Talk:Kidult

Article life
I unknowingly gave the article the "second life" as follows. When writing how I created the page 'Čížečku, čížečku', due to my poor command of English I could not find an English equivalent of the Russian expression "to fall into childhood" (впасть в детство). At the same time I started to wonder whether there is a corresponding wikipedia article. (And I am still not sure if there is one, since "Peter Pan syndrome" is not exactly it.) Googling Russian sources I run into a funny-sounding word 'кидалт'. I figured out it must be 'kidult' in English, found it in wiktionary, together with its synonyms; but no wikipedia page. - Altenmann >t 16:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Movies and citations in Kidult

 * Moved out of my user talk page. - Altenmann >t 03:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

In your recent change to Kidult, you responded to my somewhat inartful comment that Mrs. Doubtfire was its own reference, by saying that a movie cannot be a reference. That is probably true, but my point was that the use of that movie as an illustration of the "kidult" concept does not really require a reference. The idea that Daniel was a good father with shortcomings as a husband and head of household seems to be a (reasonable) interpretation, rather than a factual statement that can be proven or disproven by a reliable source, and (IMO) that interpretation helps illustrate the subject of the article. The first IMDB plot summary (which, being only one person's opinion, probably should not be used as a source) has a somewhat different take, which doesn't illustrate the point quite as well. (It doesn't say that he was a good father, and it says only that his wife perceived him to be a poor disciplinarian and bad role model.) So, should we fix the problem by quoting a well-respected movie reviewer who thinks Mrs. Doubtfire illustrates the kidult concept? I think not. At any rate, if we insist on having sources for movie plot summaries (as opposed to hard facts about the movies), we would have to delete, or render less readable, almost all Wikipedia movie articles, including, of course, Mrs. Doubtfire. At any rate, I appreciate your comment and would welcome your take on what I have written here. Thanks. Peter Chastain (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have changed the description of Mrs. Doubtfire in Kidult, eliminating the somewhat debatable proposition that Daniel was a good father. I left the citation-needed tag in but would like to eliminate it. Peter Chastain (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You may only eliminate it if you provide a reference to this additional definition of "kidult". To clarify my comment, a movie may serve as a reference to the movie itself, not to the definition of the article subject. Furthermore, your opinion that the movie illustrates the definition is also your original research, and interpretations (i.e., subjective opinions) are treated in wikipedia as factual statements by demanding to specifically indicate exactly who is the author of an interpretation.


 * In particular, Mr. Doubtfire is quite well described by the term "immature" and my opinion (which, of course, is no better than yours) is that this is a wrong example. That's precisely why we need to talk in terms of references, not just spill our smarts. - Altenmann >t 03:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Altenmann, I initially posted on your talk page, because I thought the discussion was about whether we can describe what happened in a movie (in this case, that the Robin Williams character was fun-loving, immature, and irresponsible) without citing a source to say that was actually in the movie, and that seemed sufficiently unrelated to the subject matter of the article that I engaged you in a more private forum. Now that you have moved the citation-needed tag to the preceding sentence, which gives an additional meaning to the word " kidadult kidult," beyond the one described in the lead, I completely agree with you. The statement that the movie illustrates that definition does not, IMO, require a source, but the posited definition does. If we cannot find one, we should eliminate the entire paragraph. Peter Chastain (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * On additional reflection, I think I understand your point about original research. Even if a definition is correct, we should not say that a movie depicts the behavior described in the definition, unless we can say something like, "Psychologist Jane Shema has cited the movie Shemo as an illustration of this." Absent that, the reader can probably think of her own examples where the bahavior is seen, without us suggesting one.


 * Thanks for the discussion. It has led to some insights which will probably help me in my future editing. Peter Chastain (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Micheal Jacksons collection.jpg