Talk:Child prodigy/Archive 1

On the Inclusion of Names in the List of Child Prodigies
I am suggesting a new rule. Please do not attempt to make someone famous before they have actually earned notability independent of their age. I am instituting this change due to the vast number of flameouts (I refuse to mention names) associated with a media circus, and the vastly reduced number associated with comparitive media seclusion.

The pressure associated with fame at a young age is extremely difficult to deal with. You usually move rapidly up in rank, and then find yourself having to compete well beyond your current level. Behind most is a drive to be the best, and at the top levels this is extraordinarily difficult. It is very hard to be praised at one end, and to not be already holding the top spot at your level. So please, don't make anyone famous before they have done anything!

Danielfong 05:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * How about limiting to non-living persons?--Jondel 05:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Or maybe limiting it to people over a certain age group?-Shyvek 21:44, 05/05/05 (UTC)


 * Or may be dividing into 2 subcategories: the past and the living. So far most

of them are just history.


 * Below 60 years old? --Jondel 23:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Below? Above, possibly. I suggest we go with the non living persons rule, and make a specific mention that we are ONLY including non-living persons. Danielfong 03:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I meant above. Exclude below. Put a special notice to respect privacy.  --Jondel 04:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

DONE. I have removed some currently known young prodigies to protect privacy. --Jondel 07:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I would widely support 60-years rule. Is Michael Kearney sixty? I think that Kearney should be youngest one on the list.
 * Sorry, it was me --Master Psychologist 07:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Have there been any specific requests? I don't think we should pre-emptively remove people simply to protect their privacy. In theory, prodigies shouldn't be listed here unless they're verifiable - this means they've granted newspaper interviews, received awards, etc. There's not much that Wikipedia can do to "protect" their privacy if they've already received press elsewhere. I think the names should be put back unless there have been specific requests to remove them. Specifically, we should relist Michael Kearney. According to the article he is in the Guinness Book of World Records, he became a professor at 17, and there are already several articles about him. Nothing we can do can protect his name from being disseminated. Furthermore based on the date of the Saturday Evening Post article he is now 20 or 21. Many of those under 18 should also be replaced: People like Tathagat Avatar Tulsi and Gregory R. Smith clearly do not mind the publicity, based on their personal websites and interviews they've granted. Rhobite 16:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * To Rhobite: I guess I won't be posting Vfds on the child prodigy pages. Let's just wait out the Vfd at Michael K. Then I'll be reverting the last removals (Tathagat and all). Or feel free to revert. I sent one e-mail to Tathagat to play safe, but I guess he won't mind having his biography on display. Do take note that articles on wikipedia get copied onto other websites. So we really have exercise responsibility--Jondel 05:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Such people should remain on. What they have done is rather excellent. What shouldn't remain is, say, a 11 year old current BSc. student or somesuch. Danielfong 02:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * To Daniel: Could you clarify your first statement? ('I am suggesting a new rule. Please do not attempt to make someone famous before they have actually earned notability') Could we set some age semi-rigid rule or guideline then? 11-years old? If it were up to you what wiki policy what would you suggest?  --Jondel 05:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm against any blanket rule about including ages here. If someone's a verifiable child prodigy, they should be listed. I agree that it shouldn't be used for vanity or to promote purported prodigies. Rhobite 05:28, May 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, for example, there are a large number of physics nobel prize winners who have themselves taken accelerated educational paths. The pages here take no explicit mention of their age when they started studying, and of course they survived VfD. They're certainly fine, becasue their accomplishments don't depreciate with age. Then there's guys like Michael Kearney, Sho Yano, Tathagat Avatar Tulsi, Ruth Lawerence, and such. They're absolutely top notch academics, and they're already on their way to being rather famous in their own right (but not yet!). It's unlikely that anything we can do on the wikipedia can actually effect privacy or publicity. But then there's the trolling by several people of publicized names, and the addition of their pages here. Every month Opera gets her wunderkind du jour, and their head swells. Trust me, that's bad for them. There's a guy in my city that's being given that circus treatment already, I'm a guy who avoided that treatment (until I graduated, and it's rather weird), and I knew two people, personally, who were exposed to too much limelight and attempted suicides. It's a bad wrap. I can't give you any hard and fast rules, but people who have like: Won 4 IMO gold medals, 2 IOI golds, 4 Putnam Fellowships, published seminal work on packing theory, possibly the top coder in the world (a la Reid Barton), or leading the mathematical research in folding theory (a la Erik Demaine), is a real accomplishment, and would be for anyone, regardless of age. Praising a 6 year old for going to college is a double edged sword, Let's leave that go. Danielfong 15:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Another tragedy was William James Sidis. A life ruined by unwanted publicity. No rules can be made. Little can be done about their publicity. But at least responsible contributers should consider the effects. I 'll be reverting soon enough but I'd like to see how the Vfd at Michael Kearney turns out.--Jondel 00:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Until we reach consensus on this i've added a dispute template. Hedley 21:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi! There is no dispute. I've restored all my previous deletes (check the history). Although I will be NOT be adding new child prodigies, I agree to the current list. I agree with Rhobite that there is nothing that Wikipedia can do to protect the privacy of the individuals. Let me confirm with DanielFong .--Jondel 00:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Myself and some IRC room users cleaned this up a bit last night. A lot of non-notables are gone. Hedley 15:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

So? Age doesn't really matter. you should "ask" the person if they want to be known, not just asume that they don't want to. Yes, i'm being sarcastic, but what if someone is doing a report, wouldn't that be just a little important? I think if they want to "go public", then let them! But I do agree with your plan that people over 60 can be a child prodigy......Wait, did you just delete some stuff from Wikipedia???!!!---User:FroggyJamer
 * Hi there. I fixed your signature in the above post.  Just so you know, the easiest way to sign your posts is with four tildes in a row, like this: ~ .  Welcome to Wikipedia!  -  orion eight  (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanx! who is orioneight?do you agree with those guys up there? I sort of do, but i don't think it's right to just delete stuff from wikipedia...how do you do that squiggily thing? User:FroggyJamer


 * The issue in this section not being paparazis or giving too much unwanted publicity as in the tragedy of William Sidis. One proposal is to wait until the prodigies are old enough to handle publicity. Some prodigies have been deleted, check the history (fourth tab button).Squiggly thing, you can either manually add the squiglies or click on the second to the right button, after the slashed W button at the top bar of the edit box.--Jondel 23:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The list is now a separate article. I've been trying to pare it down, but you might be right on unwanted attention. However I think most of the people on it, at present, are over 21. Those on it that are under 18 I think are in fields where attention is likely inevitable.(Like music and acting.) I don't think being on Wiki is the main "unwanted attention" issue for musicians who get say double-platinum or actors in major motion pictures. Still as that list is too long at present I might scale it back a bit more. I slept lousy last night so I don't know how much I can scale back, but we'll see.--T. Anthony 08:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I did a bit. However most of the ones on it who were born after 1984 are people who do national events and do so by choice as far as I can tell. In one case they gave you permission to have the article kept.--T. Anthony 09:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've actually got no problem with being listed here. However, you might want to clean up my article a bit. I had 4 Guinness Records, Tathagar broke the Master's Degree Record.  I've still got 3. I'd fix it myself, but that's a little creepy..--MichaelKearney


 * Hello Mr. Kearney. Wow, this is kind of weird. Anyway the list is now a separate deal as it got way long and distracted from the article. Still I'll look into list of child prodigies and see if anything needs fixed concerning you.--T. Anthony 11:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Too Little Light?
IMHO this page gives little light and too much personal opinion.


 * I agree. Working on it. --Alex S 17:55, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sophie Germain
Does Sophie Germain actually qualify as a child prodigy? She apparently didn't start corresponding with Gauss until she was 28 - hardly still a child - and didn't prove her most famous results until she was in her 20s. She was obviously incredibly gifted, but not a prodigy in the same way Galois was. --Fermatprime 01:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * She started math at 13 (?) (--From the link). She obviously was discouraged to study at a younger age under Gauss. Remove if you feel it is appropriate.--Jondel 03:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. I don't think that she was studying really advanced math at thirteen from what I have read.-Shyvek 21:55, 05/05/05 (UTC)

Spirituality Category
Should there be one? Candidates:Jesus Christ(teaching at 12), Dai Lama(Spiritual head while still a child), --Jondel 07:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Both strongly agree and strongly disagree for the reason listed below. --Master Psychologist 12:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson / Willie Nelson
I read nothing on either the Michael Jackson article or the Willie Nelson article that indicates either was a child prodigy. Should they be removed? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 19:46, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Removing. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:03, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Didn't Michael start as a child with the Jackson 5?--Jondel 00:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, he did. He is often recited as 'pop music prodigy', though this claim may be overblown. --Master Psychologist 12:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * MJ should be mentioned - he did sing and dance better at the age of 5 than any celeberty of his time. He was never taught to do any of these things. He is regarded as a child prodigy in the media.

http://www.princeton.edu/~anasr/

Verification
I've added the template because:


 * This list hasn't been verified and any kid can add their name freely (Ivan Cherevko, for example)
 * Its becoming a dumpsite for marginally-deleted vanity VfDs
 * Half the people on this list probably aren't child prodigies

The list needs checking for accuracy, so I hope the template stays until it is. Hedley 21:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I also believe that it's an exaggeration to include Alan Shearer and Wayne Rooney in the Sports section. No disrespect to the aforementioned footballers but they not by far the best footballer to shine at a young age. There is Pele to name one. Also I think including people like this (even Pele)starts to stretch the defination of a child prodigy a bit too wide although I admit that is arguable. I mean by adding Wayne Rooney you may as well add Mike Tyson. Obi 16:47 10 Sept 2005

Two ways
This is a very good article, one of the best in Internet, but I would suggest that edit wars being fought here are doing no good.

So or we shall remove every living person on the list, leaving only dead and famous, or retuen all those that been deleted because of "lack of notability", but actually quite notable and fascinating. Priyanshu Kumar, Willem Klein, Chris Hirata, Dmitri Sguoros, Sean Bennett, Stephanie Overton, Merrill Kenneth Wolfe, Ivan Cherevko, Meghan Kearney, Steven Spielberg etc. AFAIK, they are all verifiable by some means. Teenage filmmakers, youngest writers, musicians and artists are all notable.

Or, again, delete all the rest living of pre-60, as Jondel said.

I would also lobby adding of Brandenn Bremmer. Master Psychologist


 * Brandenn Bremmer commited suicide. If you were the parent, would you appreciate the publicity? Wouldn't this be harsh on them?--Jondel 01:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * They have been deleted because, having been looked up, they were not notable as a child and/or are not a child prodigy. Cherevko, especially, as a troll who keeps adding himself because he could 'read at the age of three'. I mean, wow. All the ones I removed were looked up and discussed - I checked every name on the list and removed the ones that didn't seem to make the cut. Hedley 22:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Gosh, there is almost no articles on giftedness here. Have to cover this up. Hedley: No offence, but personally I am not so sure about your throughoutness in checking these pals. Spielberg was making films as a teen - it is incredible feat amongst directors. I am pretty confident to believe that Meghan Kearney really was a child prodigy. There was throrought discussion only about Bremmer, unfair, that is to say, and old VfD about Cherevko. BTW, Hedley, are you Englishman? I have faint assumption that you are chauvinist - throwing off Priyanshu Kumar, Chris Hirata, Dmitri Sguoros, Ivan Cherevko, Stieven Spielberg at last - none of them are anglo-saxons - and leaving WASPs in their place. No offence, that is just assumption. --Master Psychologist 18:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Steven Spielberg wasn't on the list when I gone through it. Cherevko, as I said, is a troll who keeps adding himself. As for the others, they were removed after research. Of course, everything is open to debate. However, making accusations of chauvinism won't get you anywhere. Hedley 18:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Priyanshu Kumar has several googles confirming that she (she, I presume?) is junior computer specialist, "world's youngest computer engineer". Maybe not exactly "prodigy", but by all means notable. Willem Klein has bazillions of googles that he IS a mental calculator. Chris Hirata's site confirms everything given in the list. Dmitri Sguoros is youngster musician. Yes, there is lot of them, but delete them all, or keep them all. You can't delete one of the music prodigies just because he is Greek. Sean Bennett is published musician and writer. Bremmer is marvellous musician. Ivan Cherevko (oh, this VfD is kinda funny:) ). Maybe he is writer, that could readily put him into Literature section. ISBN of his book is valid, after all. I can't say about others, but I can assume that they are also notable. Delete 'em or keep 'em. --Master Psychologist 19:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you a sockpuppet of Cherevko? Its possible, I mean I can make accusations if you can. On a serious note, theres a 3rd option - keep whats notable, delete whats not. You just said Kumar's "not exactly prodigy", which is precisely why I deleted him. Saying I deleted someone because they are Greek is absurd. There are many young published musicians and writers - What needs to be listed here is the exceptional. I removed the ones that aren't. By the way, Kumar is the second youngest, I left the youngest on the list. Hedley 19:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that I am not :) Hey, if there is so much disputes because of notabilities, let's make Wikipedia policy about prodigies, or maybe about "notability" at general. I'll create the page later this day. --Master Psychologist 10:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Or maybe guideline will suit better --Master Psychologist 17:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You need community consensus to create official guidelines or policies. I doubt you'd get consensus on either, simply because the only person presenting a dispute right now is you. If you create the page I can't see much agreement coming your way. Hedley 17:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, currently. But well - ain't it a problem elsewhere in Wikipedia? --Master Psychologist 18:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a big enough problem for Wikipedia: namespace policy, no. Hedley 18:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * But big enough for a guideline. If there is no need, tell me your definition of notability. Where the border rises? --Master Psychologist 19:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Notability doesn't have a definition on Wikipedia. You'll find that it's decided on a case-by-case basis unless the problem is huge - and this problem isn't. It isn' big enough for a guideline, either, because the only person who appears to have a problem with it at the moment is you and Ivan Cherevko (assuming you aren't the same person, of course). Hedley 20:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You are very mistaken. There are already two policies, Notability and Importance. And they are both good... So maybe it's not only concern of mine and Cherevko (why you do remember him/her in every your post?) --Master Psychologist 05:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The policies there are both proposed. They aren't active policies. As for Cherevko, you could say you and him have too many similiarities - namely, wanting to add his name to this list. Hedley 12:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * ...And that confirms that notability problem IS a problem. Paranoia is a vice, so don't misinterpret my words. My best intention would be to revert to Jondel's version without all the fuss. But you seem do disagree... Hedley, you also have many similarities with various people. Again, paranoia is vice. And well, why are you deleting somes in heaps and keep others without any objective apparent reason? If you want to clear the list of non-notables, stick only to dead ones and ones that are really the best in some field (Michael Kearney, Tathagat Tulsi and Brandenn Bremmer to name a few). --Master Psychologist 19:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * PS. BTW, our dialogue is too unconstructive for now. Let's stick to real problems, and not to accusations from my side or from yours. Wikipedia is about cooperation, after all, not competition. --Master Psychologist 19:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Jean-Francois Champollion
I know 6 languages. I'm 16. Does that make me a child prodigy? C'mon. At 16 you're grown up. Not a child anymore. And knowing 6 languages does not a prodigy make. -Hmib 02:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * comment:I think that prodigy signifies something like a child performing at an adult level or advanced proficiency. Sho Yano or Micheal Kearney weren't interested in the label but focused on actual learning and achievement. Please go ahead and remove Jean-Francois Champollion if you feel it is appropriate.--Jondel 04:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * OK I removed the part about him, and just to make it clear to everyone, I deleted it not because knowing 6 languages fluently is not an achievement, but that his achievement comes at a much later age than most child prodigies, thus he might be considered a genius, but not a child prodigy. -Hmib 02:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if he fits into this article or not, but one thing is sure. Times have changed and while now it's not *really* special if you speak 6 languages at 16, 200 years ago it was a big deal. The society is now much more multicultural and you also have access to stuff in all kinds of languages. In 1800, 90% of people probably heard only one language in their whole life... so that should be taken into consideration, I think :) --Missmarple 15:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, his proficiency level was mastery not just a beginner level. I'll investigate further.--Jondel 23:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well it would still be special if someone at 10 spoke 6 languages fluently. My main gripe is not that 6 languages is not an accomplishment, but that he was 16. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but 16 was the age of majority 200 years ago, was it not? So at 16, he is more or less a grown man, and cannot be considered a child prodigy. -Hmib 15:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hard question. I would personally abstain. --Master Psychologist 18:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * T. Anthony: The article on Champollion is very incomplete so not seeing him as a child prodigy based on that alone is maybe understandable. The reason he has historically always been deemed a child prodigy is because at 16 he read a paper before the Academy of Grenoble which proposed the relationship between Coptic and Ancient Egypt. This was an important step in his later work on the Rosetta Stone. So he did not merely know several languages at sixteen, but instead was submitting meaningful papers on the subject by that age. (An important difference) By 19 was a professor with a Doctor of Letters. So it's not that at 16 he knew many languages, but instead that by sixteen he was proposing significant ideas in Egyptology.Statements here referred to what's now at List of child prodigies.

Actors?
Where is the Actor prodigy list? I don't really need to say much more.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two: Orson Welles and Jodie Foster. I put emphasis on Welles, and you will agree with me just by glancing at his resume.
 * Unsigned by User:WizardOfTheCDrive.


 * Possibly, although it invites listings of every actor who appeared pre-16. Thats a problem. Michael Kitchen, for example, was in some poor film before he was 16 but is far from a child prodigy. Its hard to find the fine line - Do soap children get prodigy status? An actors subsection should be there, but it should be limited to those who were huge child prodigies as actors. Theres not many. Hedley 21:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add your own.--Jondel 05:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Shirley Temple
 * MIchael Kearney (not the academic prodigy, there is an actor named MK)
 * Joel (The boy in The Sixth Sense)


 * Actor prodigies? Very fuzzy. Are Home Alone actor and Olsen sisters "actor" prodigies? Is Drew Barrimore "actor" prodigy? --Master Psychologist 18:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * For once Master Psychologist shares my point of view. Theres too many 'child actors' to list. Hedley 18:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "It happens" (c) Forrest Gump :) But well, some of them could be included, if, well someone has got Oscar at age of ten or so, but I don't think there is someone. --Master Psychologist 08:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we list here at the discussion, the more significant or ultra-significant ones, Oscar awardees, if any etc?--Jondel 08:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Whom? I'll make some research of youngest Oscar awardees, but I don't think there is someone awarded at 10-. --Master Psychologist 20:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Mini-results; Adrien Brody is youngest awardee currently found (29 at time of award). Keisha Castle-Hughes was nominated, when she was thirtenn. May list her if no one else could be found. --Master Psychologist 20:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Correction: Gwyneth Paltrow got Oscar at age of 26. Still far from child :). --Master Psychologist 20:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Angelina Jolie, 24. --Master Psychologist 20:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, major breakthrough. Anna Paquin, 11. It is sais that she is second-youngest person to win and Oscar. Who is youngest? --Master Psychologist 20:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The youngest is Tatum O'Neal. I don't know if any warrant inclusion, simply because all children who achieve something aren't prodigies. Hedley 21:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * O'Neal hasn't had much of a career and as the daughter of an industry person, i'd hardly say she was a prodigy. Hedley 21:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As always, you are too strict. Well, maybe we'll inclyde at least someone? Category Actor Prodigies is neat-sounding, but it is hard to fill it with something... --Master Psychologist 18:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm strict because 'child prodigy' is a rare thing. Only the best-known examples should be included. We have to source status of being a child prodigy, and unless somebody can, inclusion shouldn't be warranted. Hedley 18:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * But hey, the're is no 'best-known' child prodigy definition! Especially actor one! --Master Psychologist 29 June 2005 19:43 (UTC)


 * Exactly, there isn't a best-known definition. For that reason we have to define it ourselves by consensus - If theres doubt, and there is, don't include anything. Hedley 29 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)


 * Hopeless deletionist. --Master Psychologist 30 June 2005 17:34 (UTC)


 * I would like it if you could justify the claim of "hopeless deletionist". I am far from a deletionist, infact I find aligning myself in deletionism, mergism and inclusionism quite stupid. Hedley 30 June 2005 19:40 (UTC)


 * Well, if you are not, it's hard to imagine true deletionist then. --Master Psychologist 3 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)


 * Yes, I figured that controversy would start this. There are many child actors, and people would rush to put on. Sure, many children have been nominated and won rather important awards. But does that make them a prodigy? Or does it men many people liked their work? I suggest we change this to Threatre Prodigy. Once again, I bring Orson Welles into the picture. He directed a successful Shakespeare play in Harlem when he was 16. For starters.

--WizardOfTheCDrive 00:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Dakota Fanning
From the article: It is rumored that Fanning learned to read at age two. She rose to stardom as a young girl, being chosen for a Tide commercial at age five.

Seems like a good candidate for C.P.--Jondel 00:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Learned to read at two is too common. And, in a commercial at five? Like, does that make every advert kid a prodigy? Hedley 15:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * World is coming to its end, because I agree with Mr. Hedley. Learning to read by age of two is by no means feat of < >. And hey, kids in Huggies commercials are under 1 year old - they are all prodigies, aren't they? :) --Master Psychologist 19:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Reconsidering spirituality
What's about Jondel's idea of Spirituality section? Any ideas yet? --Master Psychologist 30 June 2005 17:34 (UTC)

-Dai Lama was a spiritual leader at less than 10 years old.--Jondel 1 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)
 * Candidates:


 * Jesus Christ; Buddha; others? In fact, every Dalai Lama was spiritual leader since birth. --Master Psychologist 3 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)


 * Amazing. I agree with you on that one. Most spiritual leaders were. Hedley 3 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)


 * Not most, but many. Few enough to be fitted in Spirituality category. Hedley, Wikipedia's mission is to expand, not to stay on one place. --Master Psychologist 6 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)


 * Well, expanding doesn't mean including the unnecessary. Hedley 6 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)


 * Unnecessary? In your opinion unnecessary? --Master Psychologist 8 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

Well, there is no explicit request, (nor notable ? outside their following or group/church,etc ?) maybe not necessary.--Jondel 00:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I strongly resist a spirituality section. And not on the grounds of religious POV, rather that spiritual leaders don't meet the previously stated (in the main article) definition of a prodigy; they are not undertaking advanced tasks that normally would be impressive if accomplished by adults. Uh.... (I know I have to be careful here...)  but if you put miracles aside (which, perhaps, would constitute prodigality), these people accomplished little. --220.238.255.204 11:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * --T. Anthony 06:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)T. Anthony: Understandable and mostly I don't think you should have it for the reasons states. However I have heard of people who had doctorates in theology, from credible Universities, by the time they were 12. In other cases there were graduates of Islamic Universities that young or younger. As Medieval Islamic Universities contained math, science, and literature it seems like a prodigious ability.

Spirituality is a bit too ambiguous. Those theology prodigies could be mentioned under Academic prodigies though.--Jondel 00:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Politics
I added Pierce and Rittenhouse for some non-British content. Pierce entered Bowdoin at 16 and although he did badly there at first he did graduate at 20. He entered Congress in his mid-20s. Rittenhouse sounds like a science prodigy, maybe, who became a US treasurer. I might switch one of these if I find a better alternative.--T. Anthony 03:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed Rittenhouse to Rush as it says he graduated from Princeton at 17 as the youngest member of his class and was admitted to the bar at 20. He became Attorney General at 34.
 * Statements here refer to things at the List of child prodigies.

On Including David Farragut
I think that including David Farragut is inaccurate. At the time that he did recieve his naval command, which was during the Napoleonic period and the War of 1812, it wasn't uncommon to give midshipmen command of prize ships. The article defines a child prodigy as "someone who is a master of one or more skills or arts at an early age." The article on David Farragut simply states that he brought the prize ship safely to port; it doesn't appear that he fired every gun himself or, frankly, did anything very unusual or special in his fairly common first command. I wonder if he is included simply because he's the most famous midshipman who commanded a prize ship? --Aerodotus 01:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have a book with an article on him and he was exceptional. He was bilingual(Spanish) and won many difficult battles. I guess I should update more of his exploits. He was the first Admiral of the US. It wasn't also easy for him because at his young age, he was experiencing a lot of insubordination from the older men. It is fine with me to remove. But then we should also remove the ones for politics and maybe some others by your definition and include many others.--Jondel 01:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm. Interesting. Although being bilingual almost doesn't seem unusual for the time, what with most educated people of the upper classes having some French, and possibly Greek and/or Latin. Food for thought, that. --Aerodotus 00:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Deterioration of the Article
I am concerned with the deterioration of the article. There is currently no progress, at all, in the main body of the article, only an evolution of the list. Wikigurus, what should be done? The list is rapidly replacing the article, and neither are any good. Perhaps we should seperate the list into a separate article? Danielfong 06:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think separating the list from the article is a good idea. I know some feel there are already too many lists, and there may indeed be I don't know, but as is I think the list is taking up most of the space so maybe drowning the article out. On authenticity of the list I'm not sure what we'd do there. It's in like a thousand different directions and I'm not sure anyone is informed enough in everything from painting to law to judge it all.--T. Anthony 07:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I separated it
List of child prodigies is now its own article. This was a rather radical thing to do, but I feel the list was garnering a disproportionate amount of the interest. Possibly now the article itself can be more detailed.--T. Anthony 04:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * NNNNOOOOOOoooooohh. (just kidding, just kidding :) )--Jondel 05:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I was prepared for some real objections, but the list isn't gone so it's not like I destroyed anything. Having the list be called a list kind of makes sense anyway.--T. Anthony 12:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Awful, simply awful
This article, and its sister article LIST OF... are among the worst wikipedia entries I have ever seen. MASSIVE confusion over what constitutes a child prodigy... I've made a rather lengthy discussion contribution over at LIST OF CHILD PRODIGIES, and would ask that all those involved in this article take a look. One point - there really isnt any other type of prodigy - so why the redundant "child"??? That elementary mistake exemplifies the problems with wiki.


 * Could you help by giving some idea how to fix it? As for the redundancy "child prodigy" is the term often used. Common speech is redundant sometimes, but I'm not sure why that means dumping it.--T. Anthony 23:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I read somewhere that a child prodigy is a child performing at an adult level or high skill at an adult level. I will look for web references. I think i can trim out the redundant 'child'. --Jondel 04:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler warning?
Admittedly I don't quite get this. How is saying Wesley Crusher, The Royal Tennenbaums, or Little Man Tate about child prodigies spoil anything? That's how the characters are advertised. In the case of the Tennenbaums it's not even really about that as the child prodigy portions end like in the first half hour.--T. Anthony 08:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Overused catagory
This label is WAY overused at Wikipedia. It seems that the word shufflers and non-contributers which make up 95% of wikipedia are overeager to add the catagory "child prodigy" to a buttload of articles about eminent people. whether or not there is evidence or data that they WERE child prodigies.

I we be removing Child prodigy catagories from various articles I am aquainted with based on the generally accepted definition offered by Feldman,


 * A child (usually 10 or younger and NOT an adolescant) preforming at the level of a highly trained adult in a very demanding field of endeavor

Recognize; this implies that it is performance that is stressed (not just having a latent talent) and the performance is directed in a specific field (not just having a high IQ).


 * I think that this is a terrible definition and that this nullfies the use of a term in huge numbers of fields of any relevance and conflicts with the vernacular. You will find almost no individuals conforming with the term correctly in this fashion (performing at the level of a high trained adult in Chemistry?!!? Biology!?! Physics!?! Medicine?!?! Economics?!?! Literature?!?! Math!?!? Warfare?!?! Politics?!? Journalism!?!? Direction?!?! Computers?!?! Philosophy?!?! Computers?!?! Are you mad!? If the abilities were there, the child would be barely able to show them off without an overbaring adult waving a flag!). You are not likely to find world class performance at the age of ten unless the child has been rather directed and helped, and that is not likely to be the case. I think it's foolish to go with Feldman's definition over a more sensible one. This distorts the picture. Danielfong 07:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, you probably won't find any prodigies in those areas (except for math, see Terence Tao for an outstanding example of a mathematics prodigy, he could've graduated from college with a math degree at the age of 12). It is long known that prodigies only accour in a few isolated areas...you will probably never find an "accounting" prodigy.  Does this make the word meaningless?  No.  Remember the word is child prodigy.  This doesnt mean that young people don't make extraordinary contributions to fields such as Michael Viscardi, but Michael was not a child prodigy; he started learning higher math at the age of 13 or so, like [Ramanujan]] who was also not a child prodigy.  Same thing with Galois  Also, child prodigies, under this definition, don't have to make extraordinary contributions when they are children, they just have to preform as highly skilled adults.  Taking away the label of child prodigy from various individuals doesn't reduce their accomplishments at all, it just seperates them from a specific phenomenon that has beem overused and glamorized.--Hypergeometric2F1&#91;a,b,c,x] 18:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tried to get stricter on the lists, but the level of strictness you're requiring seems overly excessive. The strictness I was already applying seemed over the top, but I take it from this response I didn't go strict enough. I think there is a history of this term and it has often or generally been used for Galois or others you feel don't fit. Still I'll endeavor to go even stricter with the list.--T. Anthony 09:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but to -not- regard Ramanujan as a prodigy is just silly. Terence Tao doesn't even quite fit your excessive requirements either. He came to Princeton at 17, and he didn't exactly blow away the generals or start publishing groundbreaking results at the level of a so-called adult expert immediately, that took until he was nearly twenty. Performing at the level of an expert mathematician means researching at that level! I am not aware of a single original advance in mathematics by somebody 10 or younger. Removing original advances from the definition of prodigy really pollutes the definition. Are you trying to encompass training or genius?Danielfong 00:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, Terence Tao came to princeton at the age of 17, but if you read his semibiography "Radical acceleration in Australia", it clearly states that he had the ability and knowledge to graduate college at the age of 12, but chose not to for various reasons. Second of all, you a repeatedly misunderstanding the definition of child prodigy; this is someone who performs at the level of an adult at a specific field.  This does not in any way mean that they make valuable contributions to that field; in fact, prodigies actually usually do NOT make valuable contributions to that field as a child (or in their entire lives).  Have you read the biography of Ramanujan, "The man who knew infinity"?  In this book it is clearly stated that Ramanujan first came into contact with higher math around the age of 12 or 13 and accelerated from there on (as with Galois although he probably wasnt entirely proficient until he was 16 or so).  This is clearly different from someone like Tao or Reid Barton, who came into contact and was proficient (not nessecarily making brilliant contributions) with higher math around the age of 7 or 8.  Lastly, the age requirement of 10 is obviously abitrary, but it is meant to imply child..as in child prodigy (i.e. pre-pubescent).--Hypergeometric2F1&#91;a,b,c,x] 05:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, performing at the level of an expert mathematician means researching at that level! A proficiency implies creative product in this field. To remove that from the definition removes its validity. There are many people who are quite good at programming before they are ten. There are many people who are well enough adept at calculus. But the commonly understood example of a prodigy in mathematics should -greatly- emphasize original creative work, or you remove the most important names and qualities from the picture! Graduating college doesn't mean you're performing at an expert adult level in mathematics. I read the article "Radical acceleration in Australia" in its entirety. An apt phrase, directly from the text of the article, is this: "He may be a few years older when he graduates but he will be much better prepared for the more rigorous graduate and post-doctoral work." This specifically underscores the fact that effectiveness in research is the preferred metric for proficiency. Not performance on an exam, or mastery of calculus, or what have you. There are similar direct statements from Colin Percival, from Reid Barton, from the great Lev Landau, and others. Personally, I strongly agree.


 * So we're to penalize people because they came from poorer countries or didn't have early exposure? It's not about ability so much as having connections?--T. Anthony 05:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * To further explain what I mean there Blaise Pascal's father restricted his education in math before the age of 15. However he written on sound at 11 and by 16 he had discovered Pascal's theorem. Pretty much everything I've read on prodigies classes Pascal as one, but as he was not allowed early exposure he might not fit by what you're saying. Further there is no category for child prodigies anymore. And the issue of whether Ramanujan or Terence Tao fits is more relevant to the list than it is this article.--T. Anthony 05:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would classify Pascal as a child prodigy; I have nothing to argue there. Although the mini-bio I read of him states a little more about what he accomplished as a child.  Am I penalizing poor countries or prodigies that have been "hidden"?  I am going by the method of having evidence before I call someone something, and if there is no evidence, than I cannot claim something about that person.  Euler was probably a child prodigy but all it says about Euler's childhood talents in Euler's most complete bio, the minibio out of E.T. Bell's text, is that Euler showed talent in mathematics and "languages" as a child.  That is it, nothing more nothing less.  Of course, you may ask, "what is evidence?  Rumors or legends about the child?"  Good question that I really dont have an answer for.  Another question you could ask that would be equally puzzling; "since proficiency of adults in a field such as math was lower in the past compared to today's math, where there more prodigies in scientific areas in the past by my definition?"  Another good question I cant answer.  This is why the soft-sciences can be annoying.  But never-the-less, the important thing is the definition has to be a useful one, however limiting it is.  If it becomes a blanket term for "anyone that was, like, really smart as a kid/teenager!"  Than a huge number of various people become "child prodigies" and the term becomes scientifically useless.  But then again, this is wikipedia, not exactly the hallmark of scientific excellence...ok Ill shut up now.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 07:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x), in the MacTutor biography, first on the list of a Google search for Euler (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Euler.html), it speaks of Euler going to Basel at the age of 14, paying tuition by his own financial engineering, studying under the great John Bernoulli, and graduating with a Master's in philosophy by 16 (or seventeen, depending on the date of graduation). He accepted Nicholaus II Bernoulli's chair at St. Petersburg before he was twenty. This should clearly fit the archtype of a child prodigy. If it doesn't, your definition opposes the vernacular, and opposes sensibility. To answer "If it becomes a blanket term for "anyone that was, like, really smart as a kid/teenager!" Than a huge number of various people become "child prodigies" and the term becomes scientifically useless. But then again, this is wikipedia, not exactly the hallmark of scientific excellence.". Firstly, child prodigy is NOT a scientific term. Adult expertise is NOT a scientific quality. It is NOT defined in a way which the world should regard as scientific. Removing creative success from the definition INCREASES the number of people falling under the definition, and REMOVES some of the best examples. We aren't advocating making child prodigy a 'blanket term' for "anyone that was, like, really smart as a kid/teenager!" by suggesting that people like Euler and Galois fit the archtype. These people had -epic- talent and performed -historic- never precedented or repeated feats of unquestionably scientific ingenuity in early adulthood! These are not just -some- smart people. Clear and obvious mindblowing talent or creative genius is and should describe a child prodigy. Finally, there is NO PROBLEM with letting hundreds or thousands of people acquire the description child prodigy. There have been 776 Nobel Prize Winners. Should we say that it's wrong to let genius be associated with nobel prize winners? The job of the -list-, on the wikipedia, is to provide good -examples- of the many different facets of the archtype. Not to become an index. The article should describe to idea so that people understand the idea better. That's it.Danielfong 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, none of what you discribed about Euler has anything to do with his childhood. Secondly, if the purpose of the article is to fit people under a list so laymen can understand them better, than fit them under the list of Geniuses.  Not only would this be completely valid for Euler and Galois, but it would help people to understand them as geniuses, not as child prodigies (to which there is no evidence whatsoever).--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC) ]


 * There's more here than I can really follow. However Euler's father wanted him to study theology so his childhood is mostly theological study. Some sources I've found state he did attend college classes at 13, before his official entry at 14. I think it is true that entering college at 14 and attending classes at 13 is usually considered being a child prodigy. Although Euler wouldn't fit the standards Feldman gave below as he indicates math prodigies be younger.--T. Anthony 11:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, here is the issue. -You- have a definition of prodigy which contradicts my definition. I say that the definition that was in use is good. You say that it's no good. I say that there are many reasons that it is good. This continues. Finally, you refer to the definition.
 * 14 is childhood. If it's not, it's close to childhood. Close enough to say reasonably that he was a prodigy. What are you looking for? If the definition directly opposes the definition used by the public, it's a lousy definition. I can cite countless articles where the term is used in the fashion I describe. Although I haven't read Feldman's book ('Nature's Gambit') it appears in the Amazon talk page that even he allows for some age range based on achievement and domains (EG: "in music (3-4), chess (5-6), math (10-12) & visual arts c. 15-25") There is no philisophical problem with extending the word prodigy to fit extreme cases of achievement. It has been done by the public and the literature already. It is useful.Danielfong 10:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a conundrum. I thought I had the list relatively okay, everyone on it was accomplished by age 12, but this was deemed insufficient because a few did not clearly have adult proficiency by then. Granted 12 isn't ten, but I think 12 is generally still a child. Puberty can begin as young as 9, or even 5 in extreme cases of precocious puberty, so I just decided to go with 12 for the list. Anyway what counts as "adult proficiency" can be a bit difficult to determine. Terence Tao was the youngest winner of the International Math Olympiad at 12, I think, but this was not an adult-level event. It's an event for High School students. Likewise even if he had went to University at 11, and done well, it still may not work. This is because roughly 5% of Australian seventeen year olds are in college or University and likely some of them do well. Yet seventeen is not quite an adult in Australia as far as I know. Still I'll provisionally take Euler and Galois out of this article.--T. Anthony 07:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahem. I am against blanket age limits. I don't think the discussion of the age on becomes an adult in Australia is relevant, nor are how many seventeen year olds attend university. Terry Tao's achievements are unique world wide, in both childhood and adulthood. I think it's a form of academic dishonesty to not include his name in the list, as with Euler, or Galois. Interested young students come and read this article. They would like to have a good picture of what their heroes should be. (PS: Terry Tao didn't win the IMO. A gold medal is awarded to the top 1/12 students. A win would be something like Ciprian Manolescu's many performances, or Reid and Gabriel's performances on the 2001 IMO. Or Reid's performance on the 2001 IOI. One can often earn a gold at the IMO with more than half the questions incorrect.)Danielfong 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand me. The point of that was just to point out how the whole "child at adult proficiency" idea is flawed. What's an adult skill is inconsistent and not fully understood so basing it on "child with adult skill" does have problems. I agree with no hard and fast rules on age. (That said I think if they didn't accomplish anything before age 16 they aren't a child prodigy.) I'll put James Clerk Maxwell and Lev Landau back on the list if that level of strictness is no longer required. Added to that taking them off didn't exactly remove objections.--T. Anthony 11:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What their heroes should be? Excuse me but, the term "child prodigy" should be thought of as, "this guy did something really cool and/or a genius, and was probably super-smart as a kid and stuff!  So lets call him/her a child prodigy!".  You are taking this out of the realm of science and studies of human intelligence into the realm of personal opinion as to whether so-and-so needs to be labeled the "heroic" word of "child prodigy".  Blanket age limits?  This is the talk page of child prodigy; we ARE talking about children here.  Perhaps you are referring to the term Genius, which is a completely different phenomenon.  Have you read the E.T. Bell bio of Galois or Euler?  Reading those will give you a good idea of the lack of information we have about either one's childhood.  This is especially true of Galois.  All Bell says of Galois childhood expirience with math is that he was tutored by his mother, but demonstrated no extraordinary talent for math as a child.  The only talent he demonstrated as a child was being able to improvise rhyming cuplets about various friends and family at his family's parties.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 09:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For Galois, the only problem is that you're using an insufficiently broad definition of childhood. On blanket age limits. What I mean is that if you ask for a specific number, say 10, or 12, then you will have a worse list and a worse definition than otherwise, because both many people would be left out, but shouldn't be, and many people would be included, who aren't really that notable. It should be flexible, like this: If a child is doing trigonometery at 4 you should probably call him or her a prodigy. If a child is learning complex analysis at 12 you should probably call him or her a prodigy. If a young adult is, at 19, producing independent, holy-grail type solutions on the algebraic solubility of equations which only the most famous then working mathematicians would parallel, you should probably call him a prodigy! That's talent!
 * "If a young adult is, at 19, producing independent, holy-grail type solutions on the algebraic solubility of equations which only the most famous then working mathematicians would parallel, you should probably call him a prodigy! That's talent!"  Prodigy; yes. Child prodigy; no.  All of the other examples would fit though.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 10:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In the wikipedia, the article child prodigy is referred to by the disambiguation page prodigy. I agree that it does not make sense to call someone a child prodigy if the notability is obtained as an adolescent, rather than as a child. I believe the article/list would be improved if we explictly noted the vernacular extension of the word, and did not remove the examples of slightly older beings. Would this be sufficient, or would a renaming/redirection be better?Danielfong 10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I vehemently deny that what occurs in many an impressionable child's mind is "this guy did something really cool and/or a genius, and was probably super-smart as a kid and stuff! So lets call him/her a child prodigy!" rather than "wow. So that's -possible-. I am -inspired-." You need to understand that implicitly, by putting the wrong sort of idea on these pages, you run the risk of giving people who are up and coming the wrong idea. You run the risk of giving the people who those people have -contact- with, the wrong idea. This is the current stature of the wikipedia. It's not a question of whether people -should- look to these people for heroes, it's a -fact- that they're going to, and we should recognize this.


 * In reference to, "Perhaps you are referring to the term Genius, which is a completely different phenomenon." I wholly disagree. It's not completely different. It's not even very different. A child who is a genius -is- a child prodigy. While it is recognized that someone can be a prodigy by virtue of their -performance- as opposed to their genius, I'm -specifically- talking about the former intersection of sets.Danielfong 09:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I didn't like removing Ramanujan from the list, which in case some are confused the list has been a separate article for awhile, so I'll put him back.--T. Anthony 22:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also as the list is on clean up I welcome anyone else who can actually help improve it. I'm not sure what problems are left on it, but I know many are insistent it is problemattic. I removed clean up once because I was certain I'd fixed any remaining problems, but it was put back almost immediately. There are clearly problems I'm not seeing so if you, Daniel fong as you seem more reasonable, can help I appreciate it. See List of child prodigies--T. Anthony 23:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I only want to talk about policy, not assume direct responsibility for the list. I know many of these people, and I don't think it's entirely reasonable for me to act as an arbiter in this circumstance. Besides, I see no glaring errors in the page as it stands, it seems, for an encyclopaedia article, to have gone beyond the call of duty. The idea of laying out the policy in the talk page, for all such controversial lists, is so that the same debates don't have to be played out repeatedly, rather than to immediately achieve list perfection. Sorry I can't help more. Danielfong 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No prob, thanks for responding at all.--T. Anthony 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

WHat happened
What happened to the list of prodigies?
 * There 's a link at the top.--Jondel 01:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Female Prodigies
Have there been any well documented female prodigies in history? I doubt all of the prodigies born in to this world are males.--Secret Agent Man 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If it seems there are more males, it is unintentional. I know of Maria Agnesi, Judit Polgar(Chess), Ruth Lawrence,etc.Jondel


 * Well, there are probably more male prodigies on the whole, this being part of a larger "divergence" factor of males (for example much more males have extreme IQs). However, in such areas such as music it seems to be about equally split between male and female.  And curiously, there seem to be more female artistic prodigies than male.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 06:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don*t think so. I think society is more receptive to male prodigies. Thus male prodigies have more publicity.There was a mexicana female prodigy (I forgot the name but I can easily search this)who corrected the latin of a bishop and was heavily censured and later refused to display her talent.--Jondel 05:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? I actually think that educated people in this day and age, especially women, like hearing about female prodigies, because it is a display of a young girl excelling in a field and defying norms (and perhaps their own private conceptions about women) and blah blah blah...  In fact, the most recently hyped prodigy was a female; Akiane.  And what about Michelle Wi?  She was really hyped.  In fact, I can't rememeber a recently hyped male prodigy (except extreme IQ scorers such as Sho Yano)--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 07:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are some female prodigies from the list. (I'm not sure why this wasn't discussed there instead)


 * Mathematics


 * Maria Gaetana Agnesi
 * Ruth Lawrence - Entered Oxford at age 11.


 * Engineering


 * Alia Sabur - Graduated summa cum laude from State University of New York at Stony Brook at 14.


 * Film


 * Hana Makhmalbaf - A director at age 8. Her sister Samira Makhmalbaf is a more known director and something of a prodigy in her own right as the youngest director to participate in the official section of the Cannes Film Festival.


 * Art


 * Alexandra Nechita - Solo exhibit at age 8 and apparently still productive as an adult.

Outside of music though it does seem a bit male dominated. Men also are more often delayed in subjects like reading.--T. Anthony 20:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Akiane Kramark link reads like marketing copy.
It's also misleading. There are numerous accounts of people being unusually skilled in multiple areas from an early age, quite a few of them on the same page. Zhu Da is even listed for being both painter and poet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.64.129.200 (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC).


 * This would seem to refer to the list as well, seeing as Akiane Kramarik is not even mentioned in this article. Her article is basically accurate to what is claimed of her and represents that these are claims.--T. Anthony 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mental maturation
Were there children who were prodigies because they just matured mentally much more quickly than others their age but as adults were not really exceptionally intelligent? (They were considered very smart as children but others their age caught up to them years later.) --Jagz 09:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Which others? There are quite a few who become 'merely' brilliant in their field (others less precocious in youth achieve as much or more), but I know of none who slow down to the average college graduate's level, for example. Danielfong 17:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean that there are some child prodigies because they are just extremely intelligent. Other "prodigies" may be the result of their brain freakishly developing mentally/intellectually much earlier than it is supposed to, however, the development levels out and the end result is that they are not brilliant as adults. They can perform as adults when they are children. I'm not saying they slow down, just that they level out as intelligent but are not geniuses. They were whiz kids but not whiz adults. I am just speculating here. Maybe I'm wrong. --Jagz 18:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know of prodigies who did not succeed in later life or ended up leading "normal lives." Adragon De Mello was hailed as a prodigy on TV, but works at Home Depot the last I heard. However in that he case he has largely disavowed the idea he ever was a child prodigy as it was largely his Dad's doing. The other cases I know of the prodigy stayed unusually smart, they just didn't succeed for other reasons. Maybe they lacked ambition or they even had personal problems that kept them back. The closest I can think of to what I believe you mean is a few cases where a child had one prodigious skill, which faded in adulthood. There are several Mental calculators that would fit that.--T. Anthony 10:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe they exist. My feeling is that it doesn't typically work like that, but if there are cases I don't know of them. Danielfong 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Child prodigy Category?
I know there is an article that lists child prodigies but should there be a child prodigy Category? --Jagz 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a category, but it was deleted over a year ago, see Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 19. Recreating it would likely get a "speedy delete."--T. Anthony 10:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Content?
I would like to propose a cleanup of this page. I reached this page through Random Article and must say that the content is fascinating. However the poor formatting detracts from the ideas discussed. The section Cognitive studies on child prodigies is daunting to wade through. In fiction could also do with a cleanup. I'd be glad to know all editors' comments on this, and if there are no objections, I'll go ahead with the proposed cleanup. Thanks xC | ☎  15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal?
this edit removed a couple of paragraphs from the content. just wondering, how does any of that give an anti-nature impression?Regards, xC | ☎  08:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)