Talk:Adultism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Call to Remove NPOV Tag[edit]

This article is filled with citations that can are verifiable; I propose to remove its NPOV tag. Freechild 14:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that ADHD is made up is totally ludicrous, I am removing it.

Phrased like that, I would agree with you. I'll point out, though, that there's significant controversy surrounding its treatment and classification as a disease. CameoAppearance orate 12:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

I have issue with the statement, "Adultism is ostensibly caused by fear of children and youth.[1]"

Nope. I'd have to include that, while a "feature" it is not the "cause." I'm a practicing "adultist" and I DON'T LIKE children and youth. I certainly don't fear the loud, noisy, little attention-seeking bastards. In the colloquial sense, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.10.49 (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Conversation[edit]

Perhaps some explanation of how "Adultism" is present in the given phrases would be appropriate. It appears as though Adultism is made to be a negative behavior; yet some of these phrases appear (to me) to be perfectly acceptable.

Hopefully, some of this is addressed a little better in the latest edit. Aaronwinborn 02:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, this is a real term and a real topic -- even if the concept is highly debatable. BCorr|Брайен 11:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, it should be just fixed, rather than being deleted entirely (as FlareNUKE did). I have reverted the deletion of that section, and I am currently writing explanations of why said phrases are adultist. Rory096 1:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have the deleted the "Understanding Adultism" link becuase the cookies it sent to my computer had viruses on it.-RainyDayCrow

"Co-counseling"[edit]

_ _ It seems implausible & in any case unverifiable to attribute the term to a presumably amorphous "grassroots" co-counseling while avoiding reference to hierarchical orgs: Re-evaluation Counseling(IIRC) coiners of "co-counseling", & its presumed service-mark-claimants, Co-Counselling International.
_ _ It is also a distortion to talk as if whoever coined the term is responsible for the subject of this article, which is the concept the article creator chose to refer to by this term. The chances are excellent that Adultism should be a redirect to another article, after this one is merged into it. Determining what that article is should be on the agenda here until there is a consensus that there is no suitable article already in existence.
--Jerzy•t 14:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard and used the term on many occasions over the past few years, none of which through co-counseling. I have heard it in particular in discussions about unschooling, democratic schools, and Sudbury model schools. None of these have any relation to co-counseling, so even if the word originated there, it is certainly not being used exclusively by co-counselors any more.

Unless someone can present another article dealing more suitably with this subject, I would be against merging this article into another, as there is a growing awareness of the concept of adultism. The topic deserves to be heard. Aaronwinborn 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Why is there just the claim that adultism is the cause of all oppression(!) and no cite or explanation?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.250.221.131 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The above cmt was added to this section of the talk page 7 to 10 months after the other contributions that existed at that time, but above them (perhaps in clueless imitation of listserve/UseNet style). I have moved it to its proper sequence at the end of the section, without making any judgment about whether there is any hint of appropriateness in its being included in this section.
    --Jerzy•t 01:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems biased[edit]

As much as I am anti-adultist, I don't think that the adult side of the situation seems to be represented enough. This article is very comprehensive to how adultist views can be dismissed, I haven't found an "adultist rebuttal" in the article. Once I see one, I will re-evaluate my opinion. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the same token, I think you'll find that the Racism article doesn't give the same amount of time to racists as it gives to anti-racists. This is in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy; specifically, "articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views". [1] I agree that the article isn't complete, but I think that NPOV tag should be removed, noting the difference between bias and incompleteness. » K i G O E | talk 16:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could be the wording, but the article seems to me like a child's rant about his parents... Specially the paragraph against those MADD. I don't know who these mothers are, and don't care (they do no harm in Spain), but the paragraph just throws assertions about their (incorrect and silly) views and methods... Which asks for the replica: "and who says that?". Let's remember this is an encyclopaedia. --euyyn 20:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it's clearly missing proper citations for the assertions and written in a horribly informal tone. Bayerischermann 20:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that the adult viewpoint is the majority viewpoint, not the minority. I would think there are many more people in the world who believe children lack some of the rights adults enjoy than believe the opposite. Applejuicefool 19:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is going to remain disputed as adultism seems to be a generally accepted practise, and adressing it as a form of discrimination is going to upset a large number of people. Many things considered normal are called biased when the facts are given. Adressing the facts about racism one hundred years ago would most likely be called biased in favour of the minorities. That is what seems to be occuring now. It will probably remain disputed for a while to come. Faranya 02:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that "adultism" would mean the hatred of adults by teens. Shouldn't the word be "teenism"? --Charlene 06:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that it was intended to be formed along the same lines as racism and sexism and the like, "adultism" would actually mean "discrimination against one particular type/subset of adults" (and "teenism" the same, only discrimination against a subset of teenagers instead). Ageism would appear to be the correct term in that case, but it usually refers to prejudice/discrimination against the elderly. CameoAppearance orate 01:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term "adultism" is premised on a similar structure as heterosexism; namely, adultism is a predisposition towards adults, which some see as biased against children, youth, and all young people who aren't addressed or viewed as adults. User:Freechild 19:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that ageism is the more appropriate term, but Wikipedia isn't the place to have that discussion. Wikipedia only needs to know whether the term adultism exists (it does) and what it means (which the article states accurately). The article is properly sourced and is accurate, there is no cause for a bias tag. If you have a problem with people advancing the notion of adultism then complain to the people advancing it, don't flag an article explaining that phenomena. KPalicz 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the facetious alternate term presented above, namely "teenism," the term adultism was not made up today. Instead there is an authentic etymological history and popular usage that extends far beyond one person's imagination. More so, the term ageism is inherently adultist, as those who proclaim it's supercession of the term adultism are clearly deny the necessity of identifying adultism as a legitimate oppression. User:Freechild 04:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying its legitimacy (I've been a victim of adultism myself) as a type of oppression. I simply believe that "ageism" would be the better term, etymologically speaking, on parallel with sexism and racism, because what we know as adultism (as well as the discrimination against senior citizens that "ageism" is currently applied to) consists, like sexism and racism, of the oppression of and/or discrimination against one group by another, dominant, group. However, ageism is already taken as a descriptive term, so adultism (similar to the word heterosexism - although that was coined because "sexual-orientationism" or somesuch is awkward and clunky to say) fills that void. CameoAppearance orate 22:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important to acknowledge that the use of ageism is already appropriately taken, as it describes discrimination related to any age. If I was in the position to choose the word, I would probably go with youthism, or teenism, just like I think the fruit referred to as a cherry would be better addressed as a carmine. However, the simple fact of the matter is that there is an etymological history to adultism that starts at least 30 years ago, and seriously debating re-titling the term would be roughly equivalent to teaching a 3-year-old to enjoy carmines. Freechild 00:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disappeared?[edit]

Is it just my computer, or has this article disappeared? I'm getting a "This article doesn't exsist..." page when it's entered or searched for. The discussion and history pages are still there, but no article. I'm not exactly a wikipedia expert, so I don't know. Cheers, My baloney 11:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disconcerting. It is gone, without any explanation or history. Freechild 13:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I had to remove some vandalism in the first paragraph, which read: "Those with the common sense of a hamster often do not view adultism as a negative; many 10-year olds are in fact unsuited to fly fighter jets." Purple Is Pretty 00:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I agree with that phrase. Punkymonkey987 (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, unless you have been published in a reliable source, sharing your opinion here is the same as vandalism and directly violates the request inside the talkheader at the top of this page, which clearly states that, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adultism article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Please keep your opinions to yourself, unless they are specifically about improving the article. Thanks. • Freechild'sup? 13:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Religion[edit]

How is that a form of institutionalized adultism? --Armaetin 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if this has nothing to do with your question (it's 3:30 A.M., so I might not be reading your question correctly), but, perhaps forcing children to go to religious institutions like Catholic schools, church, etc. is what you're looking for? --Alexc3 (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the forced circumcision among the Jews. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Teenagers and children don't have the right to vote, own property, possess money, buy anything, can't chose who they live with or where they can live (with relatives), no right of association with people (parents choose who they can be with) and don't have every right guaranteed by the US constitution (in the case of American teens). It's just teens are seen as too young, inexperienced in life and immature to behave properly in public or society. + —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.2.206 (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I read the article and this talk page I was disturbed by the remarkable lack of credible examples of adultism in the article (in conflict with its obvious "this article is right and if you disagree you're wrong" tone). Then I came across this small discussion, which completely underscored the problem. The article is in need of clearly defining —- or at least discussing — where the line is drawn between necessary parenting and/or social restrictions and adultism. I hope it appears obvious that a four-year-old cannot be left at home when the adults want to attend church. It's actually illegal in the United States to do so. The four-year-old isn't actually capable of expressing an opinion on the matter that justifies whether or not the choice is or is not in his or her best interest, and the goals of advocates against the child's attendance would be indistinguishable from people who are simply against the religion. Is the law forcing parents to not leave children unattended institutional adultism? Are laws (perhaps by definition) of any kind institutional adultism? If not, which laws are and which laws aren't? Indeed, as written, the article appears to advocate that adultism is defined as any restriction imposed on a child for any reason — whether that restriction is in the child's best interest or not. The Royal Society once recommended that the age of criminal responsibility is too low due to limitations in the brain's development[1]. It would seem obvious that punishing a child who is unable to understand the issue is adultism, but doesn't that necessitate the education and associated restrictions necessary to avoid breaking the law in the first place aren't? Without examples I was also unable to apply context to the poll by the Children's Rights Alliance for England which suggests nearly half of all children experience some form of discrimination due to their youth. How, exactly, does a child come to that conclusion? When an adult refuses to allow a ten-year-old to drive a car, would that ten-year-old not claim to be discriminated against? In short, this article is missing empirical examples to demonstrate the difference between adultism and the necessary restirctions imposed on children by parents, educators, and society — and that lack is beautifully demonstrated by Alexc3, who I must assume (without any other context available to me) believes that no child, regardless of age, should be taken to church without the child's express permission. Without those examples (examples that can be applied generally to all children), the article is naturally biased. Howick (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion, but I think it's a supportable one: Children are not capable of everything, but by the same token, they are not INcapable of everything either. Children are not perfectly competent judges of their own self-interest, but depending on the circumstances they are often competent enough.
When an adult is incompetent in some aspects, someone else may gain the right to take over for them in those areas of incompetence. However, it is abusive to overstep by taking control of other things as well, in which that adult is not incompetent.
In my opinion, adultism is when adults overstep by taking control in areas where a particular child is not actually incompetent. Just as with other adults, this concept is especially important in cases where the two individuals' self-interest might be in conflict.
Most ten-year-olds can't be trusted fly a fighter jet, but then again most people of ANY age can't be trusted to fly a fighter jet. :)
Competency is the issue, not age. Age is a very poor proxy for competency. And just as we do with another adult, a child should be presumed competent in each area unless there is evidence that they are not. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/brain-waves/responsibility-law/

POV issues[edit]

This article seems to assume that adultism is a) an extant phenomenon; b) an undesirable one. Any claims that both of these assumptions are indisputably the views of a large majority need to be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Even then, though, the racism article doesn't take the same negative tone as this one does. As such, I've placed the dreaded {{NPOV}} tag on this article. Powers T 18:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your straw man argument assumes a) that the reliable sources cited throughout the article are false; and b) that you are an authority on the topic. With regards to a), you are dismissing the sources cited by denying the existence of adultism. In reference to b) you are interpreting the facts presented, again in dismissal of the citations. I would suggest that you review both of the aforementioned policies. On the basis of those points alone your POV tag is inappropriate; find a authentic and/or real issue within an article before you try to mark it inaccurate. • Freechild'sup? 21:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article can be slanted even if that slant is supported by citations. I've restored the POV tag until we can generate some more discussion and a clear consensus. PowersT 19:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, some topics are simply slanted one way or the other, as your citation of racism shows. If you don't like the so-called "negative-tone" of this article then find citations that support a different perspective; as it stands, tagging a fully-cited article with a POV tag is tantamount to you behaving as an authority. The responsibility for proving the citations at hand to be biased falls on the shoulders of differing citations, which with the topic at hand simply do not exist. You should reconsider your perspective regarding this article. • Freechild'sup? 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support Freechild's position. LtPowers, I think the burden of proof is on you. If you can't find references that support counter-arguments to the statements in this article, you should at least specify which of these statements violates NPOV. Otherwise, the NPOV tag should be removed.EIFY (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with EIFY and Freechild. KPalicz (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Powers, its been almost a month since you last commented on your NPOV tag, and two editors have shared concerns since then. Your continued silence will indicate consent to remove the tag. • Freechild'sup? 00:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further passing agreement with the above. forestPIG 19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with Freechild. The sources are reliable, yes, but they all support anti-adultism, which gives the article a bias. I find it unlikely that there are no reliable sources which support the age of consent, drinking age, driving age, compulsory education, online filters, or the economic dependence of children on adults. And yet, none are cited in the article. I've restored the NPOV tag.bob bobato (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC) + theBOBbobato (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article heavily implies that any different treatment of children versus adults is a result of intentional discrimination with no other purpose but to keep children subservient to or dependent upon adults. Sourced or not, the implication is preposterous. I see the article has not improved much since I first expressed my concern. Powers T 18:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To my best knowledge, there is no "pro-adultism" argument as supporting biases against children in the social study literature. Bob bobato, you are more than welcomed to add them if you find some, but until then your argument "they all support anti-adultism, which gives the article a bias." doesn't follow. Now, there ARE arguments supporting specific discriminatory measures against children, but they can already be found in their respective articles (e.g. Age of consent reform), where they belong. Moreover, such arguments rarely address the issue of adultism, as far as I know. Again, if you find some, you are more than welcomed to add them. Persistent accusations of NPOV violation without concrete proposals are not constructive to the quality of the article, and reactions are not good substitutes for well-formulated opinions. Again, if no concrete edits or proposals are put forth, the NPOV tag should be removed after certain wait period. EIFY (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well there isn't very much adultism social science lit, period. A search on Proquest for 'adultism' only returned 6 results (including 3 newspapers), on EBSCOhost it only appeared 4 times, and on PSYCHarticles it doesn't appear at all. The only academic article which used the word adultism was about Youth Organizations ("Insist or Enlist? Adultism Versus Climates of Excellence"). I suggest that some of the extreme statements in the article be removed, or at least elaborated. In particular I'm thinking about the lists of 'adultisms', with such entries as 'Compulsory education' and 'Literature' , which links to Harry Potter. An acceptable article, for me, would focus on actual child abuse and perhaps artistic/academic negligence, and leave out the 'discrimination' and 'oppression' silliness.theBOBbobato (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not skeptical about the results you got, Bob bobato, it seems that you were barking up the wrong tree. To the very least, I would expect more of the citations in the article themselves to show up with more comprehensive or targeted search engines, and indeed Google Scholar returned ~690 results. As a matter of fact though, adultism is about discrimination/oppression and there is nothing silly about it. Get rid of that, there will be nothing left by definition. About the list entries you mentioned, I agree that the Harry Potter link is quite a stretch and in general the Culture Adultism part needs some elaboration and counterpoints. However, 'Compulsory education' does belong here, as the current laws distinguish people based on age instead of ability: young people above certain age are free to drop out, and illiterate adults are never forced to go back to school, even though they haven't acquired the skills deemed necessary in the modern society. EIFY (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've skimmed over the adultism articles on Google Scholar, and I find that most of them have a different definition of the term than Wikipedia. Here, adultism is "prejudiced 'discrimination' against minors", but on Google Scholar it's merely "an adult's interpretation of children's behaviours or abilities, and the abuse of adult's power on children". I agree now, most of the examples of adultism in the article are correct, but the given causes are problematic. The article seems to be implying that children are mentally and competently equal to adults, and anything which treats them differently is 'unfair' or 'oppressive', like racism or sexism. That is of course not true, the average child is not as competent as the average adult, and adultism is nothing like racism or sexism. In most cases, Discrimination against social groups is only a problem when the discriminating factors are arbitrary or superficial, like skin colour or sex. Age is not an arbitrary factor, since most minors simply are not as capable as adults due to their less-developed cognitive abilities and lack of experience. A 5 or 8 year can't be trusted to decide if they want to attend school, for example.
I propose that in the article, the causes of adultism should be linked to adults' perception of Youth and Developmentalist theories (such as Piaget and Vygotsky), while keeping most of the examples and making the differences clear between 'common-sense' adultist practices such as the 'Age of Consent', and actual abuses of adult power.theBOBbobato (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are some legitimate citations on Google Scholar that define adultism more along the line of discrimination, e.g. "behaviors and attitudes based on the assumptions that adults are better than young people, and entitled to act upon young people without agreement" (mentioned in "The Context of Power -- Young People as Evaluators" - American Journal of Evaluation, 2007). Now, I do agree that the current article goes overboard in certain parts (say, the opening definition) and starts to imply that all children should be treated as adults, which is ridiculous. That said, I have to disagree with the statement that "Age is not an arbitrary factor" and take a more nuanced stance. Yes, a 5 or 8-year-old can't be trusted to make his own decision alone in most conceivable circumstances, but that doesn't mean that a 15 or 17-year-old should also get his freedom stripped in the name of parental rights. In general, adultism is less of a problem for young children since the society's treatment roughly matches their abilities, but more of a problem for adolescents since they in average are getting closer and closer to the competency level of adults, but often times not treated as such -- a nuance not helped by the daily and legal language that bundle everyone under 18 as "child". All said, it seems to me that there is a more established middle ground supported by the literature body, and we should take the article in that direction. I will go ahead and swap out the current opening sentence. EIFY (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MADD[edit]

I added Mothers Against Drunk Driving in the "see also" section, and it was immediately removed. I think a link to the MADD article should be in that section, as MADD is possibly the largest and most influential adultist orgainzation in North America. MADD's agenda isn't one against drunk driving, but one of promoting hatred and prejudice against young people, therefore I think it should be included in that section. 96.21.185.101 (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about other causes of adultism or teenage depravity: "moralists", social conservatives, "nanny state" types, public education and a majority of churches known for traditional values on teens submit to their parents' authority? It seems to be stronger in the US and western countries about the "moral sanctity" or sacrosanct nature not to challenge legal age of consent or that a 16 year old can have rights a 21 year old can have. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too support the inclusion of MADD in this article, either as its own section or as a link in the "See Also" section. There is a direct link between their support of adultist policies and police harassment and persecution of people 21 and under in the United States. As a major impetus behind adultist policies and public opinion, MADD deserves inclusion as a concrete example of this phenomenon. Lothar76 (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Including any organization as an example needs a reliable source, which in this case would be something verifiable, like an academic paper or a book. Until then, no name-calling. • Freechildtalk 04:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal age[edit]

The ultimate act of adultism is states and countries define when is an adult an "adult", such as 18 in the United States (a majority of states have it in their constitutions) and the drinking age remains at 21 for most of the US. The state of California seems to hold the concept of adult age in a strict way, despite how socially liberal that state can be on no-fault divorce (esp. the feminists and women's rights groups support this) in the 1960's and age discrimination (over age 50) laws that strictly prohibit workplace discrimination on older adults or seniors. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wizarding World?[edit]

I fail to see how "Wizarding World" directly relates to "Literature" beneath the Cultural Adultism header as per the article's topic; I've changed the link so it redirects to "Childrens Literature", rather than "Wizarding World". 76.211.140.40 (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede -- definition[edit]

I'm not too sure about that lede sentence:

Adultism is "the power adults have over children"

It's an -ism, so it wouldn't be "the power". -ism is used in a lot of ways (see Wiktionary def), but here I think here it's used in the sense of ideology or doctrine, see Wiktionary def #6. (Alterntively an "action or process" (wikt #1) but that seems wrong -- "He performed adultism" seems unlikely (although "He suffered from adultism" (in the sense of being the victim of acts rather than having a disease) or "He performed an act of adultism" sound OK, so this is possibly arguable.) It could also mean a predisposition, which can be related to holding a doctrine or not, so it could mean "...predisposition to favor adults" or "...predisposition to act like an adult" or "...desire to be an adult" and any number of things, but that's not what this article is about so if those are alternate definitions we don't need to worry about that. But it seems that it should be something like one of these two (or possibly combine them):

  • "Adultism the the belief that adults should have power over children"
  • "Adultism is the act of exerting power over children by adults"

But this is pretty broad. I'd say that basically no one would, in belief or action, purposely fail to control a young child in certain situations, say when she's sticking a metal object into an electrical socket, so 100% of adults would be adultists in this sense, which renders the term meaningless. What I think is being talked about is inordinate or inappropriate control, giving us

  • "Adultism the the belief that adults should have inordinate power over children"
  • "Adultism is the act of exerting inordinate control over children by adults"

But now we're getting into la-la land we're I'm just speculating on what the term might mean. So it's time to look at source. Doing that, I right away see (from Wikipedia mirrors) that this is a new lede, cut down quite a bit from a recent version. So I don't want to move forward unless this is a stable lede... I'm just saying it needs work, at least from the current version. Herostratus (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that I drew the definition directly from the article that is cited. Flasher's article is widely cited in academic literature as the first study examining adultism, and his definition is given credence. I moved all the other information formerly in the lede into the article. I am leery to alter the definition from this source. • Freechildtalk 02:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cite of Freeman is only valid if she's a lexicographer. If she's correct, them a phrase such as "He has adultism" (meaning "He has power over children") would be grammatical. It's a malformation; other -ism words aren't used that way. If it's a common malformation that'd be different (and we should note that). I'd want to see some examples of usages such as "She has outstanding adultism" (meaning good classroom control) and so forth. I haven't seen any yet (and I'm looking). It's also a third of a century old, which is old for such a dynamic topic; usage changes. There's got to be a better cite. If we're going to stand by it as our definition, we should remove the quotes, also.
Dictionary.com doesn't have a definition, nor does Merriam-Webster, nor Britannica. This is a problem, and we'll have to look elsewhere for neutral scholarly refs. Wiktionary does have a definition: "A predisposition towards adults (or a bias against children)." So according to them it's a psychological state, I guess, depending on how they mean "predisposition" and "bias". This is closer to a properly formed -ism word. But we can't use Wiktionary as a ref in the article anyway.
If we can't find a neutral, scholarly definition that's not malformed, then that's a problem. We're not Humpty-Dumpty here. You know this topic well, surely there's a better definition. "Adultism is the belief that adults should have inordinate power over children" or "Adultism is the act of exerting inordinate control over children by adults" is probably what is meant by people using the word, and there ought to be a cite for that somewhere. (Actually, scratch "children" and substitute "youths" or something, "child" generally refers to people 12 and under (see the lede sentence for Child for instance), if that's what usually meant. Don't know yet.) Herostratus (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus, I appreciate your attention to this article. To be clear, Flasher's article is a neutral, scholarly article. I believe that whether we personally like the definition or not, it was published in a neutral, scholarly journal and we should follow it's lead. New Directions for Youth Development, which is a scholarly journal published by Wiley, published an article by C.A. MacNeil called, "Bridging generations: Applying “adult” leadership theories to youth leadership development"[1]. In this article she wrote a "negative construction of the meaning of youth is a form of oppression, referred to as either ageism or “adultism.”" On page 18 of the scholarly book, Youth-led health promotion in urban communities: A community capacity-enhancement perspective published by Rowman & Littlefield, Delgado and Zhao wrote, "adultism... can be defined as the inherent belief that adults are ultimate experts on youth, their issues, dreams, anxieties, abilities, and health; adults are thus thrust into positions of ultimate decision-makers and arbiters of policies, programs, and services involving youth." In an article called, "Family and community as the cornerstone of civic engagement: Immigrant and youth organizing in the southwest" published in the neutral, scholarly journal National Civic Review, D. Hosang defines adultism as "an antiyouth bias"[2]. A neutral scholarly journal called Theory into Practice published an article by C. Close called "Fostering youth leadership: students train students and adults in conflict resolution" in which they wrote, "If we define abuse as restricting, controlling, humiliating, or hurting another, it's clear that abuse is a daily experience for young people. We have a new word for it: adultism."
So, this scan of definitions from across the sociology realm shows there is almost universal definition of adultism as a negative occurrence. If we are to create our own definition we are bound to reflect that. There is no "neutral" definition of racism or hetrosexism. How to proceed? • Freechildtalk 15:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It's basically a minor lexicographic point -- I'm not contesting the existence of the word, that it's in use, or that it's essentially pejorative (like racism, but unlike feminism). I haven't checked but all that is probably true. I was just making the point that the definition is malformed, and this makes my inner lexicographer take notice. For an -ism word, you want the definition to include the sense of bias, predilection, doctrine, ideology (exception for some action words like "baptism", but I don't think this fits here). And some of the refs you cite directly above do define it that way, so maybe one of those would be better? It's a fairly minor point so if you feel strongly about it I'm not going to press the point further now, though. Herostratus (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/yd.153/abstract
  2. ^ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ncr.160/abstract

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Adultism. 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:

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) 19:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Adultism. 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:

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) 07:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adultism. 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:

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) 19:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with reference sources[edit]

I have gone through all the reference sources that are accessible. These are some of the problems I have encountered. Would someone like to verify whether my findings are accurate or not?

Source #8 leads to a link that does not contain the cited quote

Source #9 does not discuss fear of children as the article claims

Source #18 does not contain the terms mentioned

Source #20 seems like a poorly-written blog post

Source #21 does not lead to the referenced article/quote

Source #38 is correct but the Wikipedia article should use quotation marks given that the statement was taken directly from the source

Source #39 does not lead to the referenced article/quote

Source #56 links to the entire website as opposed to the fact(s) stated in the article

Harry.chanp (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and corrected these issues apart from the one concerning source #20. Please refer to the editing logs to review these changes. Also, note that source numbers have changed by -3 as I have deleted a few sources. Harry.chanp (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Harry.chanp, thanks for you contribution Meeeeeeerzfu (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is lacking content[edit]

For an article with around thirteen distinct sections, the lead is quite lacking with only two sentences. A reader would likely view the lead section and assume the rest of the article has nothing of value to read. I would suggest adding brief descriptions of the major points for the article. Swankbanana (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Usage" section, para. 1[edit]

At the end of this paragraph is a single lonely quotation mark. Or at least I can't find where the quotation is supposed to begin, if there even is one. The reference given is to a book I don't have easy access to, so I'm hoping someone else can solve the mystery: Is there a quotation here, and if so, where does it begin? TooManyFingers (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved this issue, or at least I hope so. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology/Origin section[edit]

Reading the description given by DuBois, it seems clear that he is discussing more or less the same issue Flasher wrote about seventy-five years later.

But it sounds to me as if the French sources from the 1920s and 1930s are using the word in a completely different way, to describe children whose personalities and actions seem excessively or peculiarly adult, such as the examples given of children committing crimes. Shouldn't it be made clearer that those French sources are merely using the same word but are talking about something completely different? TooManyFingers (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also hopefully resolved now. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Fall 2023[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tsuki2023 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Tsuki2023 (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adultism&oldid=1204549069"