Talk:Breastfeeding/Archive 2

message: I've failed the article per the many comments at its FARC. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed [[Wikipedia:Version 0.5|v0.5]] nomination 

message: The breastfeeding article is on my watchlist, but I'm not one of the ones who usually puts a whole lot of time into it.  For those of you who do, I wanted to point out an excellent article I just encountered, which contains a wealth of information, and should be a useful source for improvements to the Wikipedia article.  Anyway, without further ado, I give you
:Suck on This from the EcologistOnline, 04 Jan, 2006
MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  violet/riga (t) 19:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bringing attention to an ''Excellent'' article 

message: I am curious: would this article be a good place to put some pop culture references to breastfeeding? I am thinking of (for example) the episode of Friends where Joey is made uncomfortable by Rachel's breastfeeding her daughter; or the episode of Anything But Love where the right to a woman breastfeeding is challenged by the Jamie Lee Curtis character. -- Jalabi99 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they can be added in prose form rather than a bulleted list then I think it would nicely illustrate the awkwardness that it can cause.  violet/riga (t) 19:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture references to breastfeeding 

message: I've been through the article doing a general tidy up and making the formatting more consistent. Compared with other articles on Wikipedia, this one was well cited, and there weren't any of the glaring errors which often creep in over time. I've also converted some of the old external link format references to the newer ref format. I hope you find it an improvement. Stephen B Streater 22:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've made many positive changes to the article - thanks.  Might I suggest using the "Show preview" button more often and reducing the number of individual edits you make though - it makes the history more difficult to follow.  violet/riga (t) 17:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I always use the preview button, usually several times. I think I just need a bigger font ;-) If I'm new to an article, like I am here, I often make small edits so I can explain each one in the edit summary. Also, I have many times got to the end of a major edit only to be told "edit conflict" :-( I would be happy to make less informative and more generic summaries such as "General tidy up", and see if this incurs the wrath of the existing community. I'll let you know how it goes! Stephen B Streater 18:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since I wrote this, Cyde Weys has pointed me to the  template, which seems to do the trick. Stephen B Streater 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Remember, Wikipedia's goal is to create a free content freely redistributable encyclopedia.  Non-free fair use images get in the way of this, and as such, are only used when absolutely necessary.  They are not necessary on this article, as free alternatives are incredibly easy to find (the majority of women breast feed at some point in their lives).  So get rid of the fair use images that are still around and don't add any in the future.  --Cyde Weys 18:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bit of a strong way of wording your message!  The only fair use image I can see is the Lucy Lawless one, which I think is appropriate as it nicely illustrates the "Publicity, promotion and law" section.  violet/riga (t) 19:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No fair use please 

message: I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia.  Does Britannica use "nappie" for "diaper", or "tummy" for "stomach"?  Shouldn't we be using proper English, rather than, well, baby talk?  Kasreyn 22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Tummy" is wrong, but "nappy" is the correct British English word.  violet/riga (t) 22:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ok.  Over here in the U.S. "nappy" is used as the baby-talk version of "diaper", so that was my mistake.  Kasreyn 03:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added "diaper" in parentheses after "nappy" for the benefit of North American readers (here in Canada I have never heard diapers referred to as nappies). Rosemary Amey 02:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutesy language? 

message: Extremely biased towards breastfeeding, chock full of weasel words (Breastfeeding MAY reduce this and that, MAY prevent thus and so, MAY cause children to walk on water...), incorrect information (since when have American hosptials hammered young mothers with formula as a last resort? Try never!) and rife with scare tactics. Shameful. 205.188.116.198 06:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, please start citing these that you disagree with and the process of finding evidence or deleting the unsupported statements can begin.  I have access to a medical library and I am trying to support or remove references when I have time - give me some targets.Williamwells 04:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As they say - everything in its place.  I think the article can and should include references to breastmilk substitutes - all of them, including pasteurized donor breastmilk, commercial substitutes, and even historical references to other substitutes used historically.  Nobody disagrees that there is a place for using feeds other than breastmilk (see section on contraindications) and this can easily include other POV's without contradicting scientific evidence.Williamwells 04:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand the tag to be about the fact the article does not adequately back up its current assertions, and some of those assertions may use promotional language and weasel words.  I think it would be a shame to make this article into a debate about the benefits of breastfeeding - as you say, there really isn't a significant medical point of view that doesn't support the breast milk is preferable idea.  I think the NPOV tag is more about the fact that aspects of the article read as though they're advocating for or against breastfeeding, whereas they just need to be about breastfeeding. So editing out some of the more activist language (for sake of a better term) would help.  Good studies would be a great addition. We might get some good help from the WikiProject Clinical medicine.  They generally have access to reliable sources and up to date research. --Siobhan Hansa 19:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: I'm curious about producing milk for an adoptive baby just by suckling it. I knew this was possible, but how long does it take for the milk to come in? If you were stuck on a desert island with a young (new born? older?) baby could you produce milk before the baby died of starvation? Bascially does anyone have more info on this. ChristineD 21:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that simply suckling doesn't work.  I've heard from several friends who adopted kids about the Newman-Goldfarb protocols (this is just a link I found through google, don't know how good the website is), which requires a cocktail of hormones.  No-one I know ended up going through with it so I can't tell you how well it worked for them.  --Siobhan Hansa 22:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This requires frequent (every 2-3 hour) nipple stimulation - which requires a very motivated mother.  Some medications might help (domperidone for example - not available in the US).  I am an allopathic provider, not a naturopath - but some say that fenugreek also helps and is available everywhere.  The time required is relatively unpredictable.  On the positive side, many adoptive mothers can provide at least a portion of their infants milk requirements daily and can supplement with breastmilk substitutes while the infant is attached (fed through a small tube) for the remainder. Try La Leche League for advice or referral to a lactation consultant for assistance - they will be happy to help. 08:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long does it take to produce milk for an adoptive child 

message: Article says this... 'Feeding a baby on demand, which may mean nursing many times more than the recommended minimum, is the best way to maintain milk production' (with no citation) but research pointed to in the artcle says 'Ongoing research [9] shows that more fully draining the breasts also increases the rate of milk production'. From my experience it's clear that demand feeding rarely properly empties the breast (the baby just isn't that hungry if it is feeding once every hour or two), so that would seem to imply it is detrimental to long term milk production. I think unless one can find a citation to prove the first statement above its factual basis is questionable.
: I added a note about foremilk imbalance from too frequent breastfeeding, which is covered in the referenced video. Ciotog 23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best way to maintain milk? 

message: I am disappointed that an image which leaves out the face of the mother has been chosen here. It depersonalizes what is fundamentally a personal relationship, and an intimate activity between two human beings. It is as if we were depicting love making by a photo cropping out all but the sexual organs. Haiduc 02:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you happen to know of any fair use images that depeict what you would prefer to see , then by all means replace the image. You are, afterall, given equal access to editing this article. wtfunkymonkey 14:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  initial illustration 

message: I know it is recommended to EBF for at least 4-6 months, but is there an age where it is nutritionally required for a baby to begin solids? MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 17:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long can a baby be exclusively breastfed? 

message: The current version states "Typically, if a baby is born in a hospital in Canada, the mother will be given a bottle filled with formula "just in case" she has any problems breastfeeding."
Really? I have never heard of this practice, nor have any of the other Canadian moms (who've given birth recently) mentioned any such thing. Any stats to back up the claim that it is "typical" for Canadian hospitals to provide formula?
Thanks!
Rosemary Amey 22:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Oklahoma it happens all the time.  I would pull my hair out if I wasnt bald already.  They get a whole six-pack most of the time, and are given a "discharge pack" that includes a nice bag, lots of free "formula" (breastmilk substitute) and other advertising.  Massachussets outlawed this practice last year sometime but I have not heard of any other states jumping on that bandwagon yet. Williamwells 08:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That stinks, but it doesn't mean that that is happening in Canada. Rosemary Amey 17:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the questionable claim about Canadian hospitals pushing formula has already been removed. :) Rosemary Amey 17:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a follow up, I had my baby in Quebec last year and not only was I not given a bottle, "just in case," I received nothing from formula companies while in the hospital. I haven't heard anything like stated above happening to anyone I know in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. Maj 06:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the claim because it's rather absurd, however it probably is true that most new Canadian parents are offered (and not necessarily given) free coupons for formula. I know we were, in Fredericton NB for our first baby. Ciotog 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breastfeeding in Canada 

message: Wean (as in animals) RDRs here, which doesn't seem quite right to me. Can this article support yet more content, or should it actually get its own article? pfctdayelise (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is enough content to create a Wean article then go for it!  violet/riga (t) 09:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wean]] 

message: I'm not convinced that this section belongs in the article. Ciotog 13:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if it were worded differently like the "Health Risks of Not Breastfeeding?"JennyMCB 23:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make it a lot more relevant - good idea. At the risk of making the article larger, I'd then be inclined to add information about other alternatives that are sometimes used (home-made formula, watered-down cow milk, etc) Ciotog 08:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed per above. -- MarcoTolo 02:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health risks of formula feeding 

message: Breastfeeding (the article) has become very large - ~85kb. I think it's time to re-visit the idea of splitting-off some sections to make the main entry more manageable. There are a number of ways to consider a split - in the interest of starting the dialogue I suggest two changes:
#Make Breastfeeding method its own article
#Ditto with History of breastfeeding
This should get the article down to ~40kb - back into the realm suggested by WP:LENGTH. -- MarcoTolo 22:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Nursing in Public" (or Breastfeeding in Public) merits its own article Ciotog 19:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, there are already some stubs where information from here could be merged and reduced, for example Breast engorgement. "Benefits for the infant" could be partially merged with Breast milk, as many of the nutritional benefits are not related to the act of breastfeeding but the composition of (unprocessed) breast milk. Of course those articles would need to be cleaned up Ciotog 19:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nursing/breastfeeding in public should be a stand-alone, but I suggest a two-stage approach by first porting to the History of breastfeeding (with the "in public" portion attached), then split "in public" from "History of". Sound reasonable? -- MarcoTolo 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On review, I don't think the Breastfeeding in public subsection even really fits with History of breastfeeding, although a "History of breastfeeding in public" section would work nicely with a stand-alone BiP article (and a small mention and link in "History of breastfeeding"). The "History of breastfeeding" section itself could be further trimmed without requiring its own article. Most of breastfeeding "history" has been in the past 150 years or so, and focuses mainly on alternatives being developed, which is covered in Infant formula. Ciotog 09:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Aside from splitting off sections, I think that "Feeding options and requirements" and "Breastfeeding method" could be merged and shortened. If "method" is split off, then much of options can go with it regardless. In fact, why don't I just do it and see how it looks? Ciotog 13:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: History of breastfeeding is now its own article. Ciotog 03:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move! Michael Glass 13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: The following section was removed from the article, as it dwells too much on an alternative to breastfeeding, and has its own article. If anything here is missing from the Infant formula article, it can be derived from here. Including this information here is one of the reasons why the NPOV tag has been applied. Ciotog 14:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added last line back in under "developing alternatives" Ciotog 14:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infant formula 

message: The World Health Organization recommends that all mothers be encouraged to breastfeed. Hospitals that are accredited by the World Health Organization are tolerant of formula feeding but do not offer it to infants who can be breastfed as feeding a new baby with formula undermines the establishment of breastfeeding.
If the decision is made not to feed the child breast milk, or if breastfeeding is not possible, then infant formula can be given to the infant, usually using a baby bottle. According to the WHO, infant formula is the last option for infant feeding as breastfeeding expressed milk of the baby's own mother and the expressed milk of another lactating mother (donor) should all be tried before resorting to infant formula. Infant formula may also be introduced as a supplemental liquid drink to weaned babies. Because it is proportioned for human babies it is healthier than simply drinking the milk from another mammal. Dry-nursing or drinking the milk of another mammal has been associated with high infant mortality.
While it is inferior to breastfeeding, infant formula has been effectively marketed and promoted to new mothers as a modern, easy or convenient option to feeding a baby. A 2004 UK survey found that 34% of women incorrectly believe infant formula is very similar or the same as breast milk.  In 1979 the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) was formed to help raise awareness of such practices as supplementary feeding of new babies with formula, inappropriate promotion of baby formula and to help change attitudes that discourage or inhibit mothers from breastfeeding their babies.
:Added last line back in under "developing alternatives" Ciotog 14:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infant formula

message: The following section was removed from the article, as most information here is covered elsewhere in the article. However, some of it may still be useful. Ciotog 09:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breast and nipple pain 

message: I have added reference to a South African study which says breastfeeding can significantly reduce the risk of HIV transmission from mother to child in infants less than 6 months old - and is reported in the Lancet, so is peer reviewed.  But I have to say the edits are a bit clumsy, also I wonder if this topic has been an issue in the article - though I could not find it in the discussion page.  Anyway - it's there for now.  Springnuts 06:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also added it as an expanded note into the When breastfeeding is harmful section, as to make it easier for reader without having to refer to the Benefit section again. Someone please put the direct link to the Lancet, so far the reference I found is from third party such as BBC Chaerani 10:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK I have tracked down the Lancet article and added a citation - but I am a biff at refs so it may need reformatting.  Pages 1065-1066 in the same issue have a discussion by Wendy R Holmes and Felicity Savage; Centre for International Health, Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia (WRH); and Centre for International Health and Development, London, UK (FS) Springnuts 09:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breastfeeding and AIDS 

message: While not all women have husbands or partners, I can't say I'm keen on the term secondary parent.  As a father myself, I can't say I'm keen on being so labelled! It also might not be appropriate in some situations where the woman's main support may be another relative (her mother or sister) or even a neighbour or friend. Partner would seem to be preferable, but another word might be even better. (support person is rather clumsy.) Michael Glass 05:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not keen on it myself, but sometimes compromises have to be made. Partner implies that the other caregiver is a, well, partner, which has connotations. How about secondary caregiver (whether partner, relative)? Ciotog 15:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Another option would be to say "father (or other caregivers)" which uses the majority case but acknowledges that there are other family situations. Ciotog 07:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Husband/Partner/Secondary Parent 

message: I have removed the following sentence from the introduction:
:Also important in the process is an effective latch, a normal frenulum, and an adequate milk supply.
While I have no problem with the sentence or the information it gives, I feel it is misplaced at the very beginning of the article where the word 'breastfeeding' is being defined. Besides the issues mentioned here are dealt with in the rest of the article. Michael Glass 06:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted sentence in introduction 

message: In reading this talk page, I've been interested inthe discussion of how to find references for some of the claims about the benefits and superiority of breastfeeding.  There is no end to excellent and ongoing research about breastfeeding, with the growing understanding that we know a lot less about this human process that we thought we did.  Anyway, I've created a new list page that I hope can become a "portal" to authoratative information on breastfeeding research and findings.  The goal is that current researchers in the field would be listed, web sites from goverment and non-profit institutions that promote breastfeeding and short biographies of individuals who are important in the modern history of breastfeeding. Please come and add your names and sources to this list: List of Breastfeeding Activists, Educators, Researchers, and Writers --I'm Nonpartisan 04:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Breastfeeding Activists, Educators, Researchers, and Writers 

message: I noted the following claim in the article:
Breastfeeding is associated with a lower risk of ...asthma.
This was backed up with two references . The first, Gartner LM, et al (2005). "Breastfeeding and the use of human milk". Pediatrics 115 (2): 496–506. DOI:10.1542/peds.2004-2491. ., made no reference to asthma. The second, Benefits of Breastfeeding. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services., contained the following statement:
::Some studies suggest that infants who are not breastfed have higher rates of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) in the first year of life, and higher rates of type 1 and type 2 diabetes, lymphoma, leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, overweight and obesity, high cholesterol and asthma. More research in these areas is needed (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2005).
I am also aware of a study questioning this claim about asthma 
As one of the cited sources does not support the text, and the other says more research is needed and finally, because there is other evidence that breastfeeding does not have an effect on the rate of asthma, I will delete the reference to asthma as a benefit of breastfeeding. At this point, we simply can't be sure. Michael Glass 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I also support breastfeeding and I believe it has a lot of advantages over formula feeding. That said, it doesn't mean that every claim that is made for breastfeeding is necessarily true. If a finding isn't completely well established, then we should be able to say it. Michael Glass 05:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asthma 

message: Why are the subsections for Benefits, Conditions that interfere with breastfeeding, When breastfeeding might harm the infant,  Methods and considerations, and References not lining up properly? Instead of becoming indented like the subsections of Lactation, they fall straight and it makes the table of contents look weird. 70.50.172.61 20:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They look ok to me, so I'd say the problem might be with the browser you're using. Is this the only article you have this problem with? Ciotog 14:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They look alright to me now too. Weird. Yeah, this was the only article I was having that problem with. Ah well, it seems to be fixed now. 65.92.206.189 15:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might have had to do with the length of the article, as the TOC is generated as the page is loaded. I'd say this is another sign that the article needs to be broken up further. Ciotog 15:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alingment of subsections 

message: The original text in the mastitis subsection did not make sense. Rubor, dolor calor, tumor is textbook definition of inflammation since Aulus-Cornelius Celsus, 1st c. A.D. Now tell me what rubor, dolor calor, turgor is supposed to mean?? It might be better to remove the latin terms altogether in this place because apparently very few people can understand it and it says nothing that cant be said in plain English. Furthermore tumor sounds unnecessarilly frightening for someone who doesn't realise the latin meaning of the word. Richiez 22:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually both are acceptable, and on further research tumor is used more often although I've somehow always found it to be called turgor. We could compromise and go with edema, but I would certainly hate to see it get dumbed down to the point that they're lost for good. I mean this is an encyclopedia, so a little learning is always a good thing. Tumor isn't so much frightening as it is ambiguous in a medical context (although in this case "swelling" is mentioned, so most readers aren't likely to be confused with the other definition). Ciotog 01:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the learning point, just noticed the rubor, dolor, calor,... definition is not even in the main inflammation article. Imho it would make more sense in that place where it can be better put into historical context and tumor/turgor be somehow discussed. I am not happy leaving unexplained latin terms in this place (how many readers will nowadays even notice it is latin?) and too much explanation might be out of scope of this article. Does an entry somewhere in Wiktionary exist? Do not consider edema a good compromise, if we want the latin wording then it should be supported by classic literature. I will check if I can find where the turgor variant comes from.  Richiez 14:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Looked at the google hits for rubor, dolor, calor, turgor/tumor, could not find out where the turgor variant originates from. The quality of publication/context and easilly tractable origin appears to speak in favor of the tumor variant. If it is to be left there then there should be a link to a more vervose explanation. Richiez 11:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an interesting analysis here: , where it's suggested that turgor was more common in the past but was replaced with tumor. If a more verbose explanation is necessary I agree it is more appropriate on the inflammation article. I think if someone was really confused about the latin terms in the mastitis section then they would go there for more information. You're also correct that edema isn't a good substitute for either tumor or turgor since it generally isn't used in the context of inflammation. Anyway, I think that it's fine the way it is now. Ciotog 04:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tumor vs. Turgor 

message: I read somewhere that there is some sort of fashion of men taking special hormones to make them produce milk, and I read some replies to articles on the internet in which some men testify doing it themselves. Is it true? Or perhaps a conspiracy? 瀬人様 19:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male breastfeeding? 

message: Is there any particular reason there's no European White Women or is it just the regular anti white bigotry of the left wings weirdos that populate our quasi-encyclopedia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.84.63 (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Left-wing guilt aside, I would say it is the conservatives who think images of breast feeding are innapropriate. -Hypertext (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Add some.  :)  Xenophrenic (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

text: What does it matter what colour the people are? Pbhj (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti White Bias?