Talk:Only child

name of this article

this article should be merged with "Only children" Albert Einstein was not an only child. He had a sister with whom he was very close throughout his life. So he should be removed from the only child list.

This article has moved back and forth quite a bit, but let's keep it at Only child, not Only children. Singular nouns are consistent with Wikipedia's naming policy, and the disambiguation statement corrects any confusion with Only Child (musician).

I updated the research and removed the list of famous only children. If someone is really attached to that list, let's make it a separate entry with a link on this page. --Jcbutler 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Einstein also had a brother. During the Nuremberg trials his brother had been thought to have died in the holocaust. The public prosecutor was ridiculed because when asking Albert - who was there as a witness, although having lived in the USA all the time - about his allegedly murdered brother, the latter appeared to be sitting there among the public.--80.141.244.1 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Only Child

Opening line:

"An only child is one with no siblings, either biological or adopted."

Intoduction to list:

"Notable people who are only children

This list includes children who are only children, have only step-siblings but not those who have half-siblings."

These are not consistent. I prefer "raised as an only child."

Mkauf 02:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. This article seems to discuss the social and psychological aspect of being an only child, not the biology. Someone who has a biological half-sibling they've never met, who was raised as an only child, is in the same family environment and can be considered an only child. DanielEng 20:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove the lists

I really don't think the lists of real and fictional only children should be there. I can't see the value added to the article, and believe that if the list was ever to be complete, it would be really really long. Does anyone agree with the removal of both lists? Puchiko (Talk-email) 01:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree and am removing it. This list has potential to grow out of control given its current members, and already unduly dominates this article. A very large percentage of all notable people are only children. It makes no more sense than having a list of notable brunettes or lefties. Naming individuals notable for this attribute by way of illustration, as is done, e.g. under Left-handedness in Musicians under the Left-handedness article, is appropriate, but a bare list of only children is unworkable. 66.234.51.139 (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree and have removed it (again). If people feel strongly about needing to resurrect this list, then why not create a separate article for it here... List of notable only children? It really gets unbearably long and cumbersome in this article. My position is that the list is pointless and will always be much, much too long. But why is there the need to create this list? So only children can feel good about themselves by being in such good company? There's no need to feel bad in the first place! --Jcbutler (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll remove the list again I think, its pointless and way too long. 81.231.155.144 (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reasons section

I deleted the list of reasons to have an only child for a variety of reasons... First, lists are generally not good wikipedia style, if they can be avoided (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style). Second, any list of reasons could become incredibly long (see above discussion). There are probably as many reasons as there are only child parents. Third, there were no references. All substantial contributions should have references. Fourth, the reasons section had already been abbreviated and placed in the introduction, which seems like a good location for it. What can the list offer that this section cannot, other than various unsubstantiated and unreferenced claims that look very much like original research? Respectfully, Jcbutler (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

including, but not limited to

"Including, but not limited to" is lawyer-speak and is unnecessary since "including" implies additional items already. --Unimath (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Lack of information

I find it disappointing that even Wikipedia doesn't have much information or related topics on this subject. It's a lot like real life where it's often ignored. The only topic it covers and begins with is the stereotypical spoilt brat scenario, which I think is quite a shame. Is there not more theory and studies on only children and the scenarios they face. For example, how the lack of connections impacts them, and fear of isolation at parents' death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.76.73 (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the first reference under the heading scientific research defies logic. It has used a book published in 1964 as evidence to support a 1987 quantitative review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.170.90.4 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)