Talk:Children in emergencies and conflicts

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Children in emergencies and conflicts article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Disaster management Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Emergency Start‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Template:Friendly search suggestions

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

Regarding turning this into a redirect

...see this discussion at the Teahouse for background. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 699#Children in emergencies and conflicts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Children in emergencies and conflicts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And a new one opened at WP:VPP#Policy question about turning a page into a redirect. Please discuss there, not here, nor anywhere else (as long as the VPP discussion is active). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that VPP policy question has been answered and closed, with: "article content should be discussed on article talk page." Please discuss questions about a possible redirect here, not there. Mathglot (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarity, preferably below in #Redirecting this article, that is the talk page section that was started after the VPP discussion was closed, i.e., in order not to fragment the discussion, for clarity, until that discussion has run its course. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting this article

Please note that discussions involving article content are required to happen on the article talk page itself. So far, at least 2 different people have objected to this redirection, and there has been no discussion here, nor was there a notice here, to have this discussion. Do not reinstate the redirect until AFTER there is consensus on this talk page to do so. For the purpose of this discussion, I am officially neutral on the matter. I don't care which way it goes, I just want to see that those interested in this article, who watchlist this article, have the opportunity to discuss this article on this article's talk page. --Jayron 32 16:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As another neutral participant, I am pinging all participants in the previous discussions, in case they don't have this page watchlisted: @John Cummings, Sadads, Elmidae, Cordless Larry, Francis Schonken, Flyer22 Reborn, Battleofalma, GreenMeansGo, Bri, Smallbones, Kudpung, and DGG. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could see this article needing some rewriting/trimming, and potentially extension with new/different sources: however, it is drawn from a source whose job is to create literature surveys, and has a fairly well defined scope. It's also a field of study, important to both public health and the news. Sadads (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I remain uneasy with copying the viewpoint of one aggregator of a topic in toto, which is why I kicked off the original question [1]. I mean, this is UNESCO - they are not going to insert Scientology propaganda or NRA ads - and usually we are quite happy to take their material as objective and reliable sourcing. But this is not a few sources, this is an entire article, without any other viewpoints at all. For a topic this wide-ranging, I wouldn't find that acceptable from any single source. It seems the salient points have been made quite well at this Village Pump discussion. - As I said before, I'd be sad to see so much good material go, but this needs content from other sources to satisfy WP:NPOV. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is specific concerns about the content's POV, then it should be notified in a tag at the top of the page. However, there is a long history of us copying CC and PD content to Wikipedia to create articles -- including Encyclopedia Britannica, US Gov sources -- including the military-- and academic articles in other contexts. These sources arguably have more challenging and troubling POVs to start with -- the solution should not be removal, but revision -- which is more in line with the values of the community -- that Wikipedia is in fact a work in progress. In the meantime, there is a very clear declaration on the page that much of the content is from this source: I don't know why we should object to the content. If an expert wrote the exact same article, but published it on Wikipedia first, instead of in another venue, we wouldn't be having this debate. Objections should be on the content itself, not on the way in which the content arrived. Sadads (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having an entire article written from a single viewpoint is how all Wikipedia articles are started. The only difference is that this 'start article' is extensive, written by an expert on the subject and includes 49 academic references. Everyone is free to contribute to the article as with any other article.

Many chapters and user groups run workshops to encourage experts to write on Wikipedia, this is the same except the text is already written and the person who brings it into Wikipedia is copyediting for a new audience where needed. The potential for expert contribution to Wikipedia using this method is very large, there are 100,000 of openly licensed OERs and milions of journal articles written by academics with potentially useful text.

John Cummings (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read this article at the time DGG PRODed it. My thoughts were that it was written as an academic paper. Which is what it comes across as, and why its title isn't necessarily a common search term. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good as the source is, it is inappropriate to use it alone. I suggest it could best be handled by being divided up--the pregnancy section for example is quite distinct from the rest. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose this being an article in the encyclopedia. It simply, as defined by its title, not a notable subject for the encyclopedia. It appears as an essay. To be notable in Wikipedia's terms, a subject has to have detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. The subject here is not really definable, so no determination can be made on its notability. It certainly doesn't show its notability, as it comes from a single source. My suggestion would be to userfy it, and use it to make additions to multiple articles, deleting this title. John from Idegon (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other than what I stated before, I have nothing to add. Will contact WP:Med about weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the subject belongs in the encylopaedia, but some thought should be given to the ecosystem (for want of a better word) these articles exist in, the placement and order of creation and iteration. As we see, good, quality encyclopaedic information is coming from UNESCO sources, and we shouldn't see granularity on an issue we usually see talked about in broader terms as out of place. The problem is that this article doesn't have a parent, and I think its parent should be the recognised and notable field of "Early Child Care and Education", for which I've created a draft here which if worked on a bit in terms of MOS could be used to replace this article as well as History of early childhood care and education without losing some of the great information that's been contributed. You are all welcome to work on this with me. Battleofalma (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is written as an essay rather than an encyclopedic article. The material could be used in articles relevant to the individual sections. It's an impressive piece, but not appropriate for wikipedia in its current form. Natureium (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would a better title for this be Effects of stress on children? Natureium (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have marked the page as patrolled for WP:NPP purposes given this ongoing conversation and that owing to article age was already indexed and the top google result for this search term anyway. This in no way reflects any opinion about this discussion - I have none. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a separate article. If you were writing an "encyclopedia of disaster management" or an "encyclopedia of wars and conflicts", you'd certainly have a section on children affected by emergencies and conflicts. There is a huge amount of literature on the health, nutrition, educational, and social effects that these events have on children. While the article isn't going to pass WP:FAC any time soon, it definitely passes WP:GNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per WAID rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important article. It does need a little work and perhaps a new lead should be written. The effects of stress on the mother during pregnancy is an important subject and I'm glad to see that it is included. Gandydancer (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Some people have brought up that the article does not match the style of writing of Wikipedia. Can someone point how to write in the voice of Wikipedia is explained? The only resource I'm aware of is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Vocabulary but this does not cover all of what we are talking about. John Cummings (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]