Talk:Breastfeeding/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Failed v0.5 nomination

I've failed the article per the many comments at its FARC. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Expressing milk - a choice?

Violetriga, my alteration to the wording of the 'breastfeeding in public' section was small, but the point I endeavoured to make is significant to the subject of that section. It may be obvious to you, but it is a widespread misconception that all mothers who choose to express will be able to. The sentence below suggests to the uninformed that whether to breastfeed or feed expressed breastmilk is a choice, and that is frequently not the case:

"Some mothers choose to pump or express milk by hand so that they can carry a small bottle of milk with them if they plan to be out at mealtimes."

The 'option to express' is commonly used in arguments against breastfeeding in public, and for this reason I believe that the modifiers are appropriate if this is to be used as the closing sentence on the subject of public breastfeeding. My alteration, however, made the sentence clumsy. I welcome suggestions on how to improve it.

above unsigned commment was made by 203.167.131.10 20:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should read

"Some breastfeeding mothers choose to pump or express milk by hand so that they can carry a small bottle of milk with them if they plan to be out at mealtimes."

Isn't any woman who can breastfeed, given a decent pump, able to express her milk? As for using pumped milk to avoid breastfeeding in public, it's just not very practical. Even if you bring a bottle, your breasts still get full of milk. Unless you actually nurse, you'll have to go somewhere to pump it out anyway, or else risk plugged ducts or mastitis. (Believe me, I've had both, and they're no fun.) It's much easier to just feed the baby directly. MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  11:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are all valid points, but to answer your question: When a mother encounters pump resistance - especially common after the first three to four months - the quality of the pump may have little to do with how easily she finds it to express and how much milk she is able to let-down for a pump. Then you have the expense - even good manual pumps can run into hundreds of dollars, electric more. This sentence has the subtle implication to the uninformed that expressing milk for feeding in public places is a viable option financially or practically - or indeed, that it is even physically possible - for any mother choosing to do so. Assuming that the general public will be aware of these things is misguided. This gap in public knowledge on breastfeeding is frequently displayed in editorials and online forums. The wording as it stands feels a little ignorant to me. I'm undecided over whether it even has a place in the section on public breastfeeding, as there is already a section on expressing. If it does, perhaps a longer, detailed section on breastfeeding in public would be appropriate since this is an important factor in breastfeeding rates and duration. above unsigned commment was made by 203.167.131.226 08:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What is pump resistance? I've never heard of it.

Anyway, I think a sentence on feeding expressed milk belongs here, but you're right, it does need to be edited. Your point about being able to express is a valid one. I also don't think a distinction needs to be made between "pumping" and "expressing by hand." The word "express" alone covers both. How about the following:

"Some breastfeeding mothers who can express their milk will carry a small bottle with them if they plan to be out at mealtimes."

BTW, you should always sign your comments. Simply put four tildas (~~~~) at the end, and Wikipedia will handle the sig for you.

MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  13:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I like that amendment to the wording. It's a small change, but at least it raises the question "So some mothers can't?" rather than "So why doesn't everyone express?". I'll alter it, if no-one else objects. Oh, and thanks for the tip! 203.167.131.226 13:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

BA/AmE

This article should remain British English. It was mostly written in British English, passed FA like that and has remained that way for over a year. violet/riga (t) 18:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It was originally written in American English (I was one of the contributors -- under a diff. user name). There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says a violation of policy that's been "stable for over a year" is not to be considered a violation.

Please stick to policy. It exists so we can focus on content, not spelling. Thanks, --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 18:15 (UTC)

Firstly, discuss, don't break WP:1RR.

Secondly, the MOS is a guide not a rule.

Thirdly, you can't deny the above three points. Sorry but I think that they take massive preference over first contributor. violet/riga (t) 18:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Further, you say that we should focus on content and not spelling - well who do you think wrote most of this article? violet/riga (t) 18:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy, or guidelines, or suggestions, or whatever, exist in part so that people can think about more important things than spelling and formatting. Moreover, they exist so that what a particular person (let alone an admin) "thinks" or feels won't rule the day. You think one thing takes "massive precedence," I think another does. We disagree. Ergo we follow policy/guidelines so we can stop fighting about something that ultimately is quite silly. Guidelines say that the first non-stub version (to which I contributed -- under a diff. name) takes precedent. It doesn't say that a somewhat stable result of "dialect creep" should be cast in stone. So please stop reverting me, unles you can cite something other than your personal views. (I'll wait a few hours before making more changes, though.) --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 18:33 (UTC)

Guidelines exist to help with the majority of cases. They are not always the most appropriate way to go about things. I see no reason why you should come along and suddenly change something that has been in place for well over a year. violet/riga (t) 19:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you don't revert again, for two reasons:

1. If the original article was in AmE then technically your first edit (of three) was a revert - a further one would mean you violate the WP:3RR policy
2. Discussion is preferred to edit-warring. Generally things should be left at the status quo and discussed until a clear way forward can be found. I plan to keep this as British English and, if you are determined for it to be AmE without compromise then I can only suggest mediation.

violet/riga (t) 19:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If you insist on believing that your (as far as I can see) unmotivated, guideline-violating changes (from estrogen to oestrogen, anemia to anaemia, to name two) must be maintained no matter how much they disturb people who think that we should adhere to guidelines in order to promote peace and harmony on WP, then, yes, let's request mediation. No need to waste others' time here. Cultural Freedom 2006-06-25 20:04 (UTC)

Disturb is a rather strong word! I don't understand your final comments as they seem to be contradictory. We always go by policy, and usually go by guidelines, but it's not right to think that every situation can be covered by them. violet/riga (t) 20:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

First: Imagine I really believe in spelling reform. Imagine I really believe that the American spelling system, while weird in plenty of ways (defense, for ex., should be defence, unless fence were changed to fense, which is closer to the Latin defensa -- and there are few other weirdnesses), is best as a global variant of English. And, either way, it's just the system I use. Spelling matters to some people. (It certainly matters to you.) Yet I would never impose this on anyone, esp. not in a community where all dialects are to be respected, in accordance with policy and guideliness the community has developed. Imagine that I contribute to a Wikipedia article that includes the spellings "estrogen" and "anemia". And then you come along and willfully change those spellings to your favorite spellings. And you make other changes. Then, a year later, I come along and change them back, following spelling guidelines that the Wikipedia community has developed.

And your response? You invoke a principle that doesn't exist: your violations, because no one caught them within a period of X weeks (where X is more than a few), shall (you decree) no longer be considered instances of guideline-violation (or "non-following").

"Disturb" is indeed the operative word. When an admin, at his or her fiat, claims "I plan to keep this as British English" it is indeed disturbing to those here who believe that we should follow guidelines more closely. Can you tell me why you changed the spellings in the first place? Was it wrong then? Why won't you just change them back? It's not a rhetorical question. Think about it. You made a mistake. I was trying to rectify that. You simply reverting me. (And then upbraided me for my errors....)

Meanwhile, how do we request mediation? (I ask because it seems like you have not interest in compromising.) Send answer via email if you wish. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 21:02 (UTC)

It appears that we disagree on several things, and I'm sorry but your "I was here before you" stance doesn't work when there is nothing to link your new account to previous edits here. Try Wikipedia:Mediation. violet/riga (t) 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. It is in no way "I was here first." I was trying to get you to step into the shoes of the people you "violated" (too strong a word, perhaps, but reflect on the force of your "I PLAN to keep this .... in British English"...) with your initial changes. My linking my account to the previous one is irrelevant to my point. You violated guidelines, and you don't seem to care. I'm trying to understand why you don't care. Could you answer this non-rhetorical question: why won't you undo your spelling changes? Your primary reason seems to be "X amount of time has gone by". And that reason doesn't exist in any guideline, it's your will, not (as far as I can see) community will. Invoking reasoning like that, talking about "common" (even if it's not reflected in community guidelines anywhere) sense, etc., just doesn't seem like reasonable admin behavior to me. But, I'm very new here. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 21:23 (UTC)

You're new here? I thought you were one of the original contributors to this article?

I have explained already about my original changes, as taken from your talk page: "I can't recall changing it and thus cannot explain my reasoning, but it does appear to have been against guidelines, but as I did so much work on the article I don't think it was a major thing." violet/riga (t) 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You have explained why (as far as you can remember, and I know it was a while ago, and I wouldn't expect you to remember) you made the changes intially. But that's not really what I'm getting at. My main question is why you won't change them back; after all, you recognize the changes violated guidelines. Why be stubborn about this? The issue itself obviously is a big thing to you. Think of all this time we've spent discussing this. Why not just follow the spelling guidelines, instead of invoking (what you think is) common sense? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 21:46 (UTC) P.S. (Yes, I am more or less new here. I worked briefly on biology articles a couple years ago, but then disappeared. But I guess by "new" I meant "inexperienced".)

It's hard to hold these discussions on two pages. I'm rather amusing that you are calling me stubborn when you clearly are too. violet/riga (t) 21:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't deny being stubborn! :) I strongly believe that dialect creep should be avoided, and that the invokation of "a violation of guidelines that took place a while ago doesn't matter" principle is really bad for Wikipedia. (And I think it's bad in general.) I believe both of those things strongly. That's why I'm pushing this. You're claiming your change from American spellings wasn't a major thing yet my change is a major thing. I see why you feel that, I think, but nothing of what you've described is actually in existing guidelines. I think that, too is bad for Wikipedia: people invoking common sense, which hasn't been codified, is generaly an instance of their invoking the principle of their own will. This might not be what's happening here! I don't know you. Maybe something else is going on. But I do know that spelling policy was debated at length (I'm reading it now), and that the decisions arrived at were wise: for topics not tied to a particular region with its own spelling, the spelling of the first überstub version is always to be considered the correct spelling for the article. Period.

Your are violating that well-reasoned, carefully thought-through guideline. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 22:00 (UTC)

No set of guidelines could possibly cover every eventuality. I have not violated any guidelines, especially since the one you are referring to was only added to the Manual of Style after I made the changes. I hope that is a good enough reason to not change it back. violet/riga (t) 22:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

To be sure, anyone who accused you of being anti-American (or anti-spelling reform, anti-Shakespeare [for he mostly used "American" spellings] etc.) because of the changes you made a year ago would be committing a great injustice. Your changes may well have been entirely innocent. The question is: what do we do now? The guidelines are quite clear on this: when conflicts arise (and the topic of the article isn't tied to a particular region), "the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used." The guideline does not say "the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) after 2004 should be used." My change was intended to follow that guideline. The additional benefit would be that a few minutes would be removed from your purgatory tally (kidding). In sum: the timing of the establishment of the guidelines has nothing to do with what we do now. What we do now is follow the guidelines, seems to me. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 22:21 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that I think that, in this case, the guidelines do not adequately match the situation. As I said above, I really think that it should remain BE. violet/riga (t) 22:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like nothing will change the fact that you think what you think. Your reasons for saying the guidelines don't apply (or match) the situation are themselves peri-guideline speculations and reasoning on your part. You should be able to refer to community-wide standards, in some way. That's what I've been trying to do. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 22:33 (UTC)

I generally do, but they don't apply in this case. violet/riga (t) 22:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

And I have been contending that your arguments seem to amount to "it's just what I want." I've been trying to suggest, in particular, that your "it's been stable for a long time" argument is particularly bad for Wikipedia. I explained this on my talk page by way of an analogy: The fact the U.K. "took" Northern Ireland a long time ago isn't a reason for the U.K. not to leave Northern Ireland. There may be plenty of other reasons! But the passage of time per se isn't one of them. You then said "Suddenly we're talking politics?" It wasn't sudden. The question of spelling became a political issue in March of last year ([[1]]), when you started "fixing" spellings by changing them from American to UK for no good reason. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-June-26 06:09 (UTC)

March of last year? You mean many months after it had already passed through peer review and featured article candidacy using British English? If that is the first such change that you are saying I made then you are mistaken that it was me that initiated the Ame-->Be change. In that case I brought the two words in line with the rest of the article. violet/riga (t) 07:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you, and you alone, initiated the change. I'm saying you're a part of violation, one that is political, that should be corrected, since correcting it is good for the Wikipedia community.

You took an article that had inconsistent spelling and you normalized the spelling in a direction opposite of that which the guidelines recommend. (And, looking through the article's history, I see you made many other such changes. I didn't look into this closely before because I thought the guidelines were very clear on this matter, and never imagined anyone would simply revert me.) My contention is that what you and others involved in the dialect drift of this article should have done is to look at the article's history, discover the spelling used in the first non-stub version, and use that. You still haven't given an adequate explaination of why you didn't do that, and, more importantly, why, now that a dispute about the spelling has arise, you believe violating the guidelines (which say "if all else fails... go by the first nonstub version") is a good idea here, beyond saying, in effect, a violation that's been around for a while shan't be considered a violation -- a notion that is your opinion, not a community-vetted idea. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-26 08:15 (UTC)

The guideline you refer to did not exist when this article was going through its rewrite. And I mean total rewrite - what existed before no longer bore any resemblance to how it was after it reached FA status. During that time it became BE, and as no guidelines existed at the time no violation occurred. You coming along and changing it to AmE simply because you want to is totally inappropriate. The guideline exists to help with ongoing disputes, not one that has been stable for well over a year. violet/riga (t) 16:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, the guideline refers to a method for determining current spelling, based on past events. There is no "nonstub version after this policy went into effect" clause. Moreover, there is nothing that I can see -- if I'm wrong, I sincerenly apologize! -- about FA status having anything to do with conferring a change on what is considered the correct spelling. Finally, I didn't "come along." I made a change that I thought accorded with guidelines, one that rectified a situation created by your "coming along" and changing the spelling of the many who worked on the article in its original form (and it was not "just because I wanted to"). Again, I see no guidelines that say that a certain amount of work on an article entities the editor to change the dialectic. You're invoking principles that make sense to you, but which haven't been vetted by the community. You're being, it seems to me, almost possessive about this article, which ignores the feelings of others who worked on it previously. It seems adhering to guidelines would be a good idea here. Or proposing new ones, if you really believe what you're saying! But I think a "someone who works on an article later gets to change the dialect that is considered correct for that article" principle would be a bad idea. And any principle based on the dialect at time of FA status would be bizarre, seems to me. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-26 16:49 (UTC)

You really are talking in circles now - you keep going on about your thoughts on the matter but it doesn't change my opinion. You came to this article and invoked a spelling war. I see no reason why. It just appears that you have come to a random article and found that you have some small justification to change it to your preference. That's just not on. violet/riga (t) 16:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I already explained my motivations: I like proof-reading and copyediting articles. I start with a spell-check, after a review of an article's history to make sure I adhere to WP guidelines about Eng. dialects. I took that first step, and you immediately reverted me, invoking what I believed and still believe to be very bad reasons, reasons that you invoke as "common sense," but which I don't believe are common sense. One could just as easily say you invoked the spelling war by not seeing 1) I actually had good intentions; and 2) I was following MoS guidelines; and then, 3) leaving my minor changes as they were. But you didn't. You felt that this issue was important enough to simply revert me. Why? (And a] it's not a random article for me, as I explained; and b] I don't believe I'm talking in circles at all.) Please reflect on my points here before responding. I won't respond again without some reflection. Please assume good faith. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-26 17:07 (UTC)

You're not talking about complicated things - I don't need to spend ages thinking about what you're saying. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong - simple as that.

To quote WP:MOS that you seem to hold so dear:

If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)

I think that you need to reflect on that one. violet/riga (t) 17:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Still curious: why was it so important to revert me? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-26 17:37 (UTC)

Because I don't like it when people change from one long-standing dialect to another. Yes, I have a natural bias against AmE and would prefer articles that I have worked extensively on to be in BE, but I always try to take a common sense approach to such things. Plus, there are too many people that push a country bias, and your edits (innocent and well-meaning though they may have been) came across like that. violet/riga (t) 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

But when you yourself changed the dialect from AmE, as it was originally, to BE, that is okay? Is it because no one stopped you? Are you saying that it's okay to violate WP policy so long as no one catches you? Or are you saying that the practice of changing long-standing dialects is only unacceptable if the change is from BE to AmE? -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 11:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not worthy of comment for two reasons:

1. Your bias is too clear from your user page,
2. You clearly haven't read the rest of the discussion above.

violet/riga (t) 13:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Bringing attention to an Excellent article

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)

Looks good. violet/riga (t) 19:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I skimmed the 'suck on this' article, it seems to raise a lot of good points. Is there really no ingredients list on formula? and no regulation of what those ingredients are and how they may vary as costs vary? However the tone is very soapboxy (OK it's not an encyclopaedia) but a few bits seemed suspicous e.g. 'The packaging of infant formulas occasionally gives rise to contamination with broken glass and fragments of metal'. Can this really be a current ongoing issue? 'But newer data from the West clearly show that babies in otherwise affluent societies are also falling ill and dying due to an early diet of infant convenience food'. While I think bottle fed babies do have an increased chance of SIDS this is only an increased chance, but even breast fed babies die of SIDS. Surely most of the 'breast is best' data in on the lines of less allergy, reduced chances of cancer etc. Therefore while I think breast IS best I think the sentance overstates the point.

The history of why breastfeeding has become less common in the last few decades is interesting, but in the table at the end: 'in the UK, the NHS spends £35 million each year just treating gastroenteritis in bottlefed babies. In the US, insurance companies pay out $3.6 billion for treating diseases in bottlefed babies'. This doesn't say what percentage of these costs are normal to babies in general and what percentage are actually CAUSED by the bottle feeding. Therefore again descending to advocacy (admitedly in a worthy cause).

The lack of suppport at the hospital is definately an important point. A friend of mine is bottle feeding, and the hospital's 'baby friendliness' was pretty abysmal. I visited her 22 hours after her birth at 8.30am and she had been kept apart from the baby the whole night! and the baby wasn't brought in till 10.00am after she repeatedly asked to see the baby. I was almost tempted to just go and find the baby and fetch him, but unfortunately I showed too much deference to authority. That's also a problem for the first time mother with all these highly trained doctors and nurses round them telling them what is best. (When my mother wanted to go home after her first baby (me) the nurses told her she couldn't go because they didn't have a health worker available. After her second baby my mother said she didn't care, she was going home anyway, so they found a health worker).

I think the best case scenario would be to take all the info from the article, and incorporate it in a measured, calmer, referenced way into Wikipedia, if anyone is at a loose end!

My, that was a through article. Your question: 'The packaging of infant formulas occasionally gives rise to contamination with broken glass and fragments of metal'. Can this really be a current ongoing issue? Yes, this is an current issue and happens quite often, even if you never "hear" about it in the media. One site that regularly posts formula recalls is the WABA homepage at www.waba.org.my And, yes, there are no requirements that the manufactures of artifical baby milk make public their recipies or the sources of their ingredients. Just, what are "comfort proteins" Spend a litte time next time you are in the market reading formula cans. It can be quite an education. Frankly, I wouldn't post info from this article here on the breastfeeding page, but on the infant formula page --I'm Nonpartisan 04:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture references to breastfeeding

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)

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)

And of course, according to Greek mythology, the Milky Way was formed by Hera, who spilled milk in the sky after discovering that Zeus had tricked her into feeding young Heracles. In another variant, Hermes snuck Heracles into Olympus to drink from the breasts of Hera who was asleep. Heracles bit Hera's nipple shooting her milk into the skies forming the Milky Way. (see Milky way mythology). ChristineD 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Everybody's Doing It" excuse

I was just glancing over the reasons for Defeaturing this article, and one which I found somewhat odd was this: "Seems to have a strong bias towards breastfeeding, whereas bottle feeding is a choice made by many."

To make a very hyperbolic analogy, smoking is a choice made by many, but that doesn't mean that articles about the tobacco plant should include a pro-cigarettes section. :p

Removing my tongue from my cheek, what I mean to say is that the encouragement of breastfeeding (especially in underdevelopped countries) is currently a great objective of governments, health organizations and the UN, because its benefits have been proved, and the risks of its avoidance are also well reported.

The fact that many people choose to use other methods which are less healthy, doesn't mean that these methods should be given equal "air-time". One should also not forget that the reasons for choosing bottle-feeding include vanity (fear of future breast-sagging) or the logistic impossibility of breastfeeding (such as a mother who works in a factory, away from the child). These reasons have no influence on the content of the article on Breastfeeding. MIP 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We are not here to advocate on behalf of a particular point of view, no matter how correct we think that view is. To take the specific example you cite, it's crystal clear that an article about tobacco or cigarettes that doesn't cover pro-smoking points of view would be an utterly inadequate one. If there are verifiable, reliable sources who recommend or approve of bottle feeding, and such sources are not a miniscule minority, then those sources should be noted in the article. Nandesuka 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I appologize, but I am not familiar with those sources. Maybe I took Paediatrics in a very biased medical school, but all we learned about were the benefits of breastfeeding and the dangers of bottle-feeding. :o\

Presumably, you also learned that cars are dangerous and walking is healthy. May I presume that you believe that the article on automobiles should advocate that no one ever drive a car ever? Nandesuka 11:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth and please WP:AGF. I never said people should not bottle-feed (I, myself, was bottle-fed, and not breastfed). I'm just saying that all the literature I read while I studied paediatrics, and all the guidelines from the ministery of health point towards the consensus that the alternative is not equal.

In my initial comment, I meant to transmit the idea that I don't understand how bottlefeeding can be given equal focus on an article on breastfeeding, or how not doing this is excessive bias. I agree that the alternatives should be mentioned in the article - just not in as much detail as the thing they are alternatives to.

Let me put it this way: breastfeeding is a biological function, just like breathing - if the article were about breathing, the fact that it didn't delve too deeply into artificial ventilation would not be seen as a bias; it would just be a reflection of the fact that the article is about the biological function itself and that the alternative is not as good as the original. MIP | Talk 14:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that because breastfeeding is a biological function, we shouldn't be discussing bottle feeding? Please clarify. Nandesuka 15:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: I'm just saying that in the breastfeeding article we don't have to give bottlefeeding the same amount of focus. To focus primarily on breastfeeding in the article about breastfeeding is not bias, contrary to what the argument in the De-Featurization discussion suggests. Let me give you that Defeatured Article quote again:

• "Seems to have a strong bias towards breastfeeding, whereas bottle feeding is a choice made by many."

Of course it is primarily about the characteristics of breastfeeding, because it's the article about breastfeeding. Let's put it this way: would you complain that the article about Rice has a strong bias towards rice, whereas pasta is a choice made by many at dinnertime?

If we were discussing a belief or a theory, I have no doubt that both the pro- and the anti- views should be given equal time. But this is about a thing: the extrusion of milk through the mammary gland to feed juveniles. Alternatives should definitely be mentioned, but don't need to be written in too much depth.

Not mentioning them in depth is not a bias. MIP | Talk 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I know many reliable sources who accept it (for those situations where breastfeeding is impossible or not advisable), but none who recommend it. Could you point me to some of those sources? Thanks! :o)

The point of your question eludes me. Nandesuka 11:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of your question eludes me. :p (Just kidding.) I was just asking for a couple of links to reliable sources which recommend bottle-feeding instead of breastfeeding. The fact that I'm not familiar with any has led you to believe that I was acting on opinion and being "soapbox-y" (which, again, was not WP:AGFy on your part). Since this is the result of bias during my paediatrical training, I would like to remedy it by consulting the appropriate literature. MIP | Talk 14:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, "it's crystal clear that an article about tobacco or cigarettes that doesn't cover pro-smoking points of view would be an utterly inadequate one". So does this mean that the Wiki on Tobacco is utterly inadequate?! :confused: MIP 21:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Having gone over and taken a brief look, I'd say: Yes, that article is utterly inadequate. Nandesuka 11:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever seriously come across a research article (not from the 1800s :p) which you would trust as reliable information that cigarette-smoking is beneficial and, thus, lead you to recommend cigarettes to your patients as an exercise in EBM? MIP | Talk 14:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a medical diagnostic tool or a health clinic. Restricting the definition of "benefit" to "medical benefit" is inappropriate. Nandesuka 14:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. ;o) Are you going to add the pro-smoking stance? MIP | Talk 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This was an interesting discussion to read, and I think that there are some sources that can be relied upon here to prove without a doubt that breastmilk is the superior infant food. For example from Gerber.com: Your Breastmilk is the best possible food for your baby. In fact, on every can of infant formula and in every piece of printed material made by infant formula manufactures they state, over and over again, that breastfeeding is the preferred way to feed an infant. Read a can of infant formula, there are long and specific discloure statements about the adverse reactions some babys will have to formulas.--I'm Nonpartisan 16:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

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)

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)

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)

Since I wrote this, Cyde Weys has pointed me to the {{inuse}} template, which seems to do the trick. Stephen B Streater 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No fair use please

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)

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)

Cutesy language?

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)

"Tummy" is wrong, but "nappy" is the correct British English word. violet/riga (t) 22:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

NPOV tag

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)

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)

________________________ Well, I guess it is high time we broke out the numerous studies that have been done on breastfeeding. What will it take to get the NPOV tag removed? If the only studies I can find AGAINST breastfeeding are from the formula companies, will that be enough?

I think perhaps there needs to be another article created that can be referenced here and that would be, perhaps: "Breastfeeding vs Infant formula controversies". Would inclusion of such an article lend itself toward dropping the NPOV and regaining a path to FA status?

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)

One of the first things I will research for inclusion here is the World Health Organizations Baby Friendly Hospital initiative which requires participating hospitals to cease from giving out free formula samples. When hospitals refrain from giving out those samples, breastfeeding went up aprox 30%. I will also bring in the story of Nestle Foods and their formula program that cost thousands of African babies their lives.

Am I sounding militant? A little, yeah. But, I will get the research in here, cited and everything. If folks are just plain uncomfortable with the subject matter from then on, that is hardly the fault of an encyclopedic entry.

As a busy mom myself, I invite anybody else with some good cit-able info to get it posted here as it will be slow going if you leave it just to me. ;) The Pearl 19:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

When I read the introductory overview section, it seems biased against breastfeeding, giving several reasons for mothers to prefer formula, and no reasons at all why anyone promotes breastfeeding. Let's balance the intro and remove the NPOV tag. alteripse 19:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

_____ Siobhon, thank you VERY much for your clarification. Those are points I can work with. My concern (and ire) was over one of the statements about why it was removed i.e. If it is so great, why do so many people bottle feed. I just could not answer that. BUT, as I said, I can adress your points. I will read up on the dos and don'ts of citing and see what I can come up with. Please keep on eye on this page so we can stay on course. Thanks again.204.76.128.217 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

How long does it take to produce milk for an adoptive child

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)

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)

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)

Often Supplementation with the use of an SNS (Supplemental Nursing System) may be needed to help induce a partial or full milk supply for an adoptive mother. The SNS is a feeding system in which the supplement comes through a tube that has been taped to the nipple. This can help supplement the baby while continuing nipple stimulation. Mother may want to pump after each feeding to add even more nipple stimulation time. There is more information on this topic in the Breastfeeding Answer Book - available through La Leche League Leaders and most Lactaion consultants.

Improving article

I've started adding {{fact}} tags to assertions in the article as the first step for improving it. There are lots of tags, but I expect we'll find that a number of assertions willl be covered by each source. There are a few sources already in the article that aren't really appropriate - in particular books that express health opinions but are not authored by medical experts, and ones like "Hopkinson 1988". I've already removed one that was to an online site that had no clear editorial policy to ensure it was publishing well respected and peer reviewed work.

I'd also like to see some more qualification around some of the bulleted lists like the "Breast milk may help to lower the risk of or protect against:" list. Some of these are going to be much stronger effects and better supported by clinical evidence than others.

If anyone knows of sites linking to well referenced research it would be great to list them on the talk page, then we can add them as needed. After I've gone through tagging the whole article I'll ask the folks at Wikiproject Clinical medicine for some help. --Siobhan Hansa 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The current many used of the {{fact}} tag does help readability of the article. It almost looks if everything is disputed. Please do not leave those tags in there too long. However you intention sounds ok. :15:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get to some sources together. Having more difficulty than I had anticipated. You're welcome to help too. I agree the fact tags don't look pretty, but they aren't supposed to indicate that things are disputed. Wikipedia's policy requires verification from reliable sources, the tags are just pointing out where we need them. If you don't believe something that isn't sourced you should delete it from the article, not leave it in with a fact tag. -- Siobhan Hansa 16:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Citing_sources#Tagging_unsourced_material "If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{fact}} tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. " , You really want to remove all those claims if no-one does the reseach for you? I think you want might to move your search for sources to the talk page.  :Leuk he 14:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If we can't source claims like this then I do think they should be removed from the article (along with a lot more besides). These are significant claims and not ones we should be making if they aren't supportable. I added the tags as way to focus on individual assertions. There has been a general request for sourcing on this article for some time but little movement towards backing up claims. And we continue to develop a page that reads more like a piece by advocates than an encyclopedia article representing current significant opinions of experts in the field. If removing all the unsourced stuff is the way to change that then I'm for it. But in my experience that is not a particularly collaborative approach.

I'm not expecting others to do the research for me. I've done quite a bit of research so far, but, as I said above, am having a harder time than I anticipated. There's a lot written on the subject, and a huge amount of that seems to be opinion from self-appointed "experts". On the health benefits/medical side, again - lots of research, this time at least in peer reviewed journals, often with slightly different and sometimes conflicting results. I've been trying to work out which works represent expert consensus - since it's a area of interest to me, but not an area of expertise, I've had a hard job doing that. And since it means I need to go to the library to research, it is slower than if everything were easily available online.

I had hoped the tags would prompt editors to fill in with sources they have access to. I'm actually quite surprised some of the tags haven't been replaced with sources yet.

If I get to the stage where I don't believe I'll be able to source these claims, I'll remove them. At the moment I haven't reached that point, I just think I have a lot more work to do. If other editors would prefer to remove the claims than have them be there unverified, then they are welcome to be bold and do so. --Siobhan Hansa 17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Best way to maintain milk?

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)

initial illustration

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)

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)

How long can a baby be exclusively breastfed?

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)

You might like to have a look at this Cochrane Review http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD003517/frame.html

Dahliarose 16:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive another short answer to this question. First foods are very much defined by a family's culture, and different first foods are offered all over the world, usually within the second six months of life. But, to be frank, most babies will decide when they are ready for solid food by taking a handful of food out of someone else's plate and stuffing it into their mouths. A baby eats, not when he is nutritionally ready, but when he is developmentally ready, that is, can sit up straight, swallow, chew, not gag, and use the finger and thumb to pick up small pieces of food. It is comparable to when a baby is ready to walk. There is no optimal age for the baby to walk, or not walk, rather it is when the baby gets up on his feet, and walks.--I'm Nonpartisan 04:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting citations

I have started getting citations for all the "fact" tags in this article, but there are a lot of them. If anyone's willing to help, there's a lot of info available on the Internet (you don't even need to leave home!), it's just a big job. Specifically, WHO, the CDC, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have lots of fabulous and sourced data. Natalie 23:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Or another thing someone could help with, if finding citations isn't their interest, could help making the citations w/in the article a little more consistent. Some of them use in-text style and some use footnotes style, and the citation w/in the footnotes themselves is all over the place. Personally, I find the inconsistency in style distracting and the inconsistency w/in the footnotes unprofessional. I don't care which style is chosen, just that we pick one and stick with it. Natalie 00:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been periodically replacing the ((fact)) tags with citations, and I'm having difficulty with a few statements in the entry. (I'm new to Wikipedia so bear with me if I'm not doing things right.) What I'm finding in looking for backing to particular assertions is that the research actually says something different. Rather than delete the comment and replace it, I'd rather discuss the issue in case the original author has a source.

The conflicts:

"Mothers who breastfeed experience improved bone re-mineralisation after the birth,[citation needed]" What I'm finding is that breastfeeding moms DON'T experience improved bone remineralisation after birth by comparison to moms who don't breastfeed; rather, breastfeeding leaches minerals from the bone for the duration of breastfeeding and bone remineralisation is improved at weaning with mothers who breastfeed longer experience better bone health after menopause than mothers who don't breastfeed at all.

"has had unusually excessive exposure to heavy metals such as mercury[citation needed]" What I'm finding in several studies is that even if a mom has been exposed to heavy metals--specifically lead and mercury--breastfeeding still is encouraged over infant formula and the health risks of contamination from metal exposure via breast milk are lower than the health risks of infant formula.

"Considering the known dangers of alcohol exposure to the developing fetus, those mothers wishing to err on the side of caution should restrict or eliminate their alcoholic intake." What I'm finding is that as long as drinking is moderate, mothers need not worry about restricting or eliminating alcoholic intake.

"Such trends soon faded when the problems associated with these milks started to show, and by the mid to late 16th century breastfeeding once again became the preferred feeding method for most families.[citation needed]" What the research seems to say is that during the 16th century wetnursing was still preferred among the classes that could afford it and it wasn't until the mid-late 19th century that breastfeeding became preferred again.

"Typically, if a baby is born in a hospital in Canada, the mother will be given coupons for free formula "just in case" she has any problems breastfeeding.[citation needed]" This may indeed be the case, but I haven't found anything that documents that offering coupons for free formula is either policy or practice.

So, what do we do? Change the entry to reflect the information we can cite, or keep the article with the [citation need] tags?69.25.218.249 22:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Breastfeeding in Canada

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)

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)

That stinks, but it doesn't mean that that is happening in Canada. Rosemary Amey 17:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that the questionable claim about Canadian hospitals pushing formula has already been removed. :) Rosemary Amey 17:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Problems, Infections, and Impediments to Breastfeeding

This is a wonderful article in general, and obviously an important public health issue. I have spent a little time cleaning up sections where I have specific knowledge and adding references as I go. I have also removed a few sections that were references to "how to" books that were not well referenced, opinion, or just plain wrong. I am sure some grammar and speling :) issues made it through my horrible ADHD so I would appreciate some revision for form. Adhering to "orginal author form" I tried to stick to either British(English) format for references that were very different (as in pacifier) - or just British for words (e.g. Oesaphagus) where the meaning is obvious.

I am interested in correcting the perceived neutrality problems, but it will be difficult to present breastmilk substitutes as a viable option in the face of so much evidence that breastmilk substitute use leads to increased morbidity including infections, weight regulation issues and lower IQ to name just a few. Find me experimental allopathic evidence that breastfeeding has a true equal and I will happily cite that evidence and call it a "difference of opinion" but until then I am working on the assumption that nobody disagrees about the health benefits of breastfeeding.

There has never been any true study that proves that breastfeeding is superior to formula feeding in an industrialized society. There's a whole lot of "may" and "possibly"s and "could"s, but nothing concrete. If breastfeeding was the key to superior baby health, then explain why so many breastfed babies in 3rd world countries die, while formula fed babies in industrialized countries thrive. 172.167.169.191 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The health risks of artificial feeding are NOT in any doubt. While the exact probabilities of risk are not precise, the fact that artificial feeding puts both mothers and babies (and the adults they become) at risk of a range of serious health conditions is not up for debate.

This is purely common sense: instead of a natural process which is adapted to the baby's particular family biology and environment, we have a variable industrial process which is as prone to error and contamination as any other, which cannot possibly reproduce the mix of volatile nutrients or live immune agents contained in breastmilk because it has to be stored on a shelf in varying temperature for (possibly) months and because manufacturing most of them is simply not currently economical on a mass scale. It can be contaminated in manufacture, storage, transport, mixing, or storage in the bottle after mixing. Because the powder settles in transport, the same size scoop can give varying levels of concentration - in one study, trained scientists with precise equipment and plenty of time to follow guidelines to the letter were unable to mix formula to a consistent concentration, and in some cases the concentrations were unsafe.

So formula fed babies in industralized societies do NOT thrive, they are just less likely to die because we have more advanced health care systems which protect them better from the morbidity associated with artificial feeding. But they are at substantially greater risk of allergy and other immune disorders, altered gut flora, different muscle/fat ratios and different fat composition (with attending effects on brain composition)... the list goes on, but I will have to get some sources to continue this conversation. But one anecdote before I go: a doctor working in an emergency ward refused to believe that breastfeeding rates were increasing as all the statistics showed. When asked why, he said "all the kids I see are artificially fed".

210.9.130.226 00:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The medical definition of "thrive" is simply "grow within acceptable limits", so formula companies like to use it because consumers think of the word differently. It's a common marketing trick to take advantage of linguistics. Ciotog 18:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wean

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)

If there is enough content to create a Wean article then go for it! violet/riga (t) 09:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Health risks of formula feeding

I'm not convinced that this section belongs in the article. Ciotog 13:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What if it were worded differently like the "Health Risks of Not Breastfeeding?"JennyMCB 23:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Changed per above. -- MarcoTolo 02:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Article length

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:

1. Make Breastfeeding method its own article
2. 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)

I think "Nursing in Public" (or Breastfeeding in Public) merits its own article Ciotog 19:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

History of breastfeeding is now its own article. Ciotog 03:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good move! Michael Glass 13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but an advertisement

I understand that there are self-proclaimed "boob nazis" who want to beat everyone over the head with their "breast is best" messages, but this is getting ridiculous. Nearly all of the "facts" are referenced from sites that are actively pro-BFing (with a few whopping lies on those sites to boot - not to mention a lot of doctors-as-psychics!), and not neutral sites.

I seem to remember a connection between breastfeeding mothers and jaundiced babies, but I see nothing about that here. There's also too many opinions masquerading as facts. For example, the fact that breast milk is "immediately available" is not a plus nor a minus; neither is the fact that breast milk is free.

I also see nothing surrounding the bullying tactics that have come into fire over the past couple of years in terms of advertising, which HAVE been written about exstensively in parenting magazines. There's a REASON why this article is no longer a featured article. As long as the boob nazis keep trying to push their agenda onto Wikipedia, it will stay that way. 63.3.16.129 08:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please refrain from using phrases like "boob nazis" - inflammatory comments are unhelpful and only serve to marginalize your comments (some of which are good and encyclopedic -- see below).

Secondly, your comment that "Nearly all of the "facts" are referenced from sites that are actively pro-BFing..." seems difficult to support given that, by my count, 45 of the 81 references are peer reviewed scientific papers, and 8 more are publications from groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health Organization. If you have particular concerns with specific sources, please bring them up here so we can evaluate them and pull unsupportable statements.

Jaundice is a continuing problem in infants. Historically, there were concerns that breastfed infants had a higher rate of jaundice as a group. As far as I can find, however, current clicnial research has found that the issue is related to proper infant feeding, regardless of the nutrition source. (Bertini G, Dani C, Tronchin M, Rubaltelli F (2001). "Is breastfeeding really favoring early neonatal jaundice?". Pediatrics. 107 (3): E41. PMID 11230622.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) With-in the group of undernourished/dehydrated infants, there is a small association with elevated hyperbilirubinemia and breastfeeding, but the general message is that improperly breastfed infants are at risk of numerous comlications, just as improperly formula fed infants are.

The above aside, I did run across an interesting report from last months issue of Pediatrics which noted that "several predictors of newborn readmission have established associations with inexperienced parenting and/or breastfeeding difficulty....(This) suggests that additional support for mothers and newborns during the vulnerable postdelivery period may be indicated."(Paul I, Lehman E, Hollenbeak C, Maisels M (2006). "Preventable newborn readmissions since passage of the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act". Pediatrics. 118 (6): 2349–58. PMID 17142518.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) This study has demonstrated a verifiable issue that should be mentioned in the article—I'll put it in.

-- MarcoTolo 22:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

63.3.16.129 wrote "For example, the fact that breast milk is "immediately available" is not a plus nor a minus; neither is the fact that breast milk is free."

I have to disagree. There are situations where formula supplies may suddenly become scarce e.g. during natural disasters; under these circumstances the formula fed baby is at a great disadvantage compared to the breast fed baby. Also, for families with low incomes the expense of formula is a significant drawback. Rosemary Amey 22:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And yet more lower-class and poverty level mothers formula feed tthan breastfeed. Hmmmmm....

For the record, I clearly said "self-proclaimed" boob nazis; I'm not calling them that myself. 63.3.16.2 01:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a variety of reasons why lower-class and poverty level mothers tend to use formula to a greater degree than higher-educated, higher-income mothers. I'm not really convinced that you're interested to know why, though... Ciotog 09:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing how many years I've been a social worker in an inner city, I don't think there's anything you can tell me about lower-class and poverty level mothers. Oh - and the fact that I've lived here for nearly 50 years. Like I said, keep your soapbox OFF Wikipedia. 63.3.16.2 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you're the one who brought it up, 63,3,16.* Ciotog 23:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly who would proclaim themselves a "boob nazi"? I would love to see a reference or citation of any person referring to themselves that way. The correct term that you are looking for is Lactivist. A lactivist is a person who actively promotes breastfeeding as a public health measure, and to protest active discimination against breastfeeding mothers. Women do what they know how to do. Corporations who sell artifical baby milk make millions of dollars every year because the federal goverment purchases formula to give to low-income women for "free." If no woman in your family has breastfed for three generations, how likely would you be to do so?--I'm Nonpartisan 04:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Infant formula

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)

Infant formula

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)

american english or british english

Being from the united states, I have no idea what the word uptake means as used in this article especially the table at the end. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.67.64.41 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

As far as I am concerned this has been debated at length, with the decision to have the article in British English. However, any words not common to both variants should be avoided where possible. Is "uptake" really unknown in AmE? violet/riga (t) 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if I am not responding correctly, but I agree with the word uptake. I actually have an English minor from an American University and am fairly well read, but I have never come across uptake used in this manner. "Intake" perhaps? Stephcarson 14:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)stephcarson

I suspect the use of the word uptake is used in the business sense, as in these examples I just pulled from Google:

• Dell "bullish" about Vista uptake
• Looser rules could speed EMR uptake
• Osteoarthritis: safety concerns over COX-2s will limit uptake

(Actually, I just noticed that this definition is listed on Wikipedia - see uptake)

Frankly, I have no opinion either way on this particular usage - though I suppose we could link to uptake directly to calrify the issue. -- MarcoTolo 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Breast and nipple pain

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)

Breastfeeding may hurt some women. Sometimes this is related to an incorrect technique, but it usually eases over time. Milk ducts can block up on occasion, leading to breast engorgement or mastitis, and should be addressed with massage and by encouraging the baby to suck from that side to keep it as empty as possible until the problem goes away. The presence of thrush in the nipples can also be painful. Limiting feeding time does not prevent soreness.

Cracked nipples can happen to anyone whose baby is not positioned correctly. The baby's rough tongue can also cause grazes and the suction can cause bruising if the mother and baby have not learned to latch and unlatch. To break the suction, mothers should wait for the baby to come off the breast, insert a finger just inside the baby's mouth, or press down gently on the breast. The use of nursing pads or poorly fitted bras can lead to breast and nipple pain, as can using hair dryers, sun lamps, soap, alcohol, perfume, deodorant, hair spray, body powder and incorrect use of breast pumps. Bottles and nipple shields may change the way the baby sucks, as well.

Some mothers apply medical grade lanolin to sooth nipples. Mothers can also express milk and rub it on the nipples. After about six weeks of breastfeeding, the process usually becomes easier, as both mother and baby learn the best technique for them. Mothers can also buy or rent breast pumps to extract the milk, if nipple pain becomes unbearable. It should be noted, however, that pumping breast milk can also be associated with nipple pain, and is best used only as a temporary solution while the most common culprit, a poor latch, is improved.

Nipple damage due to breastfeeding can increase the likelihood of a Candidiasis infection. If a baby develops symptoms of oral thrush, both the mother and the child must be treated at the same time.[2] Proper antifungal treatment will help neutralise the infection and aid in the nipple healing process.

Breastfeeding and AIDS

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)

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)

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)

Husband/Partner/Secondary Parent

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)

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)

I don't like the connotations of 'secondary'. How about 'other caregiver'? It doesn't have the implied put-down of 'secondary' and is therefore more NPOV. It would also cover the other caregiver without discriminating between a husband, lover, partner, relative or friend. Michael Glass 01:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

That would be fine except if it was repeated several times in a passage. In that case it would become rather ponderous. Perhaps we could use 'father (or other caregiver) for the first occurrence in a paragraph and then use 'other caregiver' in all later occurrences. In that way we would get many of the advantages of the longer phrase but also gain the advantage of a shorter but more succinct phrase thereafter. Michael Glass 12:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted sentence in introduction

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)

Month vs Trimester

When writing it is usually best to use the simplest wording. Every time we use a big word unnecessarily we create unnecessary trouble for readers. Everyone knows what a month is; not everyone is sure of the meaning of trimester. As Fowler's Modern English Usage says in love of the long word:

It need hardly be said that shortness is a merit in words. There are often reasons why shortness is not possible; much less often there are occasions when length, not shortness, is desirable. But it is a general truth that the short words are not only handier to use, but more powerful in effect; extra syllables reduce, not increase, vigour. This is particularly so in English, where the native words are short, and the long words are foreign....Good English does consist in the main of short words.

That's why I prefer month to trimester. Michael Glass 03:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The quotation you gave was talking about choosing a shorter word over a longer word, not using a longer phrase with shorter words in place of a long word with a precise definition.. You can't just substitute "trimester" with "month" - you have to say "in the first three months" instead of "in the first trimester", or "after the sixth month of pregnancy" instead of "in the last trimester", etc. If someone doesn't know what a trimester is, a very common word relating to pregnancy, then it behoves us to educate them (as you would expect in an encyclopedia). Same with "post-partum" instead of "after the birth". I would argue that this is necessary trouble. Ciotog 05:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Trimester is the word used by all midwives and doctors - it is the professional and correct term. Not to use it would be silly as it is the de facto use of referring to time in pregnancy in the most part. Further, most of our sources use the word and we should too. violet/riga (t) 10:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Educated people often overestimate the literacy of others. Write post partum and most people won't immediately know what we are writing about; write after the birth and they know straight away, Simple words are not only easier to understand, they are shorter. Take these two examples:

From the third month of pregnancy a woman's body produces hormones that stimulate the growth of the milk duct system in the breasts:

Through the last two trimesters of pregnancy a woman's body produces hormones that stimulate the growth of the milk duct system in the breasts:

The first example says everything that the second example says, but it says it more simply and directly. As far as educating people goes, I believe our job here is to educate them about breastfeeding. That will be hard enough for many readers without the added hurdle of using big words when simple words would do the same job even better. Remember, we are not writing for doctors and nurses, but for the general public, many of whom are not native speakers of English, or are familiar with the language of medical textbooks. Michael Glass 11:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In general terms you are correct - we need to avoid highly technical language. However, trimester is so common it is something that we should use. Indeed, not to use it would make us sound like we are dumbing it down too far and doing our readers a disservice by avoiding words that are common in the topic of pregnancy. violet/riga (t) 12:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if this difference in word preference is related to the fact that we come from different parts of the English-speaking world. As an Australian, I would regard trimester as a technical word that may be unfamiliar to many people in the community. Have a look at the example above. By avoiding the word trimester the sentence is both shorter and easier to read. Michael Glass 14:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone doesn't know what trimester means, they can simply follow the link and be so educated. I don't think your doing a service to those unfamiliar with the word to avoid it. If I always avoided using any words my kids don't understand, I would never have spoken to them. Part of the appeal of this type of encyclopedia is that these links can be made available - as it says on MoS:L: "The purpose of internal links is to allow readers to easily and conveniently follow their curiosity or research to other articles." We are not just educating people about breastfeeding, they are necessarily being educated about pregnancy, childcare, hormones, etc.

Some educated people underestimate the intelligence of others :) Ciotog 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there are enough big words in the article without creating extra hurdles to understanding. Your only argument for using the term trimester is an educational one. In the example above, my preferred wording is simpler, clearer and more direct. It also fits into the passage better because it ends with this statement: By the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy, the breasts are ready to produce milk. My wording shows that the process commences at around the third month and that the breasts are ready to feed a baby by the fifth or sixth month. Using the phrase Through the last two trimesters of pregnancy tends to obscure the actual timing of breast development.

Even when the word is used appropriately, trimester tends to be clumsier and more long-winded. Take this example from Lactogenesis I:

During the latter part of pregnancy, the woman's breasts enter into the Lactogenesis I stage.

During the third trimester of pregnancy, the woman's breasts enter into the Lactogenesis I stage.

Even here, the version using trimester is longer. So in two examples, trimester results in a sentence that is longer and harder to understand. If you insist on using it for educational purposes in this article, so be it, but it comes at a price in readability, and in the example at issue, of accuracy. Because of this, I would be content to see the word trimester introduced into the sentence about lactogenesis I as long as it's removed from the sentence about breast development. Michael Glass 01:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about accuracy - "latter part" could be any point in the second half. I think a compromise would be to introduce the word "trimester" and give a quick definition for those unfamiliar. I believe this is the accepted method. Over-simplification can be just as much as an impediment to comprehension as being overly technical, and can be a put-off. I just glanced through all the breastfeeding books we have that were written for the average person, and none of them shy away from using technical terms as much as this (except for the humourous ones like "So that's what they're for!"). Ciotog 18:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Simple words and constructions are always easier to understand than more complex ones. The problem arises, as you say, when things are over-simplified, and therefore the meaning is compromised or lost. This is not the case when you use month or trimester. I have put both words in the passage at issue in a way that helps to explain the meaning of trimester. If you like it, leave it; if not, change it to what you think is most appropriate. It's really not worth discussing further. Michael Glass 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Breastfeeding Activists, Educators, Researchers, and Writers

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)

Asthma

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. PMID 15687461., 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 [3]

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)

This article contradicts your edit. As does this: Association between breast feeding and asthma in 6 year old children: findings of a prospective birth cohort study I had added the link back in, using this site as a reference.--I'm Nonpartisan 02:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC) This paper says the jury is still out. While breastfeeding advocates tend to very positive language as to how breastfeeding "prevents" certain diseases or conditions, the essence of the matter is somewhat more controversial. Certainly there are breastfed children who will develop asthma, especially if the is a genetic link within the family. The research says that children fed artificial baby milk (formula) have a greater chance of developing asthma. That is, it's not that breastfeeding protects, it's that formula feeding puts children at greater risk.--I'm Nonpartisan 03:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I welcome your extra evidence, which I certainly would support linking to the article. However, we have a problem with the list of benefits when some are unproven or controversial. I think we need a different way of listing evidence which is still contested. Have you any suggestions? Michael Glass 11:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

First I would respectfully ask, controversial to whom? Every major government health site I've ever visited has long lists of the benefits of breastfeeding. One of the reasons that federal, state and local governments promote breastfeeding is that formula fed babies are sicker, stay sicker, continue to have poor health, and therefore cost lots of money in health services. This has been proven in research studies time after time. Otherwise, if there were no difference in the health between the two groups of children, the government and health care community just wouldn't care. Next time you are in a food store, pick up a can of formula and read the disclaimer section on it. The manufacture insists that if a baby has a health problem due to consumption of the product (and that's why there are so many different kinds of formula) that it cannot be held liable because, breast milk is the superior infant food. It says so, right on the can.

Now, when it comes to large-sized studies comparing breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding populations, these have only been truly refined in the last few years. There is a very large difference between a baby breastfed for one week, one month and one year, and yet many of the former studies did not not how long the child had been breastfed or been exclusively breastfed. I think that with asthma, individual environments would play a huge role, from farm to suburb to city. The studies that show that farm children have a lower incidence of asthma because they come into contact with more dirt, are really interesting. It may be that city children are just too clean and that asthma rates will continue to rise, despite a higher percentage of breastfeeding.

Personally, I would be happy with a general statement that said that research has shown that breastfed children have a lower incidence of certain health conditions and transfer that exact list of health conditions to the infant formula page where it belongs. What the studies really show is that formula fed children have a higher rate of some diseases than breastfed children. But, there are several other people who have contributed to this page, and I'd like to hear from them first.--I'm Nonpartisan 04:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting example. A study less than a year old that shows that breastfed children have better mental health. Or would you say that formula fed children have poorer mental health. These Australian studies are really interesting. They are really on top of these issues.--I'm Nonpartisan 04:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Alingment of subsections

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)

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)

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)

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)

Tumor vs. Turgor

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)

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)

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)

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)

There's an interesting analysis here: [4], 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)

Male breastfeeding?

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)

Anti White Bias?

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)

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)

I am disturbed that there are no pictures of western or white women nursing. Is it due to wiki or just becasue no one has put any other pictures up yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islandmamma (talk • contribs) 07:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Add some.  :) Xenophrenic (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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

No Chinese or Indian women either. Maybe this topic can be changed from "Anti White Bias" to "Over representation of Africans". Zaurus (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is completely devoid of any fact-based arguments. There is no reason that an article has to include pictures of people from every race in order to be neutral. The notion that it is permissible to have an article without pictures of white people does not have to only come from "left wing weirdos," and claiming otherwise is a sign that there are people in this world who choose to perpetuate out-dated pro-white bigotry. Furthermore, due to the fact that this bigotry is not based upon any provable fact, it has no place in an encyclopedia. hajatvrc 05:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)