Talk:Breastfeeding/Archive 1

message: The following seems unlikely, or a non sequitur, or something.  Surely human milk has been analyzed.
:"The exact content of breast milk is unknown, but the nutrient content after this period is consistent"
Have you seen the dreadful things said about wet nurses over in the Infanticide article?
Ortolan88 21:52 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)
Human milk has been analysed to the extreme. It's not that we don't know a lot of what is in breast milk; it's that we keep discovering more and more ingredients. For one thing, breast milk is a living food; so it more than an issue of what the nutrient list is, it is a matter of cells interacting with cells. We just don't really understand everything about breast milk that makes it the best for a baby. We just know that it is impossible to duplicate by artificial means. I'm not a medical expert (just a mom who is interested), so I'll try to find a more technical explanation.
As for infanticide article... yikes!
Joele Gilbert
Joele, I changed "the exact content of breast milk is unknown" to "the exact interactive properties of breast milk are unknown" because I think this is more what you are getting at. I also removed marijuana from your list of potential dangers, because there is NO documented suggestion that this is the case.  I think it shows bias to include marijuana just because it is illegal ... it's very different from caffeine or crack. Sara Parks Ricker
* The US FDA says marijuana in breast milk can be harmful to infants. The American Academy of Pediatrics says cannabis is contraindicated during breastfeeding. In Canada, where marijuana use is not criminal and possession of a few joints is legal, the Canadian Paediatrics Association says that use of marijuana during pregnancy can be a cause of SIDS. Can anyone else find medical association statemens on the subject? --Westendgirl 02:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unknown content of breast milk

message: I think the article needs some discussion of breastfeeding in public.  I'm not sure about other countries but in the UK it is illegal to stop a woman from breastfeeding publicly.  In the Royal College of Midwifery journal (August 2004) there is an article about The National Gallery in London admitting a mistake after banning a breastfeeding mother from one of its exhibition rooms. violet/riga 09:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a section but could only find details about US law - I'll try to find the UK laws but I doubt I'll be able to contribute to other countries. violet/riga 09:47, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I looked up on whether there is any law on breastfeeding in public spaces in Japan.  I came up empty as I expected because I have never heard of an attempt to limit this practice anywhere in Japan.  Revth 16:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A bill [] safeguarding the freedom of women to breastfeed in public is currently making progress [] in the Scottish Parliament. Adambisset 00:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mozzerati added this, but there were significant grammatical errors.  I took the opportunity to rewrite it. ——Daelin 18:01, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breastfeeding in public 

message: I'll leave the details to the expert authors, but I couldn't see any reference to the letdown reflex, and how in many women it triggers an immediate thirst.
Dunstan 10:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letdown Reflex and Thirst 

message: "There is also a small statistical correlation between the Hepatitis B vaccination given at birth and difficulty establishing breastfeeding.  This difficulty is manifested as a slight delay in the ability of the baby to correctly establishing feeding, so the immediate administration of the Hepatitis B vaccine is usually recommended."
Removed the above until an external link or the statistical evidance can be added. violet/riga (t) 07:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Hepatitis B

message: A naive male writes:
I'm told that ovulation ceases while a woman is actively breastfeeding. Presumably an evolutionary reason for this would be to ensure that an infant was properly weaned before its mother gave birth to another child, but the article mentions that a woman can breastfeed children of different ages. Is there any truth in what I was told? Don't worry - I'm not so naive that I'd want to rely on it as a form of birth control!! :-) Adambisset 00:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it can.  A very good page at Dr Sears  explains it well.  Basically the hormones given out during breastfeeding help to cease ovulation, but you have to feed very often.  I think I'll integrate this into the article soon, thanks. violet/riga (t) 08:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Lactation as contraception?

message: I have read some articles discussing the sexual arousal sometimes associated with breastfeeding, and discussed it with my wife, and am surprised to see nothing here on this topic. Are there any objections to my writing it up here, despite my constitutional lack of experience? Haiduc 03:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do worry about the fact that so many articles can have the erotic aspects discussed (cucumber?) but it may be appropriate for this one.  Not sure what references and sources you will be able to find about it though. violet/riga (t) 11:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed an anon added Milk fetishism to the see also section - that covers it I think. violet/riga (t) 12:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erotic aspects 

message: "Nutrition for the breastfeeding mom" at BellaOnline.com discusses essential fatty acids, particularly omega-3.  While very interesting and well-written it doesn't make any citations and I don't really consider BellaOnline.com to be a strong voice on the subject.  Perhaps it's a starting point and could be added until better references can back it up. violet/riga (t) 00:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Health Canada (official Canadian government site) says that Omega 3 occurs naturally in breast milk. We can include this information. However, it doesn't say whether this varies according to the diet of the mother. For example, do fish-eating Scandinavians have higher levels than Canadians? --Westendgirl 20:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Omega 3

message: This article overlooks the physiological fact that a healthy new mother will automatically produce breast milk after childbirth, whether she wants to or not.  Modern medicine does have the capability to artificially curb the lactation process, but the POV of the article ignores the fact that her developed lactation and the breastfeeding of her newborn is the natural, healthy course of events.  The POV takes the position that breastfeeding is a chosen alternative to formula feeding; when in fact it is the opposite that is true.  
The “History of Breastfeeding” barely touches on mothers who actually breastfed their own children, moving quickly to alternative methods and the employment of wet nurses.  There is no discussion of the inherent advantages of breastfeeding for a woman and child in the wilderness, or in a similar primitive setting, as compared to the modern world.  This would more accurately titled as the “History of Breastfeeding Alternatives”.
There is no discussion of how life in a primitive setting favors breastfeeding and lactation development as a survival tool for her family (and/or tribe) to help ensure their strength and survival under extreme conditions such as seasonal or winter famine, or recovery from illness or injury, both of which were commonplace in the primitive wilderness environment.  A woman’s inherent ability to induce lactation and release her internal stores as food for others increases her value to a mate or to the tribe, thus ensuring her protection and survival in the harshness of the wilderness.  This supports the theory that during early development of the human species women nursed their mates as well as their young and maintained their milk supply for most of their adult lives.   
While this article is overall very good, it appears to look at breastfeeding as an oddity of human nature instead of the natural and normal human function that it is.  It also leaves a vast area of related material unexplored.  See "Roman Charity" to learn more.   Mlklvr 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physiological and Historical Oversights 

message: "Mothers can also buy or hire breast pumps to extract the milk, if nipple pain becomes unbearable."
While this is not an untrue statement (yes, mothers can get a pump and use it when they have sore nipples) it is based on the incorrect assumption that the use of the pump is a solution to the problem of sore nipples. It gives the impression that a mother can simply switch to pumping instead of nursing from the breast, give her baby the expressed milk, and all will be well. That is not the case. I have never seen pumping offered as a first choice solution for soreness in any reputable breastfeeding resource, nor was that a solution in the eyes of the lactation consultants I saw after my son was born. I have seen it offered merely as a very short term way to obtain a brief respite from difficulties, while in the process of solving the problem, but with the caveat that pumping and bottlefeeding have their own drawbacks and possible complications that would be better avoided.
Most breastfeeding experts agree that the main cause of soreness is incorrect latch which can have various causes. Pumping does nothing to remove the cause of the problem, and in some cases can itself be painful. A breastfeeding mother with sore nipples must seek help to determine the cause of the problem so that it may be solved. I would like to see this sentence replaced with a fact based, expert supported statement about what a mother can do if she has sore nipples.
:If the latch is the problem then expression can be used as a short-term solution to allow the nipples to become less sore and then, having taken advice regarding proper latch, give the mother the chance to start breastfeeding again.  The sentence does not say that it is a good thing to stop breastfeeding and change over to EBM. violet/riga (t) 10:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere does it say that it happens to everyone.  We should avoid weasel terms such as "some women" and "a small amount of" but I'm not aware of any published statistics regarding the number of women that have sore nipples.  The word "unbearable" is fine in this situation because the woman should only turn to expressing if she can no longer bear the pain. violet/riga (t) 10:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that the use of "endured" is loaded. I've reworded this statement. I also added several statements about sources of pain -- including breast pumps. While breast pumps are not a first choice for dealing with pain, women can turn to them if they want to continue to feed their child (expressed) breastmilk while allowing nipples to heal and learning to latch better. --Westendgirl 05:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy Issues 

message: Teething is not a problem for breastfeeding.
Source:
http://www.lalecheleague.org/NB/NBMarApr99p36.html
:Agreed, and the edits you have made are good ones.  I think that many mothers see teething as an appropriate time to wean because most tend to not want to continue after a few months of feeding.  Yes, you should breastfeed for six months or so but I think many look at teething as an excuse - it does complicate things (if not the teeth then the gum pain) even if only slightly. violet/riga (t) 23:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement that "Violetriga has abused the 3 revert rule here" is false. According to the page history, Violetriga reverted your edit once.  Do not make false accusations. — Matt Crypto 20:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breast Refusal 

message: I think this article should take into account the information presented in male lactation and breast.  In particular the addition to ,or re-wording of, the initial paragraph that takes into account that 'breastfeeding' is a word that applies to the feeding of a baby with human milk and only strictly applies to the breast because that feeding is assumed to take place by women.  I feel that the emphasis on breastfeeding relating strictly to the breasts as opposed to the act of feeding could be considered an anachonistic POV. --219.88.188.28 23:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, more men should breastfeed. JFW | T@lk 00:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article disparity 

message: I find it rather irritating that weaning redirects here. The top of the breastfeeding article makes no mention of weaning. Weaning gets only a 2nd-level section, buried way down near the bottom. AlbertCahalan 04:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the current content regarding weaning I think it's the best way, really.  If you can think of how to make a worthwhile separate article, however, then go for it. violet/riga (t) 10:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weaning should not redirect here 

message: Does it seem to anyone else as if the paragraph on marijuana is hinting at defending the use of marijuana during pregnancy? unsigned comment by User:68.18.105.26.
:Yes, nice catch.  I've rewritten that paragraph to more accurately summarize what the AAP report said and remove original research or commentary.  I've also added a cite to the research article the AAP report was based on in the References section. Nandesuka 19:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marijuana NPOV 

message: I just noticed today that there was no Wikipedia entry for Supplemental Nursing System, so I wrote a stub... anyone who would like to go add to it would be welcome. Also, as I wrote it up, I made reference to the advice available from a lactation consultant only to discover that there is no article on that topic yet. Would anyone be willing to get that started? Thanks in advance! Mamawrites 17:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  supplemental nursing system 

message: To avoid boring those uninterested in the circumcision topic, I propose to move the preceding discussion to Talk:Breastfeeding/circumcision. Comments? - Jakew 09:55, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
: This talk page is the appropriate place for the discussion. I am opposed to moving it anywhere else. -- DanBlackham 10:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move discussion 

message: I have noted that 'Breastfeeding' is a featured article. Therefore I hesitate to make changes. However, I feel that it would be better with simpler wording.
For example: the opening paragraphs could read as follows:
:Breastfeeding is when a woman feeds an infant (or sometimes a toddler or a young child) with milk produced from her breasts, usually directly from the nipples.  Babies have a sucking instinct that enables them to take in the milk.
:While many mothers breastfeed their children, some do not, either for personal or medical reasons. Breast milk has been shown to be the best nourishment for a child. As with other bodily fluids, some diseases, such as HIV and HTLV-1 can be passed through breast milk and some medications may also transfer in this way. However, most medications are transferred in very small amounts and are considered safe to take during breastfeeding.
:Many governmental strategies and international initiatives have promoted breastfeeding as the best method of feeding a child in its first year – this supports recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) amongst others.
The idea of such changes is not to introduce bias or spin, but to make the article easier to read. This is helpful to everyone. What do others think? Michael Glass 10:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be too many changes there, and so I don't really have a particular problem with most of the changes.  The one objection I would have, however, is that breastfeeding is not just about nutrition and is the most "beneficial feeding method", not just "the best nourishment".  violet/riga (t) 10:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Simpler language

message: "Lactation Consultant" is a professional title like "Registered Nurse" or "Medical Doctor".
"Professional Standard for Lactation Consultation"
"International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLC), Registered Lactation Consultants (RLC) help mothers breastfeed their babies, in challenging situations. By gaining the experience and education necessary to pass the International Board Certification Examination, Board Certified specialists in lactation management prove to their patients and colleagues on the healthcare team that they are competent practitioners - committed to the health and well-being of breastfeeding mothers and babies in their care." 
-- DanBlackham 19:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lactation Consultants

message: I am interested in the opinions of people familiar with breastfeeding who are not part of the circumcision discussion.  Jake says The Breastfeeding Answer Book published by La Leche League International is an "opinion piece".  He claims it is Nancy Mohrbacher's opinion and her opinion should not be given much weight.
Is The Breastfeeding Answer Book just an "opinion piece" or is it an authoritative reference book in the field of breastfeeding? -- DanBlackham 20:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider it an authoritative reference. Unless there are more recently published studies contradicting a conclusion in the answer book, I would consider something from the book worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Mamawrites 10:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Breastfeeding Answer Book

message: Once upon a time a man had the temerity to claim that the world is round.
'Show us your evidence!' said his peers.
He replied, 'But everybody knows that the world is round!'
They retorted 'That's not evidence. That's only an opinion about an opinion. You have committed a logical fallacy '.
The man went away and thought about this. He then read a book or two, and they also said that the world was round. So, being a little more cautious this time,  he took the biggest, oldest and most authoritative book he could find and showed it to his critics. 'See' he said, 'The world is indeed round.'
'Another logical fallacy!' replied his critics.  This is an appeal to authority. You'll have to do a lot better than that!'
That stumped him. Then he realised that there would soon be an eclipse of the moon. He arranged for his critics to see the eclipse, where the shadow of the round earth covered the moon. However, when they saw the eclipse they said, 'Appearances can be deceptive. We need a photograph and a diagram.'
The man searched the internet and found a photo and a diagram and showed them to his critics. 'Ah, yes,' they said. 'This is an American internet site. You'll have to do better than that!'
He then found a British site and showed them that. 'Yes, but ' said his critics, 'This is still an English-speaking country. What about an Islamic website? What about a Russian website? What about a Christian website?'
He went away again and after much time and labour and expense came back with an Islamic website, a Russian website and a Christian website that all said that the world was round. He even had translations of the website to ensure that he had got it right.
'Aha!' said his critics. 'But are the translators accredited?'
At this point the man decided that he had better things to do with his time. So he decided to go to Wikipedia and do a little editing.
Have a nice day, everybody. Michael Glass 23:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An authoritative reference

message: Jake, a charge of activism from you is  laughable. You are the author of the pro-circumcision website, circs.org,  and your edits and comments on your own  user page make it clear that you have a very great interest and involvement in circumcision. While I respect your intelligence and value many of your contributions to Wikipedia, please don't come the raw prawn.
You say: I am neither in favour of or against neonatal circumcision. Rather, I am in favour of parents making an informed decision. An informed decision requires accurate and honest information, so I am opposed to attempts to mislead.  All I ask is that you live up to your own ideals.
Jayig, what is evidence of activism: arguing for relevant, documented information to be put in an article or making every effort to minimise or remove that information? If both are evidence of activism, why have you chosen to support suppression and censorship? Michael Glass 20:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has a whole article explaining what pain is.  Cirp is a site devoted anti-circumcision activitism, and presents a decidedly one-sided (and often edited and distorted) view on the subject.  Attempts to turn a page about breastfeeding into an anti-circumcision page may well be acceptable (and expected) on Cirp, but not on Wikipedia.  And when non-encyclopedic and inappropriate links are removed from articles, the first cry is always "suppression and censorship", it's as inevitable as the sun rising in the east. Jayjg (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A response to both Jake and Jayig

message: I found this article via one of the links at the bottom of the article: Do exclusively breast-fed infants need vitamin D supplements?  The discussion in that article dovetails the recommendations I've heard given by several breastfeeding-advocate pediatricians.  I'm thinking a couple of sentences about the possibility of rickets and vitamin D deficiency, and when supplementing is appropriate (and when it is not needed) would be a good addition to the article.  Anyone else have an opinion on this? Nandesuka 12:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, but the link is perhaps not the most credible of sources. How about these?    Jakew 11:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both Jake and Nandesuka that the Vitamin D question is important to mention and discuss.  i also agree with Jake that his links are a better source of primary information about the rickets/Vitamin D question than the Geocities site. Nevertheless, the issues that are raised in the Geocities article are certainly worth pondering. Michael Glass 12:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vitamin D supplements 

message: I have edited the second paragraph to:
* Put the chief reason for preferring breastfeedding - being best for the baby - first.
* Simplify the language in several places.
* Expand other points to make them clearer.
* Point out that most women are not precluded from breastfeeding and that governments and doctors are keen to promote the practice.
I have edited the third paragraph to:
* make two simple sentences rather than one longer sentence
* simplify the wording very slightly
As this is near the beginning of the article it's important that it reads well and is NPOV. I hope that others will look at these paragraphs closely to see if there are other ways in which they can be improved. Michael Glass 00:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I improved your edits by linking to the Wikipedia articles. Jayjg (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to the second and third paragraphs

message: Jake, I see that you've removed a link to a Wiki article. Why did you remove the link to Medical Analysis of Circumcision # Pain, stress, trauma and interference with breastfeeding? Trying to hide something? Michael Glass 15:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the same reason that myself and others have been removing links to other links that specifically address circumcision while ignoring others forms of pain and surgery. This link would not be okay in the Pepsi analogy on the sole grounds that the destination lies within Wikipedia, would it? Jakew 19:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: See Jakew's response. Also, Wikipedia does not link to its own articles that way, that is used for external sources. Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: While other forms of pain and surgery shouldn't be ignored, I think we need to keep things in perspective. Generally speaking, especially with a baby surgery would only be carried out if there is something considered abnormal that needs fairly immediate correction. Pain would also usually be avoided whenever possible. Circumscion is somewhat unique in that it is primarily done for cultural and religious regions. While there may be some medical reasons, these are hotly disputed. In any case, circumscion is by and large not considered to be the equivalent of other surgeries that may need to be performed when something is considered abnormal that needs correction. Therefore, circumscion is unique in this regard and we cannot ignore it Nil Einne 04:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jake, why did you remove this link?

message: Isn't anesthesia a cause of breast refusal? Would it not be "refusal" if the baby is too sleepy or numb to respond? AlbertCahalan 01:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that makes sense.  It would make sense for anesthesia to be used only when the negative effects of the pain would otherwise last longer and/or be stronger than the negative effects of the anesthesia itself.  So the article will need a better wording that shows that while even minor pain (like needle sticks) can cause slight breastfeeding problems, anesthesia only helps with that in cases where the pain is worse and/or more prolongued, or otherwise worse than the effects of the anesthesia.  This is a rather verbose way to put it, though.  Can anyone think of a more concise way? --Icarus 02:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anesthesia

message: It seems to me that lactation should have its own article, rather than redirecting to breastfeeding.  I'd like to see an article that treats lactation as a physiological process, across taxa, from the framework of evolutionary biology.  The development of lactation was an important evolutionary innovation, shaping (in some sense, defining) the mammalian taxon.
The breastfeeding article is NOT the appropriate forum to treat these considerations; lactation and breastfeeding are not synonymous, nor do their respective denotations bear sufficient overlap to justify a redirect (especially at the expense of an important and informative entry for lactation).
I submit that the redirect be reconsidered.--NiOrtiga 19:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been mentioned before and yes, you are correct.  By all means create an article for it and overwrite the redirect – I believe the only reason it is still a redirect is because nobody has created a separate article yet.  violet/riga (t) 19:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lactation redirect improper 

message: The JAMA this week had a study on duration of lactation vs incidence of diabetes in the mothers. I'm not (yet) suggesting we put this in, but may be part of a longer paragraph discussing other health benefits for the mother (e.g. decreased osteoporosis and breast cancer risk). JFW | T@lk 08:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diabetes 

message: Some parts of the article read a bit like a instruction manual, and some of the references are done in the text rather than at the end. Andjam 06:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential improvements 

message: This article uses the term "alveoli" with no explanation or link.  I found it confusing because I thought the alveoli were in the lungs.  Our dab page at Alveolus (disambiguation) clarifies that the term can refer to any of several different structures.  Pending the creation of an article about the breast alveoli, I've wikilinked "alveoli" to that dab page.  It would be great if someone knowledgeable would create Mammary alveolus or whatever the proper title is. JamesMLane t c 06:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alveoli 

message: Some of the thumbnails are ridiculously large files for their small size.  One image that is 160px by 120px is 26KB.  I think if there is anyway to recompress versions of these thumbnails and use them instead it would greatly help people who arent on broadband.  I am new here and not sure if there is a way to supply your own thumbnails for images.  SallyB 23:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *In your preferences (the "My Preferences" link in the upper right of the screen) there is a tab titled "Files". Setting the thumbnail size and maximum image size to the lowest values will automatically generate the smallest possible file sizes. -- MarcoTolo 04:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large File Size of Some Thumbnail Images 

message: I'm new to this article, so I'm trying not to tread on toes here.  What are the feelings of other editors here about going over to using inline references?  I mean the kind that hyperlink to the endnotes at the bottom of the page, can't remember offhand what the style is called.  It wouldn't interrupt readability too badly, and it would make it easier to tell which part is sourced by what. Kasreyn 04:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline references 

message: The lead sentences of an article should really avoid specialised vocab. Neither "latch" nor "frenulum" are everday words, and so should be given with glossary if used so early in the piece - a link is not enough.
I'm kind of surprised this is still FA - the lead really has some problems. What does "Breast milk has been shown to be best for the child" mean? Best compared to what? The lead also makes no mention of the controversies surrounding breastfeeding, nor the difficulties encountered by the modern mother - which are exactly what the average reader would expect to find here. I'm almost tempted to add an NPOV tag (the article strongly takes a "everyone should breastfeed" stance) but will resist.
Actually there's technical vocab all the way through: "let-down reflex" - this needs explanation. "Afterpains"? "ductule system"? "alveoli"?
Poor formatting too - uses inline (ibid) references, double hyphens (--) instead of em-dashes, use of inline web references rather than <ref> links. I've nominated it at Wikipedia:Featured article review for a review. Stevage 08:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  technical terms in lead, other problems