Talk:Spoiled child

Untitled

This is such a ridiculous and unscientific, pseudoscientific article. Truly shameful to see. A failed psychologist whose ideas were widely laughed at and rejected by the psychology profession. I am calling for this entire page to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:6440:FC:D942:5F04:798A:59F0 (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I never thought I would be discriminated against for being a redhead

I guess if you live long enough you hear it all. Red head = fiery temperment? Are you sure? I've known many mellow readheads in my life...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.138.173.224 (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Hein? Why was this worth posting? It's a well known (though not necessarily believed), and old stereotype. See Red hair. --Belg4mit 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Rename

I am considering moving this article to the new name Spoiled child. Does anyone object? —Theo (Talk) 16:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm unsure, it's just that I'm sure it is possible to be spoiled (i.e. given lots of stuff) without becoming a brat, sometimes even being really nice (Tomoyo Daidouji for example) - perhaps because boundaries and rules are at least somewhat maintained. Which is what "Spoiled child" implies to me whereas "Spoiled brat" implies the more well know sterotype. But perhaps that is just me. GracieLizzie 17:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to keep this article here and have a separate article about children who are spoiled but not brats in a "spoiled child" article.bcatt 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've started an article called Privileged child, to describe non-bratty spoiled/privleged children. GracieLizzie 13:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...it's actually kind of a funny subject, but I've found a lot of things on wikipedia that are very humourous yet quite encyclopedic...go figure. bcatt 19:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Non- bratty? This is horrible, just because some really, really poor people don't get decent Christmas gifts and have to go to bed at 10 o'clock until they're 18 doesn't mean that everyone who's parents don't give them too many boundaries and let them make their own decisions in life and know that we all have powers, even as children, is spoiled. The most obnoxious children I've encountered have been those cocky, council estate types who think that they don't have to respect others, not people with a little bit more money and a little bit more love.

BOV1993 11:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

First off wikipedia is not censored and second off this page is based on fictional character stereotypes more than real life. Also this article doesn't even state that all rich children (hence the privileged child article) are spoiled brats, or even that all spoiled brats are rich but that this is the stereotype in fiction. --GracieLizzie 12:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support I agree that we should move. The term spoiled brat seems too perjorative and so not NPOV. Also it may not be accurate since one may spoil a child without them becoming brattish - they might just seem effete - the Little Lord Fauntleroy type. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the addition of a "privileged child" article, and think it should be included in the "See Also" section. However, many people consider "spoiled brat" and "spoiled child" to be synonymous, therefore, I agree with the parentheses, but would support a clarification or distinction noted in the first or second paragraphs of the main article. 00:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)~EllaJo08 19:34 2 November 2009 EDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.125.13 (talk)

Positive and negative symptoms of being pampered

What are the positive and negative symptoms of being spoiled by one's parents or friends? --User:Angie Y.

I'd like to know this too actually, does anyone know of any links to verifyable sources on this? GracieLizzie 09:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Miles Tails Prower

How could Miles Tails Prower in Sonic X be a spoiled brat?

I dunno. --User:Angie Y.

Fictional brat list

I think this list is out of control. We could have a handful of famous ones mentioned in the article and that would be fine. Thoughts? --Awiseman 18:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? --Awiseman 21:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm deleting the list (or at the very least spinning it off into a new article) if no one objects. We really don't need 100 examples of this. --Awiseman 17:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Since nobody supported your view, and all edits were to icnrease, the logical thing would be to withdraw your suggestion, not carry it to the extreme- we don't 'need' (how do you even define that?) 99.99% of Wikipedia, but an encyclopaedia should rather give to much then too luttle, as long as it's structured so as to allow the uninterested reader to skip that part- and this list is well isolated; a split-off seems only necessary if the whole thing ever gets really long. Fastifex 07:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Read this, from "What Wikipedia is not":

Wikipedia is not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.

I think this list is useless and far too long. Two or three examples would be fine. --Awiseman 14:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I feel like Voltaire who wrote (in French, words to this effect) to an author being censored: Sir, your opinion is utterly wrong but I'll fight to the death for your right to express it. While personally I feel hardly any of the fictional characters is of any real value, the bulk of them ARE (albeit in my and, I presume, your opion, generally undeservedly) famous, probably many even more famous then most of Nixon's ennemies since cartoons etc. are more popular (though infinitely less important) then history. Fastifex 06:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Nixon's Enemies List is far more notable than 95% of the things on this list. Another problem with this list is that it's subjective - Nixon wrote his enemies list, but this one is debatable about who is really a brat or not. What's the purpose of this list? Why not list "Nice cartoon characters" as well? --Awiseman 20:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that wikipedia.org needs a "Fictional Spoiled Brats" list. Chris 20:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't need another list. A few entires here to exemplify the typology are sufficient. To that end, I'd suggest that only the most famous (yes that's somewhat subjective) examples of characters whose primary attributes is brattiness e.g; Eric Cartman, Veruca Salt(rather famous book, and a "classic" exammple), Dudley Dursley (very famous book). The others probably ought to be axed, particularly the ambiguous Simpsons and the adult Scarlet O'Hara. --Belg4mit 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A list of spoiled children in fiction serves no empirical purpose in an encyclopedic entry. Thus, it will once again be deleted.

List of fictional spoiled brats

When does the list of fictional spoiled brats come back?

Natalie Portman

Yeah Right, and Carrie Fisher was a man.

It's someone elses business why?

This is why I hate that term, my parents have always let me get away with a lot of stuff and I'm doing okay, I passed the 11+ test for grammar school, I have an IQ of 118 and am only 13 and yet some people who aren't as intelligent or successful blame every poor attribute of my character on 'doting' parents?

Really what business is it of someone else to find offensive names for someone who's had loving, or 'over- loving', parents? It's no- one elses business how you raise your child unless they're coming to harm?

So perhaps the article should reflect how it's often used by those who are insecure about how much their own parents love them about those who's parents love is obvious.

BOV1993 22:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a fair assessment and the article could do with being more rounded but we need to add references and avoid original research. However the entire article is rather OR-ish and could do with extensive clean-up. --GracieLizzie 12:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an incredibly bad article. It reads like a personal essay. This sort of unattributed material does not belong in Wikipedia in the year 2007.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with the above note. I almost pruned 70% of the article out for being simple inadmissible but I thought it better to leave it a week and see if anyone thinks there's much salvageable. Personal comments and opinions have no place in the article - it's important to stick to known and verifiable facts. 60.49.70.41 10:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oxymoron?

Is the phrase "spoilt brat" an oxymoron?. It's just that brat means ragged/beggar's child while spoilt means...well spoilt. It should probably be mentioned in the article. Leemorrison 20:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Types of brats - suggested "Faculty brat" addition to "See also"

I read with interest the item on "military brat" featured today on Wikipedia's main page.

I appreciate that the phenomenon deserves to be, and is, a worthwhile field of sociological study, with rich research and publication to date.

But the same is true of "faculty brats". Possibly that phenomenon is not as common as it was in the 1970s, and certainly it wouldn't be as common on larger university campuses. But on a small college campus, and in towns that host large universities, there are recognizable "faculty brats."

The type is especially distinguishable when public politics and social norms are in upheaval anyway. In the 1970s in the Amherst-Northampton (MA) area, teenaged faculty brats were a prominent element of life and, for some, a major headache. Generally intelligent, privileged at an underlying level, introspective, rebellious intellectually and/or socially, and cliquish, they stand out from schoolmates and disregard or reject the traditional town norms. They are distinguishable from common "freaks" or "dissipates." Public hanging out and drug use, but also hungering for ways to let their creativity loose and often developing remarkable artistic or activist initiatives, they attract attention, derision, anxiety, and sometimes surprised respect. As with "military brats", they use the term themselves, and it's considered derogatory only by those who consider the kids objectionable per se.

I can't believe that "faculty brats" who identify themselves as such would end up just like everyone else as adults. I would be surprised if the term is not well-defined enough with enough longevity, and if the phenomenon is not important enough, to warrant mention in "See also" under both "military brat" and "brat." There may also be additional such types of "brat", but despite some effort I can't think of any that are even arguably in established usage.

I've never contributed anything to Wikipedia before. I am not particularly inclined to try to learn how. And I have no authoritative data, and no of know research or reporting. But I suggest that if these are not really impediments to enhancing Wikipedia, it would be good to add the mention, and/or create an "article"(?), so that "faculty brats" are recognized.

- Andy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.202.85.42 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Bart and Lisa?

I don't see how Bart and Lisa Simpson are spoilt brats. Can you please explain? Scibah

They aren't, they're poor.

JBAK88 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Lists

This was said before but the fictional list is unmaintainable. These really need sources to stay included. Also, for the real life ones, these can really be seen as personal attacks against the people and go against the policy of WP:BLP and so I am removing them until they are sourced. The fictional list should be sourced, but there might not be consensus for that, so that's a matter for later I guess. Anyone have opinions? Phydend 23:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely just a couple of prime examples could be used instead of having an exhaustive and debatable list. That many fictional characters is simply not necessary to get the point across. Texasfirebrand (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Meg Griffin...?

I have to ask. In what universe is Meg Griffin ([i]Family Guy[/i]) considered a spoiled brat? All the episodes I've seen indicate that she's an embarrassment whom they literally forget exists on more than one occasion. Brat, maybe, but spoiled? Erik Carson 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Kyle Broflovski

I'm trying to add him back to the list, but someone keeps removing him. [User: Nate Speed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate Speed (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

He would certainly not be considered a spoiled brat. Maybe it keeps getting deleted because it doesnt belong. Texasfirebrand (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

id think cartman is more of a spoiled brat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.7.10 (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that the list is gone...

Perhaps we can remove the Cleanup tag? Definitely an improvement without that long list of fictional characters. Texasfirebrand 17:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well its back again. Perhaps we could have a real vote on the subject? Can we trim it down? Seriously, why does the list need to be that long? Texasfirebrand (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I just tripped over this article looking for recent vandalism, and while I didn't find any, I did find this MASSIVE list. What is the point of this list? I can see the appropriateness of having a few examples. But the purpose of examples is (should be?) to help convey a sense of the item being discussed, not to list every spoilt brat that has ever existed. Would it be possible to trim this list down to 3, 5, 10 (at most!) examples? Or possibly even delete it entirely, or move it to a new article of its own, as was once suggested by someone else? Loren.wilton (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can divide it by type of media, like book, movie, etc. Angie Y. (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur. The list of fictional brats is long, unwieldy and it just looks... wrong. Better far to pick out, at most, half a dozen examples of spoilt brats, than have a list of a hundred or more obscure references to pop culture that only the most TV-addicted aspie is going to recognise. On the same list, you have FoxTrot, Cinamonroll, Bratz, Totally Spies, Super Mario 3, Reisdent Evil, Samurai Pizza Cats; it's just ridiculous. It isn't helpful, it doesn't add anything to the page and it isn't even well set out. I'd be far happier just off-loading it to its own page. Not an ideal solution, but better than having it here. MachiavellianMeow (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't believe in democracy, I've forgone waiting for the results of the vote and just changed it to something that, I think, is more useful (and a Hell of a lot more concise). I'm sorry, but I don't see the encyclopaedic worth of arguing over whether or not Kyle Broflowski is a spoiled brat, or having individual Pokemon and Digimons singled out as 'spoiled brats'. Maybe they did have entire very special episode devoted to them and how they overcame their spoiled-ness through adversity, but this isn't the place to tell us about it (not that you did). If you want to do that, then <can of worms> each of the Pokemon and Digimons have their own pages. </can of worms> MachiavellianMeow (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional spoiled brats

I want to ask Georgiacatcrimson why he keeps restoring the list after it has been deleted twice though the AFD process. In both AFDs, the community came to a consensus that the list was unverifiable, original research, and POV. So why is it be added to the main article? --Farix (Talk) 11:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Russian for brother

Does anyone know if there is any connection to the fact that the word "brat" is also the russian word for brother? It seems like too much to be a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.149.4.142 (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes

I added new brats including Calvin to the list. Is he spoiled? Nate Speed (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Rôle" vs. "role", Marston ref

Hi Uncle G. I noticed your correction of "rôle" models on the spoiled child article. Maybe this is the way it is presented in the source, but I don't understand that usage, as compared to the normal term of role model. Also, I'm afraid that the William Moulton Marston reference, is theoretically and conceptually out of date, despite the recent copyright. I don't want to get in an edit war here, but I am certainly willing to find more academic sources than Dr. Spock if you want. Best regards, --Jcbutler (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• "role" is just an alternative spelling of "rôle". "rôle" is not an incorrect spelling, so it doesn't require correction.

  The thing about Marston-King-Marston is that it supports more content than Spock does. Spock is just a gloss. M-K-M is actually more detailed. It's a good thing for an article to give examples of what it is talking about if such examples help the reader. My interest is in not removing verifiable information, per our editing policy. If Marston's view is no longer the current mainstream view, then we need more sources of equal calibre from which we can take the current mainstream view. But unless we can produce better content that covers all of the same ground we shouldn't be taking out existing content that is verifiable. So yes, please find sources from which the article can be expanded. This article still requires expansion, after all, not shrinkage. Uncle G (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Rôle" may well be an alternative spelling of "role", but it's unusual enough to cause confusion, so I would suggest "role" as the preferred term. Any other opinions out there? I'll look for additional sources and will expand this further when I get the chance. Mainly I wanted to correct some misinformation about spoiling infants and only children. --Jcbutler (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Michele Borba

Can someone explain who she is and maybe make a page for her cause as it is she is just a random name. I change opines to is of the opinion because I doubt many people know what opines means I don't. --Tydoni (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Spoiled brat just a UK term?

The term is also used in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.72.117 (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

i'll tell you someone who is SPOILED my cousin he is so spoiled and no one sees it the little brat and i don't know why anyone puts up with it ergggh i just want to smack him and let him cry any no one be there to make him feel ok its my guilty pleasure. :)

Pardon, Uncle G? You said "do so, rather than standing on the sidelines" then "Do what I asked". I don't think criticising Cab88 for tagging like that is fair. I am not bothered by this section and would remove the tag, if this dispute is resolved or has faded away. Rixs (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC) (Sorry, I keep forgetting to sign)

--76.240.61.224 (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

British English spelling

I've never heard the term "Spoiled child", but only "Spoilt brat". "Spoilt brat" and "Spoilt child" both redirect to this page, however the British English spelling is unlisted. Could someone fix the intro to give both spellings. Dlpkbr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 Fixed

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

ruby stewart

why does it say aka ruby stewart? rod stewarts daughter? very weird, is this vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.90.195 (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"Mother-blaming" is definitely sexist, not sure how though.

The second sentence of the article is what pulled me into reading it. "Therefore, it is a mother-blaming term." I know this must be a sexist statement, but I am not sure what others perceive as the context of it. Did the writer of the sentence hold the view that any problem in the raising of a child is the mother's fault? Or are they neutrally using a term that is what this would be described as by a sexist person, someone who assumes only women are responsible for child-rearing, or someone who gave this concept a name while living in a society that assumed women are responsible for child-rearing? If this is a common psychological term that was coined in the 40s or 50s perhaps, should there be some link to a source showing why it's called that (whether an external citation or a separate Wikipedia page about mother-blaming terms)? I could find no evidence of "mother-blaming terms" being a distinct concept in a quick Google search. But if someone else can find that they should probably put a link to it in the article to explain this phrasing. Otherwise, I recommend changing this sentence to say "a parent-blaming term". Equality of parental responsible is just my personal opinion, but I would hazard a guess that it's shared by most well-regarded psychologists, and also that when the term "spoiled brat" is used the speaker is generally not specifically thinking of the child's mother. Jojopeanut (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see this topic removed except in reference to a specific psychologist holding a particular opinion. Jojopeanut (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spoiled child. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026155340/http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/dsm4TRclassification.htm to http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/dsm4TRclassification.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081225092900/http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,3976,00.html to http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,3976,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2022

A Spoiled child is not selfish 207.204.90.98 (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)