Talk:Benjamin Spock

message: This article seems to have a clear POV- reading it gives the impression that Spock revolutionized parenting for the better, and everybody loves him except the humbugs who believe you shouldn't kiss your children. 70.43.199.66 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: "He failed to get the required 80,000 votes"? I would have clarified this, but I'm completely baffled. What's so significant about 80,000 votes? I took it out--if somebody wants to re-add it, please explain what it means.
Chowbok 02:35, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  80,000 votes 

message: Dr. Spock the candidate for the Peace & Freedom Party!
The People's Party is a right wing group I believe.
:No, he was the People's Party candidate. Perhaps you're thinking of the Populist Party? The original Peoples' Party, from the turn-of-the-century, was better known as the Populist Party, and there was also a right-wing Populist Party in the 1980's. These third parties get confusing, I know... and it's possible Spock was also on the Peace & Freedom ticket in some states, but for certain he was the People's Party candidate. --Chowbok 03:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Peoples' Front of Judea?? Blankety-blank splitters!! We're the Judean Peoples' Front! WHPratt (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  People's Party? 

message: "Previously, experts had told parents that babies needed to learn to sleep on a regular schedule, and that picking them up and holding them whenever they cried would only teach them to cry more and not to sleep through the night. They were told to feed their children on a regular schedule, and that they should not pick them up, kiss them, or hug them, because that would not prepare them to be strong and independent individuals in a harsh world."
This doesn't appear to have any source. What experts? Beyond that there's the distinction between what some experts were saying and what American parents were actually doing. It would be valuable to explore this in greater depth, or at least to link to a page doing so.
Overall the article seems a little too pro-Spock rather than neutral.
Mistaben 19:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can find some (acceptable) secondary source which calls Dr. Spock a eugenicist (or Freudian), that would count as "original research" and, as such, be unusable by Wikipedia. 94.193.130.132 (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old "conventional" wisdom 

message: I heard or read that his boys hated him for some reason. Is there any information on this, and is it relevant to this article?
S.Rodgers--65.24.77.104 04:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spock's Children 

message: I've cite-tagged the Permissiveness section.  It's full of weasel words and unsourced POV.  The one citation, for a Norman Vincent Peale quote, is to someone else quoting him.  That's not a valid citation, so it was removed. — J M Rice 17:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hearsay reference 

message: No mention of his own change to veganism and somewhat scandalous recommendation of the same to parents for their children? Has this issue been discussed before? MKV 21:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet 

message: There's been a lot of talk about evidence-based medicine lately, and one fascinating and startling comment made by some proponents is that Spock's advice regarding sleeping position has resulted in increased risk of SIDS up until the early 90s when heath-care providers stopped repeating Spock's advice.  This transcript with Sir Iain Chalmers on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's "Health Report" show inspired me to add something to this article (note that you have to click on the "Show Transcript" link to actually see the transcript of the show).  The actual words used in the interview were much more direct:
I bought a copy of Dr Benjamin Spock's book Baby and Child Care and I actually marked the passage saying that babies should be put to sleep on their fronts. Now I promulgated that advice - we now know that had people looked at the evidence by 1970 it would have been clear that this was actually lethally bad advice and it's been estimated that in the UK, had we taken notice of the evidence, it might have prevented about 10,000 deaths from cot death. And the estimates for US, Australia and Europe is over 50,000 unnecessary deaths and that's a tragic consequence of not paying attention to the need for evidence.
I've tried to be as even-handed as possible, but would appreciate any comments regarding whether I've used a sufficiently NPOV. Ben White 04:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sleeping position and SIDS 

message: In the misconceptions section, the article currently says "Spock had two children: Michael, formerly the director of the Boston Children's Museum and since retired from the museum profession." Who was the other child? Also, the two lines about Spock's grand-daughter do not seem to be relevant to the article. Unless there are any complaints, I'll delete them. Catpigg 08:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spock's children 

message: The biography section mentions a second wife.  What happened to his first wife?  Who did he have his children with and why are they not mentioned in that section?Redland19 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Wife? 

message: "Spock's baby book was a perennial bestseller. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, it outsold all other books in the Nonfiction category except the Bible."
I really doubt that the bible would be classed as "nonfiction", except by a very old version of the Guinness Book. Does anyone know what version/year this came from? The current Guinness Book website actually lists the Guinness Book itself as the best selling "copyright book" (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/arts_and_media/books_and_magazines/best_selling_copyright_book.aspx) and excludes the bible as being in the "non-copyright" category; there's no mention of fiction/non-fiction. I'm removing the bible reference for now.
Niteling (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guinness Book of World Records bestseller reference 

message: Just a note for now.  The overly long block quote in the section really needs to go.  Spock seems perfectly clear in describing his perspective on the issue, but this many words of direct quote is far too many.  We should summarize his position in our own words, and perhaps only quote the minimal snippets necessary to convey his voice (or skip direct quote altogether). LotLE×talk 23:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not worried about a copyvio so much.  But I do see this as having a clearly pro-Spock bias.  It's reinforcing the Spock camps claims that he was not permissive.  In fact, I'm not that familiar with it but there is definite evidence he sometimes was, e.g. in discouraging spanking . Superm401 - Talk 18:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Discouraging spanking DOES NOT EQUAL permissiveness.  Permissiveness is a broad spectrum of neglectful behaviors wherein bad behavior has no consequences whatsoever (no reprimand, no time out, no loss of privileges).  Note that up to Spock's time "spanking" was often done with rods or paddles and left marks, yet it was both legal and acceptable.Legitimus (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue involved with this section was a very much discussed and debated during The Vietnam War era. The belief that children who were raised by parents using Dr. Spocks books were propagandized into becoming hippie anti war activists were quite popular at the time. Baby boomers were raised on his books. Many baby boomers became involved in the counterculture. Dr. Spock's political activities were widely reported. Was not a stretch for traditional lifestyle and Vietnam War  supporters to see some sort of nefarious conspiracy. He denied it and the truth is in the grave with him. Of course we have to go by sources so I could not mention hippie and can not directly mention the conspiracy theory. But the sources do tie the criticism with the era. And Spock himself believed the criticism had to do with his political activities. I added this to the lead since this is an important part of his identity to people of a certain age. I added context to tie the issue to the era by adding material and changing the title of the section. Edkollin (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permissiveness section 

message: Shouldn't it be mentioned that in later life Spock became a vegan, and recommended it in his book? York Times article --N-k (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veganism 

message: I just removed the following: "As the oldest child, Spock was expected by his parents" from the "life" section, as the rest of the sentence has gone AWOL. I also think that the section is a bit thin. I don't really have time ATM to go through previous edits to see if perhaps there was any (useful) content there at some prior point in time, but thought I should point it out for when someone does have a few... Jedikaiti (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life 

message: It's almost laughable that there is hardly any information at all in this article's section on Dr. Spock's life.  Come on, people! I am pretty sure there's plenty of information on this out there in dead tree form and on the interwebs. I recall that he was on the US Olympic rowing (crew) team. Maybe? --23:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life section is woefully lacking 

message: I dont really think the reference to Fred Rogers is well placed here.  While the core of their notoriety both involve children, the same could be said for hundreds of other individuals.  Nothing links Spock and Rogers other than this generality, so why should the articles be linked?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.97.63 (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Benjamin Spock. 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/20100901182552/http://www.drspock.com:80/about/drbenjaminspock/0,1781,,00.html to http://www.drspock.com/about/drbenjaminspock/0,1781,,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116133359/http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/chomsky/chomsky/4/5.html to http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/chomsky/chomsky/4/5.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050110172314/http://www3.niu.edu:80/%7Etd0raf1/history468/feb2602.htm to http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/history468/feb2602.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911014039/http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/videodir/pacificaviet/spock.ram to http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/videodir/pacificaviet/spock.ram
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under Social and political activism, “In 1968… Boston Five”. These are the five named above (in a paragraph beginning with “In 1964…”) about a 1968 affair. These two mentions of the same affair should be merged. (I am not sure enough of my English to do it myself.) --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twice the same 1968 Boston Five 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Benjamin Spock. 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/20080227102850/http://www.yale.edu/rowing/media/Spock.jpg to http://www.yale.edu/rowing/media/Spock.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Unfortunately he was incorrect in key respects, notably when he presumed [his notions of] common sense - for example, the necessity of demonstrating affection toward the child - were common, when in actuality they were quite rare. And again when he rather patronisingly urged mothers to trust their instincts, and be confident they knew 'more than they thought', when in actuality many mothers' instincts were disciplinarian and authoritarian, detracting from the child's psychological development and well-being, and in fact knew 'less they than thought they did', rather than more. 122.151.210.84 (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Misconceptions