Talk:The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care

Weak article
The article is weak.There's many failures on it:


 * This book had many edictions.The first ediction had many differences to the others.


 * This book(at least, on the first edictions), gave support to freudism and such things.


 * The first edictions weren't the best, compared to similar books.


 * This book was a failure, in sells, in many parts of the world.German and latin-american translations had poor sells.In the islamic world, it was even, put out of law.In the United States, it was really a big sucess.This book really was a big sucess, but its impact was big only in some english speaking countries:United States and Canada.Agre22 (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)agre22

This article published in the British Medical Journal should be included, it talks about the harm the book caused, although unintentional it still caused harm. Wiki encourages a range of view points. Invalid health information is potentially lethal. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 322(7292), 998. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.147.156 (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The cited source is a letter to the editor that uses the evolution in thinking about whether babies should sleep on their backs or on their tummies to illustrate the dangers of internet health-advice websites. It is not specifically about Spock or his book. No doubt the vaccination schedule Spock gave in 1946 is obsolete, but we're not going to list that as "invalid health information" and warn readers of its "dangers". If anyone's dumb enough to follow a baby-care book from seventy years ago, that's on them. EEng 17:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Weak section of discussion page
The above discussion section for this article is weak. It has many failures:


 * It spells "edition" like "ediction" and instead of "sales" it repeatedly says "sells."


 * It, uses too many, commas in certain parts.


 * Instead of "There are many failures in it," it says "There's many failures on it."


 * It is thrilled about the ability to unnecessarily create a bulleted list.


 * It is completely wrong. The article never claims anything except sales and number of translations. It does not say that the book changed every region of the world immensely. Each bullet on that delightful bulleted list does not counter anything the article says, but at best points out things not included in the article. Those things weren't included because they're useless (except for the one gem of the section, the claim that it was influenced by Freud, which should be inserted if it can be cited). Chicopac (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done, good sir/ma'am, well done. 207.170.253.223 (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

do not merge
this book is important enough for its own article. I am removing the merge tag. Kingturtle (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)