Talk:Dunstan Baby Language

message: I undid previous edit which added "Pseudoscience" and "Quackery" to the "See Also" list as these are clearly editorial comments.  I would go so far as removing "Confirmation Bias" from the same list, but would be curious to get feedback.  While the research and testing of the Dunstan Baby Language may well be an example of "confirmation bias", the relevance of the term isn't really spelled out in the article.  I'm not clear on Wikipedia's standards on "See Also" lists, but it seems to me that the logic of the lists should follow clearly from the information given in the article.  "See Also" lists should not be a means of adding unsupported editorial commentary.  There is no discussion of confirmation bias in the article, no direct accusation that this is is relevant to Dunstan, and it is not clearly germane to the subject matter (in the way "baby talk" is).  Thus it seems unwarranted to use it in this context.  Same would be true if someone added "See also: Language Acquisition", "See also: Linguistics", or "See also: Noam Chomsky" for example, all of which would imply that there was greater scientific merit for Dunstan Baby Language than has thus far been established.  A better "See Also" might be something like "See Also: Scientific Method" or "See Also: Scientific Proof" which might help people understand the rules that science abides by without weighing judgment on Dunstan.
Jumunius (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree with the idea to remove confirmation bias from the links, certainly without any explanation of it. 71.232.107.213 (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: I feel that the photo of Ms. Dunstan should be moved from the left side of the page to the right, because it's interfering with the alignment of the 'See Also' section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.51.173.99 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I went ahead and moved it to the right myself.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Priscilla Dunstan 

message: I've tagged the section as original research.  These claims need citations from reliable sources.  --CliffC (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Does anyone have the materials to hand to confirm something for me? We bought this product after learning of it following my own independent observations, but we sold it on in fairly short order when we read that the five sounds (in those spellings) are trademarked, or copyrighted. I don't remember the precise details (something to do with lack of sleep!) so I'd appreciate if someone can find the info. I found that part of it highly objectionable.
(For those interested, my own single-subject independent observations identified four instinctive vocalizations, rather than Dunstan's five: /ɴɛː/ for hunger, /oː/ for tiredness, /ɦɛː/ for general discomfort, and /ʔɛ/ for internal discomfort. Later on, Mom was /ɴɛɴɛː/, and I was /ʔɛʔɛ/!)--Rfsmit (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your phonetic precision! - something the article lacks.  Just what sound is "eair" supposed to represent, or "ow"?  Without spending time or money on Dunstan's commercial products, a reader of this article should be able to clearly reprodue - or better, hear - the actual sounds under discussion.   Editors, please supply suitable sound files or phonetic representations if you can. yoyo (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Yoyo, I removed your clarify-tags from the article. Without reading the talk page, they are incomprehensible, because the text doesn't need clarification. Furthermore, your request for sound files is here on the talk page. With friendly regards! Lova Falk talk 19:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound representations protected by law? 

message: I thought it prudent to mark this article checked for neutrality. I rephrased the introductionary part and removed the cricicism section.
The page hasn't been edited for some time, and some of these edits have obviously been made under the assumption that Dunstan's research is fraudulent and/or pseudo-scientific (rather than simply unverified or awaiting review). There were  no sources listed where her observations were considered fraudulant, or, any indication, that her hypothesis' could not undergo independent peer review or scientific study. 
A criticism section was added with defunct links, without any substantive criticism from reliable source, which furthers points to the fact, that the page has been edited with a POV, in order to incite false controversy. Using words such as "claims", repeatedly, rather than hypothesis', is also biased to a point of view, that these observations on infantile vocal expressions have not been (or can not be) put to independent peer-reviewed scientific scrutiny. 
Dunstan's claims, toghether with her cited research proposals, are put forth as a hypothesis, in the context of behavioral intervention, and must therefore be considered as awaiting further clinical trial.
It should be enough to state: 1) That Dunstan's Baby language is a for-profit company, 2) that it's not an independent research institution, but citing material currently being proposed for independent study, by peer-reviewed authors, or undergoing such trial awaiting peer-reviewed publication. 
Undue criticism without sources, insunating the view that Dunstan's observations are fraudulant and/or pseudo-scientific, is POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  31.209.253.25  (talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 July 2014‎
:I've reverted it as it looks like WP:POV and WP:FRINGE are being set aside based upon bad-faith assumptions of past editing.
:Yes, we should include material about the for-profit company.
:I don't understand the concerns about the criticism section. The section has one source that seems reliable. --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the opposition to the use of the word "claim" in place of the word "hypothesis." I even find this statement by unsigned (5 July 2014‎) to be more than a little inflated: "Dunstan's claims, toghether with her cited research proposals, are put forth as a hypothesis, in the context of behavioral intervention, and must therefore be considered as awaiting further clinical trial." Why use "further" (in "further clini[c]al trial") when there hasn't yet been any clinical trials? The scientific method wasn't applied rigorously in the development of Dunstan Baby Language, and the scientific method (with clinical trials, not simply self-reporting and surveys) hasn't been applied rigorously to test the accuracy of the claims of Dunstan Baby Language. I haven't made any changes to the entry but fully support the article's healthy skepticism. Jk180 (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several problems with this article 

message: :"Dunstan Baby Language is a claim about infantile vocal reflexes as signals, in humans."
Terrible opening sentence.  First of all, a 'language' cannot be a 'claim'....  How about something roughly like "Dunstan Baby Language is a claimed [or 'hypothesized'] set of infantile vocal reflexes used as signals in humans younger than three months."?  Also, the tone of this article seems to me to be much more harshly critical than it needs to be.  Sure, the system may be an over-hyped commercial product, but that does not mean there's nothing to it.  I really wonder if an amateur researcher publishing something similar in young dolphins or crows or kittens would attract the same degree of hostility.  Let's try and keep the tone more neutral.    Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence