Talk:Infant

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!!!

Good idea! Please add some. Ciotog 12:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Yes way too many happy babies! I want pictures of crying babies too! And there are way too many cute babies (not saying only white babies are cute I have cousins that were adorable babies and weren't white)! Lol if you have a problem with the race and or gender take it up with the babies or maybe just add pictures of babies that aren't white. I would like to point out that babies are cute and babies are babies. Do you really think that wiki cares what color a baby is??? Smileyface 12 91 08:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

16% of the world is white? Where did you get that stat? SamanthaG (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How can people tell they are white babies? The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that they probably aren't black babies. None of them is obviously "white" as far as I can tell.Zebulin (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop being so ignorant. What is ridiculous is the justification of symbolic racism by a person who claims to be Asian. It's not about being offended. It's about creating the most accurate images to represent humanity. What is also ridiculous is talking about "cute" when beauty is subjective. The comments above are irrelevant. Also, "crying or angry babies" are unrepresentative as well, since babies are quiet and content the great majority of the time. These statements are purely argumentative and not academic. The bottom line is that there does need to be more representative images across ALL of wikipedia's articles, including this one. --Kontar (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Needs dismabig

Newborn redirects here, but there are songs and an album called that too.

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)

Anyone? An article that purports to be about a universally-human topic but only shows images of persons of one ethnicity or race is not representative of the subject. --ElKevbo 22:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the images of other ethnicity children that you will upload and use in this article. I get your point, but if there aren't any suitable images then we can't do anything about it. Maybe there are such photos already, so it will be even easier to find if you have a little browse. violet/riga (t) 22:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Replying to one who is asking if there are such photos by telling him to "take them yourself" is neither helpful nor friendly. A simple "I don't know of any but would welcome them" would have sufficed. --ElKevbo 22:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I also said you could browse for them, which isn't difficult. My point is that if we haven't got any such photos we can't really fix this "problem". violet/riga (t) 22:45, 2 September 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 • contribs) 19:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The children shown are definitely (still?) overwhelmingly white. The page could do with at least one or two images of children of other ethnicities. Whoever feels up to the task doesn’t necessarily have to take a picture himself. You can always just look around the Wiki or the net for pictures of children released under free, open licenses. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 15:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Category:Babies. - dcljr (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

a new food source

babys are food 69.76.52.74 (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Yes they are. creep... —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarcistPig (talk • contribs) 03:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What? Sounds like a perfectly modest proposal to me. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 15:11, 24 September 2011 (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)

It's probably accidental. I doubt people here are trying to promote a racist agenda about babies. Zazaban (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? theres a black one near the bottom, a arab one in the middle, and what might be an asian at the very top.♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community effort, and this article is in the English-speaking part, attracting a lot of people whose first language is English. Therefore, it doesn't seem wholly unreasonable that most of the contributors are white. Since Wikipedia encourages non-commercial images, especially those created by its contributors and released into the public domain, a lot of the pictures (in this article in particular) will show white babies. Don't take it personally - not everything here is designed to keep you down!  :-) Leevclarke (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find a non-white free baby images to add a bit of diversity.SamanthaG (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Category:Babies. - dcljr (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2012 (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)

Strongly agree, both in principle and with some of your specific examples of what should be depicted. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be certain articles on Wikipedia, and this is one of them, where contributors just cannot resist the exhibitionistic urge to post pictures of their own. There currently are TWELVE pictures of "example infants" in this article. Yes, yes, YOU'RE special. YOUR <article_subject> is the most bestest and purrdiest and most exemplary and encyclopaedic <article_subject> in the whole wide woarald. I validate you. I validate you all. Now can we stem this ego- and fertility hormone-powered flood of pictures? 31.16.124.131 (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, the length of the article in no way supports the number of pictures currently crammed into it. The newborn baby and breast feeding pictures fit in with the sections on feeding and changes at birth. They should probably be worth keeping in. Other than that, it's a matter of picking the best of the rest. I would probably suggest one crawling stage and one of the toddler ones and seeing how it looks with only 4 pictures. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, just noticed the 1st post mentioning it is from September. since there have been no objections in 3 months, I'm ging to have a cull (pictures, not infants). --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, just waiting for the threats of bodily harm now. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:00, 10 December 2011 (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)

Oh my god please stop....

Please stop it with all of your hateful words... its just a baby, please don't do this to your minds!75.171.2.67 (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)