Talk:List of child prodigies

AfD Result Notice

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

Opening remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erdos

Was Paul Erdos a child prodigy?

Acting

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

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

Future ideas, current complaints?

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

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

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

Musical prodigies

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

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

Trying to organize

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

What else is needed?

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

Taking off cleanup

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

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

Sigh

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

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

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

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

The cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

More prodigies

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

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

Kiwi Camara

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doogie Howser

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

Are autistic savants prodigies?

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

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

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

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

Removed following nonsense content

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

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

P. Glasson has an obvious nametag.

Tom Perwick first successfully rode a bike at age 14.

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

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

Rethinking Fictional child prodigies

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

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

Proposed new child prodigies

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

• Albert Wong

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are we citing here?

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

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

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

Editing

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

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

Jake Freeman, Stop it!

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

Testing

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

Chess players?

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

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

Jean-Louis Cardiac

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

Márton Szász

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

Jean-Philippe Baratier

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

Removing some athletes

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

Adam Konantovich

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

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

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

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

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

Albert Einstein

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

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

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

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

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

What about all these other famous kids

What about the kids on those sitcoms. Family sitcoms normally have kids in them. Also, what about disney channel and nickelodeon sitcoms. They have kids acting as the main role. Now that's talent. We should add them all in. --Mr. Comedian 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ainan Celeste Cawley

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

Visual Arts: Don Van Vliet "Captain Beefheart"

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

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

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

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

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

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