myself:
This sentence says citation need:
"It has been shown that neonates show a preference for the smell of foods that their mother ate regularly, since the amniotic fluid changes taste with different foods eaten by the mother - as does breastmilk."
Here is a suitable citation:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11389286 -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Satur9nine (talk o contribs) 23:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2014
Change the last sentence of the paragraph on weight from: After the first week, healthy term neonates should gain 10-20 gram/kg*day. to: After the first week, healthy term neonates should gain 10-20 gram/day.
Note, from a mathematical perspective 10 gram/kg*day = 10/1000 * day = 1/100 * day.
Also consider the citation of http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/565624_6 in addition. Chtompki (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Bairn wrong
the Bairn article does not indicate it is synonymous with baby, but with child and possibly baby too. Should be changed and a link put here. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.253.40 (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
American World View
Regrettably, this is another example of the American View being presented without qualification as the World View. The narrow American definition of the term Infant is not echoed everywhere in the English-speaking world. In the UK, for example, Infant School refers to children aged between four and seven, as mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school . --621PWC (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Wording sounds racist
In first world nations...Why not use developed countries/nations -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.153.73 (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Citation Provided
Sources for Response to sound section- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/desc.12091/abstract;jsessionid=E75CC836C1671F0A70F055B9662C3D86.f01t04. I can Provide more such citations but I cannot edit because article is locked. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.97.42.213 (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Use of term "infant"
The link is clearly very helpful IMO and I have returned it. Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
re soft or downy, please see [4] Gandydancer (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon