Talk:Breastfeeding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Breastfeeding article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Former featured article Breastfeeding is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 22, 2004.
To-do list for Breastfeeding: edit · history · watch · refresh
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Request a link

The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good breastfeeding resource. http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/35.htm

The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.

The breastfeeding page of the site provides a variety of websites that offer a guide to breastfeeding, articles and advice on breastfeeding normal and premature infants. There is also information on infant nutrition requirements, food to avoid when breastfeeding, weaning from breastfeeding and formula-feeding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamme (talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


There are no foods to avoid while breastfeeding, unless a family has a history of allergies. I'd double-check the info on that page. Well, I just did. There are pages that have not been updated, broken links, old pages. Nothing that's not referenced better already.--I'm Nonpartisan 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Not KellyMom?

I see that someone posted a link to Kellymom and then it was undone. Kellymom is one of the most well-regarded sites on the internet about breastfeeding, and highly recommended. I'd like to see that link on this page.--I'm Nonpartisan 01:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. It may not be the "prettiest" site (early 90's web design), but I certainly have found it valuable as a breastfeeding mother. - Ageekgal 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to add that link back. Heck, it's even used as a reference on the infant formula page. :) - Ageekgal 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but it fails WP:EL. There are plenty of well regarded sites - why should we give preference to this one? If you regard it as authoritative enough to use as a reference then work it into the page; that is the way to go. TerriersFan 04:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Noted. Fine by me. (UPDATED) For my education, what part of WP:EL does it violate, exactly? Or do you object due to the pre-existing number of external links used in the article? - Ageekgal 04:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
First off I have not eliminated KellyMom - bear in mind that Kellymom is still there supporting one of the reference categories - I have simply removed duplication of it in the EL section. There are certainly (in my view) an excessive number of external links. The correct way to develop an article is in prose, using ELs as references as appropriate. The purpose of the references is to provide verification for the encyclopaedic content. Listing large numbers of links is a lazy way to write an encyclopaedia - if the links say something important then what they say should be in the body of the article, if not then they should be out. TerriersFan 04:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too little attention to difficulties when breastfeeding?

I am concerned that the article gives insufficient coverage to the very real difficulties encountered by many women who wish to breastfeed and satisfy their baby, but find they cannot, even after extended efforts. Researchers and BF advocates often blithely assert that it is a natural process. However this ignores the fact that it is also a practical skill which needs to be learnt by two parties - not just the mother but the baby too. I have personally known many mothers who desperately wanted to BF their babies but found that, despite huge efforts, immense pain and even with expert help it just didn't work for them. Otherwise healthy babies just sometimes don't play ball and co-operate by adopting a technique which doesn't hurt mum.

Furthermore, I have known a significant number of well-nourished mothers who did establish BF but found they simply could not satisfy their baby's hunger and nutritional needs. BF advocates assure us this is vanishingly rare but my experience says otherwise.

In addition, some women with well-established BF technique can experience pain after many months when the baby is sucking powerfully. And this pain is not caused by poor latch-on but from the sheer flow of milk deep in the breast.

I feel the article, as it currently stands, implies BF is almost always an option women can choose if they wish. I must respectfully protest that it often is not. But to imply it is adds to the immense distress experienced by women who feel they have failed. I feel it is not responsible for us to perpetuate what I would characterise as a powerful myth which causes much distress.

Therefore I suggest greater emphasis in the wording which acknowledges women can experience difficulty and cannot always choose to breastfeed, despite their own wishes.(I am Domod. I'm afraid I have no tildas on this keyboard.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domod (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This article was too long, so breastfeeding complications was split off as an article by itself.
BTW, there's a link below the edit window that automatically inserts four tildes when you click on it. Ciotog 23:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking issue with that split but I think even the BF complications article doesn't address the points above. Even if it did, I still think the general tone of the BF article should be slightly altered to avoid giving the impression that BF is simply a choice. (and thanks for the tip) Domod 09:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to improve this and the breastfeeding complications article. I agree that the medical establishment has made breastfeeding much more difficult then it should be, so it's not just a matter of "choosing" not to breastfeed sometimes when there are complications, but any claims as such would need to be carefully cited. There are people from both camps (breastfeeding advocates and formula advocates) who would be watching carefully for any sign of POV-pushing Ciotog 12:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Domod, healthy breastfeeding is not a myth. The article reflects the reality of the process of healthy breastfeeding, not the reality of breastfeeding in a highly medicalized western culture that makes birth a surgical procedure. When I read your post above, listing the many difficulties that some women experience while breastfeeding, it is not at all difficult for an experienced breastfeeding counselor to "diagnose" what some of those problems might be. Trust me, many, many women in North American prefer to blame their problems on themselves, rather than look at mechanical problems with breast pumps, lingering effects of epidurals, nipple confusion, and being taught controversial breastfeeding positions that can cause real problems. The problem isn't with breastfeeding. It's North American breastfeeding. Women in indiginous cultures experience none of the problems you have listed above. If someone came to me with the idea that there was a healthy baby who wasn't "playing ball" while breastfeeding, we would immediately be talking about tongue-tie and other such resolvable issues that really do come between a baby and his mother.

Domod, don't get angry at breastfeeding activists. Get angry at your ob, your pediatrician, your "expert" help (an IBCLC?), your hospital and the lack of a local nursing clinic, and your family for not supporting you better. A brand new mother needs all the help she can get. If your medical and mothering community isn't giving you that help, then get mad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There is also the issue of people not permitted to breastfeed. Perhaps that should at least be alluded to in the article? People on AEDs are sometimes told that it would be unsafe to breastfeed because of medication passing into the milk. Epilepsy is common enough that a large enough volume of people would be affected to warrant the enclusion. TotTWriter 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am extremely uncomfortable with the first four words of the second paragraph in the introduction. "With virtually no exceptions". Yes, well, unless the child is galactosemic, in which case breastfeeding would *kill* the child. At the very least, genuine and reasonable contraindications to breastfeeding need to be mentioned. 71.123.237.192 11:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

A criticism section is needed. 70.59.1.169 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to write one. Exactly what would you criticize about breastfeeding? There already is a section on Breastfeeding complications?--I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Criticism to breastfeeding? You must be joking... :arny (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Father versus partner

I reverted this edit. While in most cases the woman's partner is the father of the baby, I think it's important to use inclusive language. The father of the baby might be dead, divorced etc. and the woman might be married to some other man who might not be a father -- or she could be married to another woman, or in an unmarried relationship with a man or woman. The phrase "woman's partner" includes all these possibilities, and possibly even help from a friend, other relative, etc. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Himba image

I like the Himba image because it shows breastfeeding of someone older than a tiny baby, and shows breastfeeding while apparently doing something else at the same time. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Breastfeeding and IQ seems to be edited to play down the benefits.

A 7 point difference in IQ is a pretty important fact to know for parents deciding whether to breastfeed/continue breastfeeding considering the difference in life outcomes related to IQ. To some this fact (if they know it) might be pivitol to their decision about breastfeeding. More attention needs to be made of studies on the effect of breastfeeding on IQ. This area seems to be shrinking and not highlighted with a subheading for some reason as some of the other benefits are. It is just included in the middle of a BIG block of text right at the end of all the other benefits and would not be noticed by someone skimming the article. If someone did read the BIG block of text they would only read about a study where they ASKED the mothers, which someone reading this article might go away thinking there has been little study in this area or there is little proof of the link between breastfeeding and higher IQ. Can we include more studies there? Here is one link that might help.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/87775.php

"In the two studies of more than 3,000 children in Britain and New Zealand, the researchers showed that breastfeeding raised IQ by an average of nearly 7 points if the children concerned also had the FADS2 variant."


"In these studies, Moffitt, Caspi and colleagues showed that the link betwee breastfeeding and IQ involves a variant of a gene called FADS2 which partly controls the fatty acid pathways."


Just another thing....the other benefits might not look like benefits to someone skimming the articles because they are headed with the names of the diseases breastfeeding protects against rather than having headings like "breastfed babies have a reduced incidence of whateverillness".

Actually to be correct it should be BOTTLE fed babies have an INCREASED incidence of alll those thing because breastfeeding is the natural way to feed a baby and bottle feeding the artifical way but I guess that might be "offensive". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.129.39 (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember, this is an article about breastfeeding in an encyclopedia, not a "how to breastfeed" booklet or a "benefits of breastfeeding" website. The internet is chockfull of these and does not need another. However, there is a "formula feeding" page of Wikipedia that you are very welcome to edit if you wish because, as you clearly understand, there is no such thing as a breastfeeding benefit rather, what studies clearly show is a fomula feeding deficit.--I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unintended bias in the language of the article?

In the section on breastfeeding and diseases, the connection is expressed like this:

Breastfed babies have a lower risk of getting disease Z.

This may associate breastfeeding with disease Z. Why not express the association like this?

Artificially fed babies have a higher risk of getting disease Z.

This clearly shows that artificial feeding is the riskier option for babies.

How do others feel about changing the wording of the article in this way?

Michael Glass (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We should stick close to whatever the studies actually say. For example, as a made up example, maybe water buffalo milk is healthier than both cow and human breast milk; it's unlikely that the studies we cited were comparing against that. The best way to avoid introducing bias is to stick close to the actual wording of the studies. Nandesuka (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Nandesuka is right that the study is the place to turn to and it seems (probably in an attempt not to be too wordy) we have left out what the lower risk is in comparison to. Adding that in would take away any bias most times. We should probably be saying something along the lines of breastfed babies have a lower incidence of getting disease Z than infants who are formula fed. Or possibly solely breastfed babies......than infants who are solely formula fed. Depending on the study. -- SiobhanHansa 14:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Although on looking, the only place I see the Breastfed babies have a lower risk wording is in relation to sudden infant death syndrome and the study quoted there does not support quite such an unequivocal sentence. Would be more appropriate to say breastfed babies seem likely to be at lower risk of SID than formula fed babies. -- SiobhanHansa 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm doing a fairly thorough re-work of the benefits section, I'll try to keep this in mind. Mostly my re-work consists of removing details of the studies to support the statements and the addition of citation templates. I've never seen a policy or guideline that supports the inclusion of a large amount of detail on the study's methodology or results, so mostly I'm paraphrasing the conclusions. WLU (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like worthy cleanup! I would say if you are going to remove the detail of the studies the conclusion may need to be wordier than lower risk. The degree of risk would seem significant if it can be ascertained - somethings have a much greater benefit than others and some things seem to have been studied much more thoroughly than others. And a close reading of the study is needed in order to make sure the claim is an accurate reflection of the study. For instance the SID claim would be better written Breastfed babies are more easily aroused from sleep than formula fed babies. Easier arousal is believed to be an important survival mechanism that may be impaired in victims of SIDS. It seems from the detail that the study didn't actually measure incidences of SIDS so the claim that it is lower in breastfed babies is not supported. -- SiobhanHansa 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I dont' know about worthy, but definitely tedious. I've adjusted the SIDS claim - your suggestion does match the study's findings better so thanks. Unfortunately, I appear to have lost the original study! I'll try to track it down when I'm done, but if anyone knows the title or PMID for the study where they blew on kids who were breastfed, I need it! WLU (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, found it. WLU (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Done, feedback? WLU (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that's wonderful. You've made it much, much easier to read. Great job!
I have a couple of small formatting suggestions -
  • There are two third level headers under "Benefits", one for "Infant" and one for "Mother". Because the heading levels below those look almost identical in format I don't think it really aids in splitting up the information. I would suggest it's better to have two second level headers "Benefits for infants" and "Benefits for mothers" an then move all the risk factor titles (currently fourth level headers) up to the third level header that Infant and Mother are currently at. (I realize this is also tedious and you've done a lot of that sort of thing, so if there's consensus to make the change I'll happy undertake the editing).
  • There seems to be quite a bit of redundant wikilinking. While it's probably very useful for some of the more technical terms so people can easily click through for a description of a disease in the right place, words like "nutrition" or "maternal bond" probably only need linking once. Again this is something I'd be happy to go through and do if there's agreement it would be good.
-- SiobhanHansa 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Your suggestions are excellent, and I look forward to seeing you make them :) (I'm a bit sick of editing the page and that's a tremendous amount still more tedious work. I think editing is fun, but not that fun...) WLU (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Michael Glass, and that saying something like "breastfed babies have a lower incidence of getting disease Z than infants who are formula fed" is exactly the type of language that he's referring to - it suggests that formula feeding is the norm and breastfeeding is being compared to it, rather than the other way around. This is like saying: "not smoking lowers your risk of lung cancer". Most studies I've read (the more recent ones, anyway) tend to use breastfeeding as the frame of reference, and compare artificial feeding to this. At any rate, I'm not sure I'm happy with the current layout - "Benefits of breastfeeding" seem to include Atopy, Celiac Disease, Diabetes, etc. I think the layout was better before. Ciotog (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I can see two ways of getting around this problem. One is to change the headings to read, less atopia, less celiac disease and so on. Another is to introduce another heading that says Disadvantages of artificial feeding and then either leaving the headings the same or changing them to read, more atopia, more celiac disease and so on. Michael Glass (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hum. Perhaps the studies could be gathered according to how the comparisons are made - exclusive breastfeeding versus mixed? Benefits of exclusive breastfeeding? It's a bit WP:SYNTHy to make the comparison ourselves, but if every single article compares breastfeeding to formula, then it's legit! And give it's about infant feeding, what other options are there besides breastfeeding and formula feeding? I'm glad I did the re-work for content, but the wording and formatting could indeed be adjusted. Many could be collapsed into 'disease/infection resistance' or something similar - there's simply too many sub-headings with short paragraphs. Given the ways the information must be organized within the individual studies, the only way I can see to gather things together. The biggest problem is to somehow write a cohesive section that accurately represents a variety of studies that have a wide variety of methods and results without engaging in WP:OR. If anyone has a suggestion or wants to attempt a bold re-write, I'm willing. WLU (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hum. You know what, on further thought I think there's definitely validity in re-writing to contrast heavily of breastfeeding versus formula. How 'bout we make this more explicit - section title of advantages versus formula feeding, and an intro sentence of 'Breastfeeding offers significant advantages for X, Y and Z when compared to exclusive formula feeding, mixed feeding or solid foods'. Thoughts? Any OR-ish stuff we can deal with on a case-by-case basis. WLU (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The thing I dislike about the wording disadvantages of artificial feeding and comparisons that start with artificial feeding increases risk ...... is that this article is about breastfeeding so the focus should be on breastfeeding and what that does or doesn't do. The disadvantages of artificial feeding wording seems appropriate in the formula article where it is the focus of the article. A table could get around this quite elegantly if it could be made readable. Reflecting the actual results of studies could be a challenge in that format though. -- SiobhanHansa 09:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your comments about the wording but I don't think the table is the way to go though - some of the results are pretty long and nuanced, and that'd be difficult and awkward to shoehorn into a table I think. I'd mentioned leading with something akin to 'Breastfeeding presents significant advantages and health benefits as compared to exclusive or mixed formula feeding' do others think this is acceptable or have I missed the point somewhere (always a significant risk when I read). WLU (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. It doesn't look easy! I wonder about turning the language on its head a little - instead of using reduces the risk of we use provides some protection from (and the like). Focusing on what breastfeeding does rather than what not breastfeeding does! This isn't exactly a direct quote from the studies though so I could potentially see people having concerns about and we'd have to be careful to make sure we didn't overstate the case and make breast milk sound like a bullet proof shield. -- SiobhanHansa 10:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, darn, I left a very nice little post here yesterday that perhaps my computer didn't post. One way to avoid sounding anti-formula is to make a distinction between a breastfed and non-breasfed babies, because there are many other foods that a baby can be given besides artifical baby milk. It could be first foods way too early, pap, cow's or goat's milk, soy milk, or homemade formulas. Remember the "vegan" couple in New York who only gave their baby apple juice until the poor soul starved to death? I once had a mother who insisted that she was told that goat's milk was the closests thing to breastmilk. I asked for references on that one, there are none.
Because there is no "breastfeeding boost or benefit," rather a higher risk associated with babies who are not breastfed, that is the fairest wording to use: Babies who are not breastfed show a higher incidence of (insert malady here) of 15% over babies who are exclusivly breastfed for the first six months. I would guess that every study has a different time period or deffinition of exclusive breastfeeding. Some early studies only asked if the baby had ever been breastfed, if even only once, or if the baby was breastfed once a day. Most recent studies have tighter restrictions on what breastfed really means.--I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll repeat: the best way for us to avoid unintended bias (or, over time, unintended inaccuracy) is to match, as closely as possible, the phrasing of the sources we are citing. If they phrase the effects under discussion as "breastfeeding benefits" rather than "artificial feeding risks", then we are obligated to follow that phrasing. Even if we personally think they are wrong. Nandesuka (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
How did I miss that comment? Really, given WP:OR, that's the only thing we can do and it makes sense. Attempting to combine all the studies into a single uber conclusion would doubtless violate WP:SYNTH. If the study says formula feeding is worse, it's some tricky math to reverse it. One option we could also use is 'compared to formula/breastfed peers, infants fed exclusively/mixed formula/breastmilk were more/less likely to catch x disease/be smarter/whatever. Dont' know if it helps or not. WLU (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree - WP:NPOV trumps systemic bias. You can't say "breastfeeding lowers the risk of X" because this implies the standard is the alternative to breastfeeding, which is not neutral language. Sometimes sources need to be reworded in order to present the points they make in a neutral fashion, and for consistency. Ciotog (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia is obliged to present information from a neutral point of view. It does not mean, in any way, that Wikipedia must never present a point of view held by others. If the reliable sources we cite say "X", Wikipedia absolutely may not misrepresent those sources by "rewording" "X" as "not Y" if "X" and "not Y" are substantially different. Obviously, sometimes there is "wiggle room" where we have a choice as to how to phrase something without changing the meaning of the underlying citation. But particularly with respect to citing scientific studies, which tend to be chock full of terms of art, it violates a number of our core policies to "reword" them to help us reach a conclusion that we, as editors, "like." Perhaps I"m misunderstanding what you're saying here, but I'm being emphatic because this is such a core point. Nandesuka (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If a reference uses non-neutral language, but the facts they present can be stated in non-neutral terms then that's what needs to be done. Changing "breastfeeding reduces the rate of X by 20%" to "not breastfeeding increases the rate of X by 25%" does not alter the facts, but the first statement uses non-neutral language (using an improper frame of reference) where the second doesn't. Ciotog (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this issue is being blown out of proportion somewhat, I think it is relatively simple to edit the page contents in a way that will satisfy everyone. Sticking to the wording of the studies seems the best solution in my mind. WLU (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Consistency and neutrality is the best solution, and WP:NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". Anyway, here's a good overview and includes a long list of references it uses: [1] Ciotog (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regulating Authority

What is a "regulating authority" and why is the term even used in this sentence:

"While recognizing the superiority of breastfeeding, regulating authorities work to make artificial feeding safer when it is not used."

It may be more of a British term than an American one, but I have little evidence that the American Acadamy of Pediations has any "authority" about breastfeeding when it comes to local doctors, some of whom have clearly never read the AAP statement on breastfeeding. Exactly what authority would WHO or AAP have over pediatricians, many of whom still use old and outdated growth charts based on formula fed babies. Is there a need for this sentance at all?--I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this statement is referring to formula manufacturing regulations. The sentence used to say: "Regulating authorities recognize the superiority of breastfeeding but also try to make artificial feeding safer." which I think was somewhat clearer (for instance, what is "it" in the revised sentence?). I'm not sure if formula regulating authorities really recognize the superiority of breastfeeding, anyway... Ciotog (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would imagine that in most jurisdictions, infant formula would be controlled by pure food regulations or similar legislation. Michael Glass (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If we have to imagine, then the statement isn't a good one. The statement is sourced to Baker, 2003, so someone with access to the full article should read through and verify/modify the statement to be in line with the source. WLU (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The US Food and Drug Administration regulates infant formula in the United States <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/infguid.html> British regulations may be found here <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19950077_en_1.htm>. Australasian regulations may be found here <http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/factsheets/factsheets2002/newdirectionsforinfa1391.cfm> Michael Glass (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it should read "making artificial baby milks safer", because there can be real problems with parents making powdered formulas too thick or too thin and offering babies other foods, such as solids and cows milk too early. Also, I don't think that regulating authorities have much to say about the purchase and use of bottle, nipples and other parts of the feeding systems of which we have recently seen problems with imports from China. "Artificial baby milk" is the authoratative term for infant formula, which is not really too descriptive because all the commercial formulas are different.I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sociological factors

This section needs to be broken up into shorter paragraphs to increase readability.Michael Glass (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now broken up the section into shorter paragraphs and reduced the verbosity. However, the whole section lacks references. Could someone else help here? Michael Glass (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a stab at reorganizing the section. It's rather disconnected as is. I will only delete information that is redundant to other sections of the article. Lcwilsie (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
See my changes - I don't have the references the original author is citing, and there are probably many places that need better citation. I think the language can be improved (I tried to simplify), but at least information is grouped appropriately. I also think the Economics section I started needs work, but it was lumped in with the sociology stuff and might be appropriate as it's own section. Or perhaps we can work it into the "income" subsection of the sociology section. Lcwilsie (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weaning section: American English vs. British English use of the word "weaning".

I've noticed that the word "weaning" is used slightly different in American English vs. British English. In the U.S., a mother saying she is weaning her breastfed baby usually means she is in the process of trying to completely stop breastfeeding within the next a few months at most. In British English, it is used to refer to what American's would refer to as the "introduction of solids", they simply referring to the idea of a exclusively breastfed baby now receiving a mix of breast milk and solid foods. In this sense, the process of being completely weaned happens over a much longer time frame. So a British mom might start weaning at 6 months but not completely wean her baby from breastfeeding until say 18 months, for example. The term "weaned" (in relation to breastfed babies) seems to have the same meaning in both American and British English (i.e. complete cessation of breastfeeding). I think this distinction should be added to the section on weaning but I haven't yet found a reliable source that discusses the two uses of the word. I've noticed on some parenting message boards with where both American and British parents participate that the way the British parents used the term was confusing some American parents. --Cab88 (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In La Leche League we say that weaning happens with the first taste of solid food. A breastfeeding women who supplements with formula in a bottle would not say that she is "weaning." Although the term weaning may mean different things to different mothers, the term "weaned" does not. People also use the term for weaning a baby away from a bottle to a cup, or away from a pacifier. It's an interesting subject and really isn't written about much, except for how-to advice. If you feel creative, weaning could be it's own extended Wikipedia article, especially because of different weaning ages around the world. First good place to look is Kathy Dettwylers page.--I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

The article lacks a section on the history of breastfeeding. Such a history might start by mentioning that all mammals nurse their young. Then, the social history of breastfeeding in various cultures. Include the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (with the mind boggling statistic that of 19,250 Baby-Friendly hospitals worldwide, less than 500 are in industrialised nations[1]). --Una Smith (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually there's a section titled "History of breastfeeding", with a link to the full article that was split off some time ago in order to shorten this article. Ciotog (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)