Talk:On Becoming Baby Wise/Archive 1

Archive 1

Weasel words and statements

I see tons of weasel words, for instance weasel statements such as: "These infant parenting materials by Gary Ezzo have become quite controversial in parenting circles." Which circles? any links or references? This article is attempting to be very far from neutral. Somebody had a serious axe to grind. Also, this article is about the book, not Ezzo. You want to bash ezzo, go do it on his page, and make sure to add references and links, not just weasel words. --65.107.57.162 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, this is deep. Who ever spent time typing this out really has some hatred for Ezzo. For instance: "Gary Ezzo has come under fire for giving medical advice, though he is not a doctor or in any way related to the health care field. He has been excommunicated from his original church due to his extreme views of child-rearing. His own children do not speak to him as a result of their childhoods. " Chock full of weasel words and hatred, but no links or citations. Excommunication? Only catholics do that. I guess the word was used just like "explicit" when referencing religious material. Employed to garner the highest emotional response from the reader. --65.107.57.162 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No positive links whatsoever. Not a shred of neutrality in this article until now. Looks like this was someone whipping post. I am removing the erroneous ones, including the "case studies" that where not written by a doctor and not published either. --65.107.57.162 (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, finished, clean, neutral and without weasel words. Now it actually looks like a wikipedia article. --65.107.57.162 (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you did a good job. I built on your effort.65.112.63.18 (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Who ever spent time typing this out really has some hatred for Ezzo."

You are right on the mark. A large majority of the early editing (ax grinding) on this article was done by Tulipgirl. She is a self admitted contributor to at least two of the sites listed here as "critical" of Ezzo. She and her husband have expressed no sense of embarrassment or wrong doing for the edits made by her here on this article when I confronted them by email. I can prove her involvement in bias editing of this article due to matching IPs when she left comments on my blog (logs IP) within hours of making edits here on this article. I have refrained from editing this article myself up until this point since I am bias in favor of Babywise. I am also very good friends with the authors. That said, I will do my best to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia and make my edits as non-bias as possible. --TheOzz (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more profitable to tone down the personal remarks and speculations about contributors' states of mind and focus on the facts, structure and logic in the article. I made some edits awhile back in response to the good points that person made, and reading through the article today, it looks pretty good to me. I am no fan of Babywise, but I think I can identify facts. People who work on articles here at wikipedia are generally people who are interested in the topics they contribute to. I see no reason to shame someone for their work on this article. Better to point out the wording you object to and suggest how it could be improved. Or fix it. I would hope that would be a valuable collaboration and a worthwhile effort.65.112.63.18 (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well 65.112.63.18, I'm not sure if you are referring to me or others. You can call my statements speculations all you want, but I have proof of statements I made on this page.(i.e, emails, blog comment logs with IPs, and the history of this article) Look at the early history and see for yourself that the people who created this had absolutely no intention on providing NPOV content. This article was being used to grind an ax. This article went for months before a link was added to a website representing the book in a positive light. Most of the links added in the first five months were to sites that the editor had actually contributed to. Once again, this is not opinion, I can prove it. --TheOzz (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

TheOzz, the point I'm making is simply to stick to improving the neutrality of the article, rather than making this about persons and personalities. If you believe someone approached the article in a one-sided manner, then join the editing process. That is precisely a strength of Wikipedia -- more than one person can work on an article, and the result may be better as a result.

If the article went for months before a link was added to a website representing the book in a positive light, I would not blame a previous contributor but would simply point out that Wikipedia articles take time to develop. I found this article about the Wikipedia process to be helpful and interesting. Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia From that article:

"The ideal Wikipedia article is balanced, neutral and encyclopedic, containing comprehensive notable, verifiable knowledge. An increasing number of articles reach this standard over time, and many already have....However, this is a process and can take months or years to be achieved, as each user adds their contribution in turn. Some articles contain statements and claims which have not yet been fully cited. Others will later have entire new sections added. Some information will be considered by later contributors to be insufficiently founded, and may be removed or expounded."

Speaking of that, I see you removed the link to the 1993 Christianity Today "Brave New Baby" article. I placed that link in the article to support the statements in that particular paragraph since the article included quotes from Ezzo to that effect. 65.112.63.18 (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Some information will be considered by later contributors to be insufficiently founded, and may be removed or expounded."

To: 65.112.63.18 It is interesting that you should add this quote. That is exactly why I removed the link to the article. It was insufficiently founded. The article was not written in reference to Babywise, but rather as a critique of the Ezzos. This wiki entry is about Babywise, not the Ezzos. Furthermore there is no indication in the article that any interview was ever done with Ezzo to get quotes. I recommend that if you want to quote Ezzo on the subject of Babywise, then your best source is On Becoming Babywise.

If you want to get right down to it, I question the creditability of everything ezzo.info. The site (ezzo.info) was registered after complaints against the site's owner Steve Rein were made ^[1] by the Ezzos. Dr. Arney appears to be the only medical doctor that has written against the Ezzo's material directly and he is not even board certified in pediatrics even though he refers to himself as a Christian pediatrician. I state these facts that support questions on the creditability of sources to this article as creditability has been an important part of criticisms of Babywise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOzz (talk • contribs) 01:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC) This section was edited today. TheOzz (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Aney is certainly not alone among physicians who have criticized Babywise. Numerous highly qualified MDs and other experts in the field Babywise addresses have stated their concern or have written directly about their concern, and these include:

T. Berry Brazelton, MD, FAAP, Professor Emeritas, Harvard Medical School, Professor of Psychiatry and Human Development at Brown University, Developer of the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale;

Arnold Tanis, MD, FAAP, 1999 recipient of the John H. Whitcomb Outstanding Pediatrician Award, and Past President, Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics;

Marianne Neifert, MD, FAAP, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at University of Colorado, and author of "Dr. Mom";

Nancy Krebs, MD, Professor of Pediatrics, University of Colorado and Chairman, Committee on Nutrition, American Academy of Pediatrics;

Lawrence Gartner, MD, FAAP, Professor of Pediatrics and Obsetrics, University of Chicago, Chairman, American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Breastfeeding, contributing author of Textbook on Human Lactation;

Rosemary Shy, MD, FAAP, Children's Hospital Michigan, and Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at Wayne State University;

Susan Baker, MD, Ph.D, FAAP, Past Chairman, Committee on Nutrition, American Academy of Pediatrics;

Richard Ferber, MD, Director, Center for Pediatric Sleep Disorders at Children's Hospital, Boston;

Kathleen Auerbach, Ph.D., IBCLC, Author, Breastfeeding and Human Lactation and Current Issues in Clinical Lactation;

Kathleen Huggins, R.N., M.S., IBCLC; Author, The Nursing Mother's Companion and The Nursing Mother's Guide to Weaning

Barry Zuckerman, MD, FAAP, Chief of Pediatrics, Boston Medical Center, Joel and Barbara Alpert Professor of Pediatrics, Boston University School of Medicine ;

Barbara Medoff-Cooper, PhD, CRNP, FAAN, RN, Ruth M. Colket Professor in Pediatric Nursing, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Director of the Center for Biobehavioral Research;

Dr. Nancy Wight, MD, FAAP, IBCLC, FABM, Attending Neonatologist, Children's Hospital, San Diego, Medical Director, Lactation Service, Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women, Assistant Clinical Director, Neonatal - Perinatal Division, Department of Pediatrics, UCSD Medical Center

Robert Mendelson, MD, FAAP, Chair, Committee on Medical Liability, American Association of Pediatrics, Past Chair, Committee on Communications, American Association of Pediatrics;

Dr. Aney has not been alone in his concerns. Taketime (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

References

That is exactly why I removed the link to the article.

Right, TheOzz, I gathered as much. In my opinion, if an article in a respected journal offers a quote from the Ezzos, I have no particular reason to doubt that the writer expressed the Ezzos' views and I don't think the quote casts them in a bad light. It is in line with the Ezzos' standard response to criticism over the years. As a point of clarification, Christianity Today's 1993 Brave New Baby article focused on the Ezzos' infant care advice as found in their books and reports of negative health effects--it is not a critique of the Ezzos themselves. Both "Preparation for Parenting" and Babywise are mentioned in the article. [The Brave New Baby, Christianity Today, Aug 1993]

Regarding what you're saying about Steve Rein and Dr. Aney:

Dr. Aney *is* a trained and practicing pediatrician [Children's Hospital of Orange County Physician Guide] and it is upon that basis which he has offered his professional opinion about the medical advice and theories of the Ezzos. Additionally, there are many board-certified pediatricians who also have publicly voiced their concerns about the Ezzos' infant care advice.

Regarding Dr. Rein, I gather the Ezzos had a complaint and asked the feds to investigate some circumstances that looked suspicious to them, but I also notice that after the incident was duly looked into, Rein was not charged with any wrong-doing. This leads me to believe that the authorities concluded that the complaint was unfounded. For onlookers to the discussion: Dr. Rein owns a website [Ezzo.info] that hosts a collection of articles that have been written over the years about this issue. The articles come from sources such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, Focus on the Family, The Wall Street Journal, Group Magazine, Catholic Parent, The Briefing, various professional journals, etc. It is fallacious to dismiss the factuality of the whole kit and caboodle because of the Ezzos' allegation from ten years ago against the owner of the website.

And now I find we have gotten well off the subject. I would like to believe that it is your intent as well as mine, to focus on Babywise: the book, the content, and its author. 65.112.63.18 (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

65.112.63.18: You have no reason to dispute the articles because the agree with your view.

On Aney, I could say that I have trained under dozens of pediatricians in recent years at the local medical university trying to find cures and treatments for my son, but that does not make me a pediatrician. On Rein, you like most other critics discount the fact that he left the college that he was working at when the investigations occurred.

I agree. Let's stay on subject. The subject of this article is Babywise and not the authors. If you want to write about the authors, then please feel free to start a wiki post on the authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.249.227 (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I decided to register an account, but just so you know, that IP that starts with 65.112.63.18 is me.

Regarding whether to cite Christianity Today's The Brave New Baby article to support the paragraph describing the Ezzos' response to criticisms of their advice -- are you saying the article is inaccurate on the subject of the Ezzos' general response to criticisms? To me it looks like it is accurate on that point. However, perhaps the paragraph in the Babywise article does not need any particular citation to support it.

Yes--I think it is a good idea to stay on subject. When considering how much biographical or professional detail to include about the author in this article, I will look around at other Wikipedia articles to get a feeling for "how it's done." Fair enough?

However, the Personal attacks, personal remarks, and false statements about real people on this page must stop. Please see: Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

You have made false statements about the professional lives and qualifications of two people. The correct information is:

Matthew Aney, MD, is a pediatrician in private practice, licensed to practice medicine in the state of California. [Children's Hospital of Orange County List of MDs specializing in Pediatrics] Dr. Aney has written some articles from his point of view and training as a medical doctor on this issue. It may be your belief that if Dr. Aney had the additional certification (board certification) then his medical judgment on this matter would change. Fair enough, but many board-certified pediatricians share his concern.

In the case of Dr. Rein: The Ezzos had a complaint and the feds looked into it. No charges were filed, and that should have been the end of it. The Ezzos also tried to involve Dr. Rein's employer in the matter, who cooperated with them to the extent of asking Rein to take down the list of Ezzo-related critiques and commentaries he maintained on the university server space allotted for his use. Dr. Rein subsequently accepted a position at Cal Poly, where he is now a tenured professor. Perhaps from your point of view, it can't be a coincidence. However, university professors often change positions a few times before settling in somewhere. Dr. Rein had been applying to West Coast universities for about three years, with a goal of settling his growing family nearer to their extended family. When a desirable position at Cal Poly was offered, he accepted. He continued to work on projects for his previous university after his departure and he maintains a good relationship with them.

All of that is irrelevant, however. Attacking the character, circumstances, associations, etc, of a person who is making a truth claim does not refute the truth of the claim they are making. Much less do such attacks refute articles Rein did not write but simply hosts on a website. Taketime (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is my hope that this article on Babywise can be a good Wikipedia article. One possible next step would be to standardize the format of the citations and just generally try to bring it within wikipedia conventions.Taketime (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Taketime: I am sure you know that there are plenty of board certified pediatricians who do not share Aney's opinions. I can name a dozen or so that I know personally. You obviously have a personal knowledge of Rein and Aney. I have a personal knowledge of the Ezzos to the point that we have visited in each other's homes on many occasions and I serve as the site administrator for a web site that GFI launched this past year (GrowingKids.org). My positive bias towards Babywise and the Ezzos is the main reason I have refrained from performing any more edits than I have done already.

I am not sure where you see personal attacks here. Aney is NOT board certified in pediatrics and there were complaints against Rein due to suspicions of wrongfully accessing the Ezzos computers. You and your friends seem to be hung up on the credentials and credibility of Gary Ezzo, but you do not want the credentials of your sources questioned? My statements are facts that go to the credibility of the sources that you and others are trying to use to support your floundering arguments against Babywise and Gary Ezzo in this article. Let me qualify my use of the word floundering. "I wonder why the discussion of this topic has come to a dead halt?" I believe that is a quote of yours, right?

It is simply amazing and almost laughable that people would stoop to using the Wikipedia site to further their agendas against the Ezzos. This article was certainly not created to promote Babywise now was it? I did not even find this article until more than a year after it was created. I then traced her edits via IP addresses back to comments on my wordpress blog to match up within hours of the edits found on this article's history.Wikwi Woes Maybe you or your good friend tulipgirl can shed some light on the reason why this article went so long with such bias when both of you had plenty of knowledge, resources, and links to make this article more neutral from the start.

This article has a long way to go in my opinion. --TheOzz (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Section edited today. TheOzz (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a work in progress.  ;-) As are we all.Taketime (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

TheOzz, I see you added a link to a Time magazine article. The thing is, that article doesn't seem to be addressing the age range that Babywise addresses. The main point of the article seems to be that what comforts and helps an infant may not be appropriate at older ages. It's not endorsing Babywise's approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.63.18 (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? I see that someone on a DSL connection from the Tampa, FL area (based on IP) deleted some of my comments on this discussion page.

Regardless of who actually deleted my comments, I wish for it to be well known that I am not hiding my bias in regards to the subject of this article. As I stated in my original discussion comments on this page, "I have refrained from editing this article myself up until this point since I am bias in favor of Babywise. I am also very good friends with the authors. That said, I will do my best to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia and make my edits as non-bias as possible." --TheOzz (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, TheOzz, someone removed the material which included personal information about an editor. Publishing that personal information is harassment, according to wikipedia behavioral guidelines. Taketime (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Taketime,

I did not say that the article endorsed the "Babywise" approach. I said that the research supports the principles taught in "Babywise". You can't get past the introduction paragraph of the [Time article] without running head on with the subject of cry it out which is one issue that is at the core of many criticisms of "Babywise". The article speaks directly against co-sleeping practices just like "Babywise". The over all theme of the article is promoting the practice of developing healthy sleep patterns early in infancy. Healthy sleep patterns in infants is a primary goal of "Babywise". This article summarizes studies that have been conducted using thousands of children over many years and it closes with a quote saying, "Parents and pediatricians should keep in mind that children have to develop the capacity to regulate their own sleep early in life and self-soothe themselves during the night." That is exactly what "Babywise" teaches.

I noticed that you deleted the link to the "Babywise" co-author's article related to breast feeding. This was a APP publication based on research by a board certified pediatrician that debunked criticisms related to breast feedings and "Babywise". In-house research or not, the article is based on facts rather than solely on opinions. Even if other editors agree with you on leaving out this particular article, it is only fair that [EzzoTruth.com] and [Parentwise Solutions] be included in the controversy section of this article to provide some balance. The quantity of negative links provided in this article are way out of proportion. One site is linked six times. The number of negative links directly supports the comments made by the person who started this discussion page.

While balancing the controversy section would be good, a better solution would be to keep the arguments concerning "Babyeise" out of Wikipedia. I would like to see an editor with a truly WP:NPOV rip out the bulk of the controversy section on the basis of WP:SYN, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SELFPUB. I would argue that the group of legitimate critics who have actually read any of GFI material cover to cover is a tiny minority in relation to those who are pleased with their success with "Babywise" and other GFI publications. I believe that stating that there has been some criticism of "Babywise" is fair, but building a detailed arguments to support or debunk those criticisms within this article is not in line with the spirit of what Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLEGROUND). --TheOzz (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

TheOzz, regarding the TIME magazine article link, I was simply noting here on the Talk page that the research it described was done on children who were past the Babywise age-range. I grasp -- and appreciate -- that you have differentiated between "principles" and actual Babywise recommendations.

Regarding the link to the opinion piece written by Babywise co-author Dr. Bucknam: If you think it should be added back in, I do not have a strong opinion about that. I DO find it a fairly weak form of support--that is to say, it is written by one of the co-authors. And it references their own in-house study which has been neither published nor peer-reviewed. Real medical research is validated by being peer-reviewed and published.

BTW, I updated the link to Gary Ezzo's paper about Myths and Misconceptions. There was a dead link on that and I found the article had been moved to his publishing company site, so I updated that (several weeks ago, actually). Taketime (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ophco, you've been making some edits I'd like to discuss. We are working at giving the article a "neutral point of view." I've been trying to substitute "says" in place of "claims" in most places within the article. You have been changing "says" back to "claims". I think it should go back to "says" which upholds the neutral point of view a little better. This suggestion comes from some wikipedia suggestions on writing with a neutral point of view. It may go against the grain of a strong belief, but it's appropriate for an article that is neutral.

Also, Ophco, you removed a summary paragraph about the book's thoughts on marriage and parental authority. I think supporters and critics alike would agree that the book offers its readers more than a dry set of baby care instructions. The instructions are presented within an intrinsic context of concern for a strong marriage and parental authority. I think it's absolutely appropriate to present that context. Taketime (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

TheOzz, I see you added the personal information which was removed from your posting above back in. I did not notice that before. Posting a person's name in that manner is considered harassment. Perhaps you were not aware of that. Please remove it. Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information Taketime (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Taketime, The paragraph on posting of a person's name says that this practice can be considered harassment unless an editor links to such information herself. Tulipgirl added the link back to ezzoinfo/voices.htm where her article "Confessions of a failed Babywiser" contains her real name, an email address, and a link to her personal blog. TheOzz (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The guideline Outing: Posting of personal information appears to be saying that if the person provides the information voluntarily HERE within the wikipedia community, then it would be ok to follow suit. Otherwise it's not. Taketime (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A wiser more experienced editor than I suggested that we should stop the "I'll add the positive stuff, you add the negative stuff". I find most all of the controversy section to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This section is largely being used as a Battleground and Soapbox. I would go as far as to say that this section should be renamed to criticisms. A controversy implies ongoing argument. There has been no ongoing argument outside of some small Internet forums that have been built to criticize the Ezzos. A wikipedia article is not a place to actually do the criticizing, but rather stating that criticisms exists is more NPOV. The statements actually criticizing Babywise need to be removed. I will provide some examples before I remove them:

The first few sentences of the second paragraph under Controvery try to paint Babywise as being in contrast with AAP recommendations. If Babywise said a baby should be breastfed 5-6 time per day then there would be a contrast. Instead the recommendations of Babywise fall within the AAP recommendations and this paragraph actually prove that fact. This paragraph adds no value to the Babywise article from a NPOV.

Statements in the third paragraph about Babywise being linked to dehydration, low weight gain, and failure to thrive are a completely unfounded. Not one single case has been proven and documented. The one reference provided does nothing more than to contrast Ezzo parenting material against other material and it doesn't even mention Babywise.

The single sentence in the third paragraph is another unfounded statement. The child development specialist raising these concerns have obviously not read Babywise. Babywise is not built around a framework of moral training. Babywise teaches parents to manage the three major activities of an infant's day. (wake-time, feeding time, and naptime)

That's all for now. TheOzz (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

TheOzz, I don't mind renaming the section "Criticism". I've been looking around at other articles where controversy or criticism is an unavoidable part of the picture (an example would be the "Atkins" diet) to see if there is a convention being followed for such sections. I've seen it both ways. I personally see no reason not to rename it to "Criticism".

Regarding links between Babywise advice and poor outcomes, since in these situations it is the attending physician or other health care provider giving a professional opinion about their own patients' conditions, that seems to me to be all that's necessary to point out.

Regarding the AAP recommendations, I spelled it out in exact detail so that we would not need to go 'round and 'round about what it means to be "within" the AAP guidelines. You are misunderstanding the meaning of the range that particular AAP policy statement has given. It does not mean any number between 8 and 12 will suffice.

You believe that child development specialists are wrong in their judgment. That is an example of how Babywise is controversial. Some people think one thing, other people think another. It's an important aspect of the criticism that professionals have leveled against Babywise so I felt it should be included.

Will come back to this again when I get time. Taketime (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the title to Criticism, as we discussed, and discovered you had gone ahead and made those other changes without waiting to discuss.

The article now needs a summary of the criticism of Babywise, citations for same, and removal of the authors' dismissal of the criticism as that no longer seems appropriate within that section. Taketime (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again my comments on this page were edited. I will provide some context for my justification for adding the personal information in the first place so hopefully we can end this. The following is in addition to the fact that Tulipgirl linked to a site containing her personal information in this article before I posted it on this talk page. The guidelines for Posting of personal information have not been violated as a result of her prior actions.

The following is from an email exchange between me and Tulipgirl's husband:

From my email to him - "Now on the wiki article, I thank you for letting me know that Tulipgirl is not ashamed of her violation of Wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point of View) policy. I am a bit surprised that this would not be embarrassing for her or you. So you would have no problem with me identifying Tulipgirl, the famous author of 'Confessions of a Failed Babywiser' as a major bias contributor during the early stages of the Wikipedia Babywise entry where listed as the number one reference is a link to opinions (including her own) to support unproven statements in the wiki article?"

His response - "It's still somewhat strange that you believe she would be embarrassed about her attempts to inform others of the dangers of Babywise. She's proud of her work. As am I. You can tell a lot about a person by their enemies. The fact that Ezzo apologists so consummately loathe her fills me with tremendous pride."

Pride comes before the fall. TheOzz (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

TheOzz, The editor did not connect the dots between her wikipedia identity and a byline on any particular article. You are the one making that connection for her, against her will. I suggest that you use the wikipedia identity when referring to other editors, or don't refer to them at all and simply focus on content. Taketime (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have submitted this issue on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts in the hope that a third-party look at what's going on here will help us all out. Taketime (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Taketime,

I have made edits to this talk page based on requests from you and recommendations from others. I believe my edits to be in line with your own comments regarding Rein and Aney. I have also made edits to my previous comments that contained Tulipgirl's real name. TheOzz (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that cooperation. I would appreciate it if you would strike out the personal attacks and ad hominem attacks. Attempting to shame and embarrass an early contributor to the article instead of assuming she was making a good faith effort is against policy WP:BITE and WP:GOODFAITH so I would appreciate it if you would either strike out or simply get rid of all that stuff about her, her husband, whatever. Being a critic of Ezzo and/or his work doesn't make anyone automatically a bad person or disqualify them from editing this article.

Also please remove the linkage to derogatory and/or defamatory material about Steve Rein. WP:BLP Thanks. I am much happier with the constructive tone you've taken below and look forward to a better work environment. Taketime (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Scaling Back the Article

I scaled back the article and did a little reorganizing in order to move it towards encyclopedia-style. I have a feeling that in this situation of high-contentiousness, "less may be more" when it comes to achieving an article that has a NPOV. Taketime (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your direction of less being more. That said, I recommend the same philosophy be applied to the external links and references. The last three links in the "External Links" should be removed. The last five lines in the references section should be removed.

The last paragraph of the Summary was factually incorrect. "Babywise" is not "centered on scheduling infants eating and sleeping times". The book teaches against exclusive scheduled feedings as well as teaching against exclusive cue/demand feeding as seen in On Becoming Babywise on pages 36-40. Parent-Directed Feeding combines parental assessment (PA) with hunger cues to determine whether or not to feed while only using the clock to prevent going too long between feedings as recommended by the AAP quote in each of the first two reference links. A more appropriate replacement wording for this paragraph has been added. Specific page references from the book can be added to support this new wording. I wanted to make other recommendations on references here first.

The first sentence of the criticism section along with the first two reference links tend to draw a reader into a popular misconception that says Babywise is all about scheduled feedings when in fact it is not. The book speaks openly against scheduled feedings in pages 36-40.

I recommend that the reference(s) to other health care professionals who support Babywise should point to a more comprehensive list like the one found at Ezzotruth.com and to the first three printed pages of the book On Becoming Babywise itself. TheOzz (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

TheOzz, Ezzo equivocates on whether it is or is not a schedule. The presence of a worksheet for building a schedule, the mention of various possible schedules, of specific lengths of times between feedings and so on spells schedule -- perhaps there is another way to express it. I'm cool with trying to nuance it appropriately but let's do be real.

The question is how to summarize the core ideas of the book without the result sounding like a Babywise brochure. I think you made a good attempt but my impression is that it relies on Babywise jargon and reads like an advertisement. Is there a way to summarize the core ideas without falling into that pitfall?

I would be in full support of citing the list of Babywise endorsers from the front of the book itself. I thought about doing that but I wasn't sure how to cite a portion of the book that doesn't have numbered pages. If you have an idea about how to make that citation, go for it.  :-)

Citing the list of endorsers on the "Ezzotruth" site is problematic. It would violate the stipulations of WP:SELFPUB or WP:VERIFY.

It's essentially a tool of promotion for Ezzo's work and a tool for publishing derogatory statements and ad hominem attacks on Ezzo's critics put together by friends and associates of his. Taketime (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Taketime,

Your words about Ezzotruth are a perfect fit for ezzo.info as well. The ezzo.info site is essentially used as promotion against the Ezzo's work using derogatory statements and ad hominem attacks. Before you try to defend ezzo.info against my statement I will remind you of the warnings against things like FTT and possible death that are mentioned on ezzo.info which are pure unfounded speculation and opinion. The site is a personal site that justifies the links being removed based on the Links normally to be avoided bullet number 11. That same bullet could justify leaving Ezzotruth out of the external links of this article. I recommend that links to both ezzo.info and ezzotruth.com be left out of this article or we agree to allow links to both in the article.

I'd love to get a third opinion about that, TheOzz. I think there is a clear difference between the nature and approach of the two sites, and Ezzo.info certainly is the main "go to" reference site in terms of compiling reliable critiques. It even stays away from the more hysterical and sketchy critiques that are out there. But regarding your concern with bullet number 11, you're correct that it is a personal site -- as opposed to a site from an organization. On the other hand, Dr. Rein might be considered something of an expert, so there is that to consider.

The Ezzotruth site however does seem to be specifically excluded because of its attacks on third parties. Taketime (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of "scaling back this article" the excess links in the references and external links sections have been removed. The links in the references section were not attached to any inline citations. The extra external links were just that, extra links that added no value to the article.

I have also removed the first reference to search2.aap.org as it provided redundant information and the link landed on a search result URL. TheOzz (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Taketime,

I respectfully request that you state any Conflict of Internet relative to Babywise and the Ezzos as well as the nature of that COI here on this talk page as I did on 20 March and 4 April above. All who review this article's history or this talk page should understand the positions of those who are most actively editing this article and this talk page.

Furthermore, I question the need for your last edit on 30 April 2008 on this talk page where you [added additional references] to support an argument. I suggest that we stick to discussing the edits to the Babywise article moving forward. TheOzz (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

TheOzz, I already mentioned that I am no fan of Babywise. ;-) I have researched it extensively over many years and out of that has grown a strong opinion about it. I am not in the employ of Babywise's author, I'm not related to the author of Babywise, I'm not part of the author's organization or ministry, etc.

I think that list is valuable since readers might not grasp the level and amount at which Babywise has been critiqued since the article is very understated on that point and it has been downplayed in your remarks here on the talk page. A list like that would be relevant on the article, too, but I wasn't sure how best to present it without overweighting the article with critical links. Still it seems to me that a neutral article would somehow communicate that there *is* a lot of weight on the critical side; the response of professionals in the field to the ideas and theories Ezzo has put forward. In the field of lactation, the professional response is virtually unanimous.

I have been quite busy. I am not sure about the link deletions and rewrites you have made to the article but perhaps we can put our heads together on that later on. Taketime (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Taketime,

I have been quite busy too with a child requiring both open heart surgery and back surgery in the coming months. We all have lives outside of this article. It is a shame that I have to even keep an eye on this article since it was being used for over a year as a place to promote an agenda against Babywise and the Ezzos.

On your comments about ezzo.info vs ezzotruth.com. The personal owners both have the title "Dr" in front of their names. The owner of Ezzotruth.com is an MD. What does the "Dr" represent in the name of the owner of Ezzo.info? Ezzo.info primarily attacks, well the Ezzos obviously. Since the site is far from neutral in its personal attacks you have Ezzotruth.com responding to those attacks. So I would say to you that if it were not for Ezzo.info and forums that call for discussions over the concerns about the Ezzos then there may not be a need for Ezzotruth.com.

Now about your statement in regards to Conflict of Interest. I do not consider your stating what you are "not" along with a smiley face tells the whole story. Are you not an active participant in the types of web sites mentioned in the above paragraph? I am sure you know what I am

As for the value of the links you added to this page on the 30th. These links certainly do not fall in line with supporting a NPOV. A large majority of them are nearly ten years old. The crusade started a decade or more ago by those in the attachment parenting (AP) camp who got their feelings hurt by what Babywise has to say about the AP philosophy has failed. Babywise continues to be sold and more success stories come out on the Internet ever day.

Once again I respectfully request that you state any Conflict of Internet relative to Babywise and the Ezzos as well as the nature of that COI here on this talk page as I did on 20 March and 4 April above. All who review this article's history or this talk page should understand the positions of those who are most actively editing this article and this talk page. TheOzz (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

TheOzz, I am more sorry than I can express about your little child and the health crises he has faced. Please feel free to take a break from this discussion at any time. It is not so important that it can't wait.

Having said that, there are so many ways I can't buy into your version of reality. Sorry.

I've made my "position" on Babywise pretty clear here as well as elsewhere in the world, but that doesn't mean I have a "conflict of interest." Since you are closely identified with the author of the book this article is about, participate in his ministry, etc, I think you've probably got a "conflict of interest" and very properly disclosed it. However, I have taken your contributions on their own merit. You've brought up some valid points (and some invalid ones.) We're discussing those and I feel capable of working with you *on the article* within the framework of your good faith effort to watch yourself for bias. I've already said that I'm aware that having an opinion means I could have a bias, but I've also said I think I watch out for that and that I can judge the facts of the matter fairly well. I think my editing has borne that out, by the way.

However it strains credulity to belittle the professional opinions of a large group of experts at the top of their field as nothing more than "hurt feelings." However, you have registered your opinion and w can leave it to others to decide if they think that is a reasonable explanation or not.

Sales figures of Babywise and the success stories that people ascribe to it are a fact. And so is the widespread concern among the medical professionals, and stories of problems that people ascribe to it. It seems to me that the NPOV way to go would be to note both, and let people make up their minds. Taketime (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

TakeTime,

My "version of reality" is based on fact. The sales of Babywise continue while the opposition fades. Decade old articles that continue to be pasted around as evidence of "widespread concern among the medical professionals" are a pathetic argument. Many of these "professional" opinions made claims about dangers that have not and can not be linked to Babywise.

I agree that you have made your position on Babywise clear "elsewhere in the world" but you have not done so here.

Stating your position elsewhere on the Internet does nothing in terms of COI guidelines and this article.  Your view of COI statements seems to be one sided.  A COI goes both ways.  Your saying here that you are no fan of Babywise does not give a true picture of your "position".  You have neglected to state involvement in efforts directly opposed to Babywise and the Ezzos.  You are no less bias than me in regards to the content of this article. I suspect that your bias towards Babywise is as strong as mine and the only difference between us is that your bias comes from the opposition rather than support direction.  You should clearly state your involvement in efforts specifically targeting Babywise and the Ezzos before proceeding.

Once again I respectfully request that you state any Conflict of Internet relative to Babywise and the Ezzos as well as the nature of that COI here on this talk page as I did on 20 March and 4 April above. All who review this article's history or this talk page should understand the positions of those who are most actively editing this article and this talk page. TheOzz (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have said (repeatedly) that I am not a fan of Babywise. Obviously I have a bias in that respect. I have made my opinion of Babywise known here as well as elsewhere in the world, but I don't believe I stand in a "conflict of interest" with respect to the book or the authors and my editing has, I believe, demonstrated my attempts to be working towards a NPOV article here. Perhaps some clarification from a third party would help.

Moving on to your assertion that those health care professionals are no longer concerned about Babywise's advice--is there verification of that? I agree with you that the press coverage of the issue peaked awhile ago, but that is how news cycles work. There's a "that story's already been done" approach to news coverage when it comes to this kind of article. There has to be some *new* reason to justify doing a story that has been covered so widely in the past. That doesn't mean the old reasons are gone. It just means they don't consider it news.

At the popular level, glowing testimonials are not hard to find -- and but neither are stories of problems and regret. At the professional level, I'd be surprised to learn health care professionals who raised concerns ten years ago have changed their minds. And just as a point of information, at least one reference in the list I made above was from 2004, and in that interview the pediatrician listed types of issues she felt Babywise users were at risk for and added, "all of which we've seen."

If, on the other hand, Babywise has changed its advice in response to the criticism it received and is now safer and less objectionable, well, that's a different matter. In that case I don't understand belittling the views of critics as arising from "hurt feelings" if Babywise benefited from their input.

In reflection of your feeling that there is no current controversy, we agreed to change the heading of the last section of the article from "Controversy" to "Criticism". This book has been the subject of much criticism by sources well-qualified to critique its contents and that is readily verifiable and should not be a problem to note.

It seems wikipedia-like to note the book's popularity, note the fact that it has been critiqued, giving some extent of the scope, give some links, and let readers sort it out. Taketime (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing Banners on Article

I removed the 2007 "Request for Expansion" banner. I propose to remove the other two banners although the NPOV banner might be good to keep just so future editors know they need to be careful. Perhaps there is some other solution. Taketime (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I restored the expansion banner. The article has been hatchetized too far. This is a controversial subject, covered very narrowly and without depth. The solution is that an interested editor will expand the article, using secondary sources, in either a neutral or balanced manner. There is some information to work with at the mangled article Sovereign Grace Ministries, and a lot of stuff cut from there and couple of other articles in which it did not belong. It is on my "Someday if someone who knows a lot more than I do never fixes it." list.- sinneed (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

On review of my choice of words, that sounds critical of my fellow editors, and that is NOT the intention. There was too much too strong feeling in this before, and cutting that out left not very much content. I do think the article needs to be expanded. I think both the expert and expand flags are valuable in accomplishing that. Because of the strong opinions pro and con I think the PoV flag needs to stay in.- sinneed (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think if you read back through this discussion page, you'll see why this editor, at any rate, decided to take a less-is-more approach. Moreover, it seemed to me that the book itself does not need a large article -- although the subject matter may be begging for it.

I did read, and I do understand and support your use of a sharp editorial hatchet. If I thought the old content should be brought back I would mine the edit history and pull it up... but I didn't see the need when I slogged through it before. :) I do think it left the article too short. I also think the church teachings associated with the book need an article, but I haven't the knowledge or the drive to get it to create one. :)- sinneed (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What are some examples of Wikipedia articles on popular (as opposed to scholarly), controversial books that come closer to the depth you expect to see while successfully navigating the controversial subject matter? If you and your impartiality can help, I wouldn't mind taking a stab at it. Taketime (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't honestly think of any that I would claim as good... though perhaps hitting the Good Article list might yield a few. I do appreciate the fact that I am not being very helpful here... If I knew how to fix it I would at least write it up here on the talk page... :) Thus, I leave in the "calls for help" in the article header. 18:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried to remove the inaccurate information and clean-up the weasel words as well as link to a source that explains the Babywise philosophy without sounding like a proponent of the philosophy. - public assertion of possible bias - I do not particularly like Babywise only because it is based on the idea of "eat, play sleep" cycling rather than "play, eat, sleep" cycling which is what most babies respond to. That Babywise works for many many parents without a single medical investigation to back up critics claims of "dangerous" substantiates Babywise's place among other parenting philosophies regardless of its acceptance among the more popular experts. Just because Brazelton and Ferber don't like Babywise (and truthfully both have only one quote apiece about the book making it sound as if neither had actually read it) doesn't mean it is dangerous. - public assertion over. I am not a fan but it deserves to be represented on Wikipedia truthfully and without bias. Smibbo (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I added some information and an additional citation. Unfortunately, the Babywise program has been associated with problems such as failure to thrive in at least a small number of children. Different parenting styles have passionate adherents and naysayers, and most of that debate is not particularly useful on Wikipedia, but documented harm to children should be noted. In fact, I think this self-published book probably is not notable save for the surrounding controversy. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, there has only been ONE doctor who has laid allegations of such at Babywise. One. And he's not a pediatrician. The only other experts who do not like Babywise are competing parenting experts who clearly have not read the book, much less have stock reasons for why they are so opposed. Other than the allegations of Aney, there is no substance to the claim that Babywise has in fact been linked to FTT infants as a causal factor. Period. Every critique I have read clearly shows the writers ignorance of the actual book itself; critiques containing numerous errors of citation and frequent hearsay. I am adding the link of a comparison of Babywise recommendations alongside the AAP recommendations. Perusing that should assure any concern as to why the AAP never followed up with any issues regarding Babywise. Smibbo (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Professionals who support Babywise?

The article cited for the statement "A number of health care professionals support Babywise" is not available for free. I tracked down the free abstract, but it's really an introduction and does not include the conclusion: [2]. Does Dr. Pearson conclude in support for Babywise? Who are the other health care professionals? If it's just one doctor's opinion, it does not fit support the statement it's cited for. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing old tags

I removed the POV and Expert tags on the article as they had been in place for three years with no benefit. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

---

On Becoming Babywise → On Becoming Baby Wise – The name of the book uses two words for "Baby Wise", not one word "Babywise". Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conflict of interest -- new editor associated with book

Hello Binksternet, you wrote me a note today about a baby book I wrote about. Here is my message, I would like to talk to you, please email me or call me at the info on my account:

Dear Binksternet,

I would like to talk to you about your comments about remaining neutral. I would like to see neutral play on Wikipedia when referenceing this book as well, yet currently the site has inaccurate facts, outdated material and stats, and an extremely biased review of this national best selling title. I assumed this is because nobody at Wikipedia has checked the material, the stats, and the opinions that are currently listed on this book on their site. This material has been posted on your site for sometime, and perhaps that is why you might feel it is fact. Please read the entire Wikipedia listing for On Becoming Babywise again and than tell me that you believe the Wikipedia site on this title is currently neutral. First, the stats posted on your site in August of 2014 were outdated somewhere between 1994 and 1998. The consistent use of "controversial" and "religious" are suspect. The lengthy text on critics of the book, siting several doctors/pediatricians, yet no mention on this fact based site of the dozens (actually hundreds) of licensed doctors and pediatricians that not only endorse the book as safe and solid but use it with their own families and clients. NO MENTION. The site gives a length "contrast" statement (not to be confused by the "critics" section) where it goes off on Bill Sears and Richard Ferber and how they believe differently. I do not see such "contract" on other authors Wikipedia like Sears and Ferber for example. The false opinion is shared on this site that the "foundation of the book is that great marriages produce great parents." Whose opinion is it that this was a foundational point of this book. It was not the authors foundational point. Than the site claims that buyers of this book include "mothers wearied by the demands of attachment parenting" which while partially true is a misleading opinion that is a small portion of the buyers and smells of a strong misleading opinion written by someone not in favor of a neutral point of view. A neutral point of view would discuss the incredible following of 3 million copies over just 21 years and still in the top 400 books of all books in all categories on Amazon (leading both of the experts that were referenced in this neutral material: Sears and Ferber). Then the site references a small town former president of his chapter of the AAP and includes an attachment to the AAP site (as if to indicated that the 62,000 pediatricians stand for anything similar. Then the site talks about one of the authors community college attendance records but says he has no degree (as if that is relevant or neutral). The Wikipedia site also indicates the publication date of 2007 and it is 2012 on the current issue. The site shows the incorrect isbn; the isbn you show has been out of print and un-available for 7 years now. The cover your neutral site shows has not been the utilized cover on shelves in stores for more than 6 years now.

In short, Binksternet, I would enjoy the opportunity of hearing from you how you are the defender of "neutral" and yet the Wikipedia site you refer to on this book, is showing outdated, incorrect, and far from neutral opinion currently. Can you help us get things a bit more neutral and ton more correct?

Thank you!

Blakenathanweber

The book is a travesty of bad advice, written by a Christian husband/wife team who had worn out the patience of their church. The book was rubber-stamped by a young pediatrician with no reputation. So I don't think you and I can come to an agreement about the topic. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, this is blakenathanweber. you responded to me yesterday about a baby book edit. I am not quite sure how to respond using your system. would it be easier to just email me or is this communication location fine? I have some thoughts I would like to share with you while I prepare a more "neutral" edit for much of the content still showing one side of a story. Please let me know where the best location to communicate with you is while we work on the edit. Again, if neutral is the goal and I appreciate that it is, than opinions like "The book is a travesty of bad advice" and "The book was rubber-stamped by a young pediatrician with no reputation" will certainly not find their way onto a neutral telling of a book or its story. I am certainly not worried about coming to an agreement. But laying out inaccurate facts and dates while positioning criticism outside of the "criticism section" and having an extensive bio and story on one of two authors is not a neutral telling-- I am sure you would agree. Wikipedia, until yesterday, led its trusted readers to believe that this book had sold 250,000 copies (certainly was true about 15 years ago) and that the isbn and cover were current (though they were 7 years old. Likewise, much of the input from a select group of doctors was from over 7 years ago. To the contrary, Amazon.com has this Babywise book ranked in its top 400 books of all categories still in August 2014 well ahead of both of the authors that Wikipedia chose to quote on the Babywise page against the book: Bill Sears and Richard Ferber. Now your personal opinion about a book is valid in most circles, but you just informed me that Wikipedia has a rule about remaining neutral. I look on Richard Ferber's page and Bill Sear's page and I do not see the same kind of negative input, extra criticism outside of the criticism section, and personal attacks. In the interest of remaining neutral, I have known the former President & Owner of Multnomah Publishers' and your "opinion" that is stated on Wikipedia currently is inaccurate that the publisher got rid of Gary Ezzo when some criticism was heard. I am happy to prepare such a letter in writing if that is what you seek. Also, your opinion about the quality or reputation about a distinguished pediatrician who authored On Becoming Babywise with Gary Ezzo is probably less important if our goal was to honor the "neutral" aim of all input. Robert Bucknam, M.D. has served faithfully with his growing client base for more than 26 years and enjoys a thriving practice in multiple hospitals in conjunction with more than 30 licensed pediatricians. On Becoming Babywise was first formulated in 1993 with Robert Bucknam, M.D. and Gary Ezzo. We are currently working with the AAP directly to dispel the rumor that any formal position of the AAP was ever administered coming out against the book or methods of Babywise as if it were dangerous or needs to be avoided (as so many mistaken reviews say on Amazon.com to this day). If you look at the 3,292 reviews on Amazon, you will see that over 2,000 of these reviews are 4 or 5 star reviews that have found Pediatrician Robert Bucknam, M.D. and Gary Ezzo's methods to be highly effective. You will also see that in the last few years, the quantity of 4 and 5 star reviews outnumber the 1 star reviews by 8:1. This sure appears to be a lot more than some husband wife team that have produced some gimic out of their garage and raised a lot of problems. If you look on the website for the publisher you will see quite an extensive list of licensed doctors and pediatricians who not only utilize the Babywise methods with their own children, but with their entire client base. If you read on Amazon.com you will continue to see over the past year of 2014 more and more fresh reviews written by licensed doctors and pediatricians who love the methods of Babywise and have found them safe, loving, and effective. Please let me know if "neutral" is still our goal so we can get the criticism listed only in the criticism section, make accurate all facts with citation, and list both authors credentials and story. I look forward to seeing nothing more or short of neutral. I appreciate your time.

Sincerely, Blakenathanweber — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakenathanweber (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This latest comment of yours tells me that you have a WP:Conflict of interest: you said about you, Ezzo and Bucknam that "We are currently working with the AAP directly". You will want to read the WP:COI guideline as it places limits on your possible Wikipedia contributions regarding the Babywise book. Most importantly, it means you cannot change disputed text on the article page; instead, you must suggest changes here on the talk page.

The best place to discuss the problem is at the article's talk page, which where I'm going to move all this discussion. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Binkster,

you edited the use of the word "distinguished" prior to the word pediatrician when describing the 3 million selling author, Robert Bucknam, M.D.

yet you have personally chosen to leave the word "popular" prior to the word pediatrician when describing the less sold and less read author Bill Sears, of whom was being spoken about repeatedly and quoted in contrast to the very author/book the Wikipedia page was supposed to be summarizing. I am not understanding how the quest to remain neutral is working under your leadership. can you help me here, Binkster? All I have attempted to provide in my minor edits were facts and corrected stats as opposed to the current opinions and one sided appearances against one of the two authors and displaying medical reference against the author but leaving out the enormous medical support in favor of the authors work (of which I provided and gave citation for and you pulled out in your "edit to preserve neutrality." It is very interesting that a 27 year beloved pediatrician (Robert Bucknam, M.D.) that writes a book in 1993, earns 1,669 FIVE star reviews on Amazon, and sells 3 million copies to date gets the word "distinguished" edited and removed from his name on a neutral site like Wikipedia yet at the same time, on the Wikipedia page designated to discuss Robert Bucknam, M.D. and his book, the Wikipedia editor decides to leave a neutral descriptor like "popular" in connection to William Sears who has earned 85 FIVE star reviews on Amazon since he wrote his book in 1994 and is selling far fewer copies according to Amazon.com title rankings as of today August 16, 2014. I would appreciate a neutral representation. That does not appear to be what is occurring on your site, Binkster. Blakenathanweber (this is my signature again, as always, from my Wikipedia account that I have signed up for and used each time I have made a comment). Binkster-- I have invited you to engage a few questions about your apparent one sided edits and "muzzling" of the correct facts. Would you mind answering this particular question for me in the interest of "neutral" which you say Wikipedia prides itself on. I would love to see neutral representation. Please answer this question of mine yourself and than the last few questions that instead of answering about your editorial decisions, you said you are going to invite others in on the discussion. I would prefer hearing your response since you are the individual choosing to edit corrected facts on a neutral site called Wikipedia. I would prefer not to hear your opinion since you already shared it with me in writing: :The book is a travesty of bad advice, written by a Christian husband/wife team who had worn out the patience of their church. The book was rubber-stamped by a young pediatrician with no reputation. So I don't think you and I can come to an agreement about the topic.

Thank you. Blakenathanweber (my second signature on this comment) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakenathanweber (talk • contribs) 23:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC - neutrality Suggestion

Greetings to all editors of Wikipedia and specifically all editors of the Wikipedia page covering On Becoming Babywise,

I have known the authors of On Becoming Babywise since 1993. I worked for Multnomah Publishers from 1993 to 2001. I knew the book intimately during my 8 years with Multnomah, who was the exclusive publisher of On Becoming Babywise. For three of those years at Multnomah, I served as Assistant to the Publisher/President/Owner (Donald C. Jacobson). I have worked for Hawksflight & Associates, Inc. from 2001 to the present. Hawksflight & Associates, Inc. represent the world wide rights of On Becoming Babywise from 2001 - 2015. All this to say, I have thorough and complete knowledge On Becoming Babywise and the authors for 22 years now, steming back to my first year at Multnomah Publishers. I lay this out on my talk page so that there is no confusion who I am, why I am speaking about this book, and where my information comes from. I want to be fully in the open with my views, my information, my verification, and my motives.

A year ago I was being inundated with questions and comments from young parents and medical professionals about why the Wikipedia page on On Becoming Babywise is so one-sided and critical of such a proven best seller over time when the book has such incredible medical support around the country and the world. I signed up for an account on Wikipedia under my name at the time and made some edits to the site to bring both sides to this page. One of the edits I remember making was telling a little bit about our author, 26 year Pediatrician Dr. Robert Bucknam, M.D., and I referred to him as "popular" in the sentence. Immediately an editor said that our author is not "popular" and edited that (among many other things that were edited; all of which is record on Wikipedia and you can read for yourself). I thought that was exceptionally strange given the current Wikipedia page on this author's book, Dr. Robert Bucknam, M.D., refers to his critic, Dr. Bill Sears, as "popular Pediatrician." At that point I figured this Wikipedia page was being "guarded" by some anti-neutral or at least anti-On Becoming Babywise editors. So I stopped adding verifiable fact on the page.

Today, I want to open up a diologue with as many people as possible to gather input, because I continue to hear from so many parents, readers, and medical professionals who are appalled at the one-sided, negative nature of the current Wikipedia page on On Becoming Babywise. (especially given Wikipedia's own stated purpose to remain completely neutral in verifiable fact) So let me put a few questions out for discussion:

Does it seem fair or normal to have a book represented on Wikipedia with no biographical information on one of its two authors that wrote the work 22 years ago? Does it seem fair or normal to have such author biographical information removed or edited because some person/editor who espouses neutrality which is at the heart of Wikipedia's existence simply doesn't want to see it attached to the author's book page? In the current Wikipedia page on On Becoming Babywise, does it seem fair or normal to divide the page into 5 sections (one of them being "criticism") and yet all 5 sections on this book's page are laced with criticism? And does it seem fair or normal to you to see no hint of medical support listed on the entire Wikipedia page for a book which has such readily available medical support right in the book or listed on Amazon.com by R.N. C.L.E., Pediatricians, Professor of Pediatrics, Obstetricians, Pediatric Neurologists, Pediatric Cardiologist? (given the current Wikipedia page on On Becoming Babywise lists 5 medical critics, displays their resumes, refers to them as "popular", and even takes the time to quote them in their critiques)

I look forward to seeing a neutral dialogue about what is fair and what is normal for a Wikipedia page remaining or achieving true neutrality. I am new to this whole Wikipedia thing, so feel free to let me know if I am not signing in correctly, not signing my name to my articles where I need to, or not writing my comments in the right place here on Wikipedia's site. I have written to Wikipedia and believe I am following the counsel I received to a T while I dot my "i's." Thank you, in advance, for your collective thoughts and wisdom as we look for real neutrality for the medical support that has been in writing for more than 20 years for On Becoming Babywise and for the 26 year Pediatrician who wrote this work 22 years ago with co-author Gary Ezzo. Blakenathanweber (talk • contribs) 10:08, 23 May 2015

You are assuming an equivalence between Bucknam and Sears, an equivalence that is not borne out in published assessments. Sears is popular, having published many best-selling books, edited many articles about pediatrics, and founded the heavily trafficked website Ask Dr Sears. Bucknam has none of that going for him. People who write about Sears (and there are lots of them) discuss his expertise in the field. The few people who write about Bucknam usually observe that he had been a pediatrician for less than a year when he was asked to sign his name as co-author to the secular version of the book written by the Ezzos.[3][4] So there's no need to jam into this article more extensive biographical information about Bucknam, which in any case would violate WP:COATRACK. Bucknam is of borderline notability, having had his authorship of the Babywise series questioned. If someone can prove he meets Wikipedia's notability requirements as seen at WP:GNG, then a biography can be written about him. Otherwise, he's a minor element at this book article. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Babywise has been around for a quarter century. It just had its first cover change in 25 years and a lot of new attention has come to this amazing book that changed my life. I see that the Babywise Wikipedia page has had an editor "guarding" this page for many years. This Binksternet has allowed 6 opposition doctors to be quoted (with resumes) on the Babywise page but yet has not allowed one doctor of support to be quoted. In fact, in reading the history, Binksternet has not even allowed for the author, 28 year Pediatrician Robert Bucknam, M.D., to have his resume and accomplishments on his own Wikipedia page for Babywise. Dkkkn4 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Dkkkn4

Question Regarding Legitimacy of Rejections

Hello, I am reaching out because I have tried to update this Wikipedia page twice with new relevant information, but my updates have been rejected by two different editors. I have carefully reviewed Wikipedia's content guidelines and strongly believe that the content I posted adheres to all content policies, in addition to properly sourcing unbiased third party sources. Can you please review my content again to see if it was rejected by mistake? If you feel this content is not acceptable, can you please provide some more feedback on what needs to be changed to get it accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschetter24 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC) The new information added by Blinksternet was proven untrue. the AAP has never warned against Babywise. the most recent edit was accurate and sourced. Thus, I do not understand why the recent edit by ASCHETTER24 was removed. I do not know ASCHETTER24, but that edit was accurate and sourced. MTmomof3 (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am posting a comment here because the rejected draft adhered to the proper guidelines. The new information Blinksternet added was proven to be untrue. Please allow this to be corrected. WikiMonica Brown (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet: I made a few edits with sourced truth a few years ago in 2014. You decided to remove those edits. I explained throughly my knowledge, connection, and twenty years of work on Babywise. I was complete honest, forthright, and transparent with you and the entire wikipedia world on this talk page that you encouraged me to take this conversation. it appears as though your last comment to me above was something about William Sears (a critic of Babywise) being more notable in the publishing world and thus you felt William Sears deserves more "press" inside of the Babywise wiki page than the author itself: Dr. Robert Buckram, M.D.. Today, 28 year Pediatrician Robert Bucknam, M.D. (with his thriving practice in multiple hospitals in Colorado serving along side 37 licensed Pediatricians) has sold over 5 million copies in the Babywise series and is ranked today on Amazon.com #1 in Sleeping Disorders, Breastfeeding, Infants, Children's Health, Twins & Multiples, Single Parenting, and Child Care. Dr. Bucknam outsells all of William Sears' books 4 to 1. Dr. Bucknam outranks William Sears best book. Again, this is not a contest; William Sears is a great man and a fine author. William Sears has helped many, many moms across the world. But there is no comparison today in terms of authorship and who young mothers are reaching for in terms of wanting to follow their methods. No comparison. Binksternet, it is my desire to get as many wikipedia editors and patrons as possible to follow the history of what you have peronsaclly chosen to remove from the Babywise wiki page over the last many years and what you have chosen to add to this same page. You seem to have a serious bend away from neutrality. Here is what you said to me almost three years ago about your personal opinion (so some might decide is a "personal agenda" on your part) about Babywise and its authors: "The book is a travesty of bad advice, written by a Christian husband/wife team who had worn out the patience of their church. The book was rubber-stamped by a young pediatrician with no reputation. So I don't think you and I can come to an agreement about the topic. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)." You have been willing to share openly that you believe Babywise is a "travesty of bad advice" and that Dr. Bucknam has "no reputation." I would like for several Wikipedia editors and patrons to weigh in on your version of neutrality; see if it passes the smell test for the wikipedia guidelines of real neutrality. 28 year Pediatrician Robert Bucknam, M.D. has overseen 5 complete revisions of Babywise since the early 90s when the early edition of Babywise had 160 pages. Today's Updated & Revised edition of Babywise has 279 pages. Of the many years that Binksternet has taken it upon himself to remove truthful edits that are fair sourced within the wiki guidelines, perhaps the most disturbing and misleading edit her performed on the wiki page for Babywise was his most recent edit last month. Upon removing some edit of truth by another patron, the history bar shows that Binksternet took it upon himself to follow his removal edit with an additional edit in the third paragraph about the AAP warning against Babywise. Binksternet seems to have called on a source from 1998 referring to the first edition of Babywise where one doctor chose to write his personal opinion in a small magazine. Binksternet falsely quoted this one doctor's personal opinion (Dr. Aney) from 1998 attempting to attribute a formal position of the entire American Academy of Pediatricians (62,000 licensed Pediatricians). Binksternet clearly attempted in this most recent edit to mislead future readers on the page to believe that the AAP has issued a formal statement warning against Babywise. Binksternet can easily read for himself in the source he chose to quote that this is merely an individuals' personal opinion. Given Binksternets' long history as an editor with Wikipedia (which he tells you all about on his own wiki bio) he knows how to source real information upon the source he selected to quote. But Binksternet did not tell his readers that FOUR doctors immediately published adamant rebuttals in the same small magazine completely debunking Dr. Aney's personal opinion. These FOUR doctors went on in their rebuttals of Aney's pesonal opinion to describe how they not only endorse and agree with the Babywise methods and principles but they use them in their private practices with thousands of clients that trust them for advice. I invite all to come and see for themselves the editorial history and personal bias of this editor named Binksternet. If it proves worthy of action within new editors and patrons' belief to Block Binksternet from the Babywise wiki page due to his repeated bias and lack of neutrality, than I will leave that to each of you. Blakenathanweber (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Blakenathanweber 4/10/2107Blakenathanweber (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I used Babywise with my 3 kids many years ago and am having a hard time believing that Wikipedia allows an editor like this Binksternet to make edits like his most recent edit. The AAP has never warned against Babywise. For him to assert that the AAP has done this is a violation of wiki guidelines and a misleading commentary. --SCgrits (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems like this page has an issue with neutrality. I used Babywise with my babies and it offends me that a "neutral" editor can say on the "talk page" for Babywise that "the book is a travesty of bad advice, written by a Christian husband/wife team who had worn out the patience of their church. The book was rubber-stamped by a young pediatrician with no reputation." That is not the kind of neutrality I believe Wikipedia wants for its pages. Besides, I looked on Amazon today and Babywise is #1 in Sleep Disorders, Children's Health, Breastfeeding, and Infants. The book is fabulous advice that has helped millions of moms like me and it was not written by the author's wife as this Binksternet claims. I believe Binksternet should be banned from making edits on this book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mominmichigan (talk • contribs) 02:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Warning to visiting editors: the above accounts have only a few edits each, and they are all on this page or in discussions about this page. At first glance, it looks like some form of WP:SOCKING. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV dispute "Criticism" "Religious" "Summary"

The "Criticism" section is comprised of misleading, unfounded biases against On Becoming Baby Wise. The sentence "The Baby Wise program has been associated with infantile failure to thrive, dehydration, malnutrition, problems with milk supply in breastfeeding mothers, and involuntary early weaning." is not based on a scientific study, and the 2nd and third sources are heavily relying on the disputed first source by Matthew Aney in 1998. Since this statement is not based on a study but a speculative news article in American Academy of Pediatrics, it cannot be presented as objective or factual, or be presented as an official opinion of American Academy of Pediatrics. Within the same article there is commentary and disagreement from other pediatricians of the American Academy of Pediatrics (Dr Thomas Gill, W. Pennock Laird, Dr. James M Pearson, Dr Arnold L Tanis). In fact, the book has undergone updates throughout its 5 editions and references the most up-to-date studies available.

Rhetoric such as "Many of Ezzo's former Christian allies turned into detractors of Baby Wise" is unhelpful information. Though the first edition of Baby Wise may have referenced more Christian principles, they have almost all been removed by the 5th edition. There is no reference in the book to this: "The book justified the act of leaving a baby to cry alone by comparing that choice to the crucifixion of Jesus: "Praise God that the Father did not intervene when His Son cried out on the cross."" The book is disparagingly portrayed as Evangelical, but that's not how it reads if you pick up a copy today. In fact, the whole paragraph starting "The infant-rearing research the Ezzos conducted was performed by GFI" is disparaging and should be put under "Criticism", except for the fact that much of the Ezzos research is based solely on the most recent scientific studies. The "Religious" section should at least be called "Background".

In the section marked "Summary", the writer has wrongfully compared the Baby Wise method to the Ferber method: "The sleep advice given by Baby Wise is similar to Richard Ferber's advice given in his popular book Solve Your Child's Sleep Problems." In fact, On Becoming Baby Wise specifically advises against the "Cry-it-out" approach of Ferber, so this is a gross misrepresentation and conflation of the two methods.

Baby Wise has published a rebuttal to some of the claims made against it here, which you should read: https://babywise.life/blogs/momtalk/aap-the-babywise-controversy-misattributions-and-corrections

Does anybody have ideas for rewriting these three sections of the article? As they stand, they are not objective; most of the wiki article drags the book through the mud while not examining its own biased inaccuracies. It looks like someone had an ax to grind with the authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melodiya52 (talk • contribs)

I find it quite relevant that "Ezzo's former Christian allies turned against" the program. This rejection by close associates speaks volumes.

The Christian focus of the first version is the foundation of the secular book, so of course it is vitally important. The Ezzo quote "Praise God that the Father did not intervene when His Son cried out on the cross" was taken from the first version, the Christian one, observed as such by the author of this Salon article.

The poor research performed by the Ezzos in writing the first version is not just "Criticism" but a valid description of the book's development. If you want this Wikipedia article to say that the most recent edition of the book is completely up to date and based on the latest pediatric studies then you will need an independent third party observer who has published this assessment. Binksternet (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet,

You write, “I find it quite relevant that "Ezzo's former Christian allies turned against" the program. This rejection by close associates speaks volumes.” This information is not relevant to the article since the entire community at their church was not writing the book. The phrase “turned against” doesn’t sound objective enough for an encyclopedia article which should be held to higher standards. You should immediately disclose your conflict of interest rather than continue to undo any revisions on this page. I know you personally detest this book, but why else do you dislike the Ezzos?

There are actually many purposes for this article rather than just proving that the early editions were based in religion and were not accepted by the Ezzo’s church community. The impact and method of Baby Wise is much broader than that. While it is interesting to know some of the Christian background (a little), that really isn’t the main point here since the book has changed so drastically; this makes the Wikipedia article look very dated since it misses the point. There really isn’t any hint of religion in the newer editions, which contains thorough research on the latest studies (at least look at the multitude of sources in the back of the new edition and acknowledge that). It seems like you read an early version and (probably rightfully) disliked it’s uninformed, Evangelical slant. But the book has become something else entirely. It’s not right for you to try to influence modern readers’ perspectives with such a slanted article that wrongfully attributes statements to the American Academy of Pediatrics and portrays the book as misinformation. And I see from the article’s history that most of these biased, misleading lies are your text additions.

In regard to your third paragraph which questions the validity of research in the newest edition by comparing it to the old edition, these 3rd party pediatricians and medical professionals have been cited in the newest 5th edition as recommending Baby Wise: Sharon Nelson M.D., Jim Pearson M.D., Barbara Philips R.N., C.L.E., David Blank M.D, Craig Lloyd, M.D., David Miller, M.D., Janet Dunn M.D., Linda Meloy M.D, M.D., and Thomas Gill M.D., as well as previous doctors who have praised it from the American Academy of Pediatrics such as W. Pennock Laird M.D., and Arnold Tanis M.D..

Melodiya52 (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Melodiya52 (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest, and I haven't even read the book. I have read only reactions to the book, which are represented in this Wikipedia article.

I would be interested to see your third party reliable source for the assertion that the book is much different now, completely modern, etc. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor (Binksternet) - Administrator Help Requested

Binksternet's biased revisions and textual misrepresentations have been plaguing this article since July 2011, which many helpful contributions undone since August 21st, 2012. I have started a complaint asking administrators for help on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive958#Disruptive_Editor_-_Administrator_Help_Requested

For simplicity, I will include the complaint here:

Dear Administrator,

I would like to ask for help with a disruptive editor on the article On Becoming Baby Wise. Michael Knowles, known as Binksternet, has been zealously guarding the page and undoing all meaningful revisions or contributions since August 21st, 2012. He is a prolific editor on Wikipedia, but his work on the On Becoming Baby Wise article leaves me wondering if he is too personally invested against the book and its authors to meaningfully contribute to and improve the page.

While there are disagreements among pediatricians about Baby Wise, Binksternets statements that represent a consensus in the medical community such as “has been criticized by mainstream health care professionals” or “The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) warned against the book” are blatantly inaccurate. He has included multiple references to the American Academy of Pediatrics’ negative warnings about the book, but they have not issued anything as an institution and there is no consensus among its own pediatricians (with many M.D.s supporting and some critiquing the Baby Wise method). Binksternet is mainly referring to opinions in Dr. Aney’s 1998 article in American Academy of Pediatrics, which is not the result of a scientific, peer-reviewed study and not the opinion of the institution as a whole.

In addition, Binksternet will only allow negative comments about the book to be posted. He has contributed much of the text to the article himself and seems to have a vested interest in tearing down the authors of the book, despite a talkpage consensus that this is unwarranted and biased. Several users have suggested that he should be banned from editing the page, including Blakenathanweber, SCgrits, Mominmichigan, and now myself. Please see the Baby Wise talkpage on Question Regarding Legitimacy of Rejections here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:On_Becoming_Baby_Wise#Question_Regarding_Legitimacy_of_Rejections

Binksternet evidently thinks the main point of the article is to prove that early editions of the book were based in Evangelical religion and were not accepted by the Ezzo’s church community or some pediatricians. While the background of the book and its updates are relevant to some degree, it has undergone drastic updates since 1990 and continues to be recommended by medical professionals around the country, even taught in nursing courses. The impact of Baby Wise is much broader than its initial development, but this Wikipedia article looks very dated and it misses the entire point of the current #1 best-selling infant rearing book on Amazon. The book contains thorough research on the latest studies and has many pediatricians who recommend it. When I attempted to include part of Baby Wise’s recommendations in the Summary section, that was deleted by Binksternet.

Binksternet himself said on August 14th, 2014 in the talkpage that “The book is a travesty of bad advice, written by a Christian husband/wife team who had worn out the patience of their church. The book was rubber-stamped by a young pediatrician with no reputation. So I don't think you and I can come to an agreement about the topic.” That isn’t an attitude of objectivity. He superficially stands behind Wikipedia guidelines while refusing to engage with users or accept new sources/facts.

Thank you for your help and consideration! I have included some diffs below:

Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_Becoming_Baby_Wise&type=revision&diff=790197092&oldid=790152973

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_Becoming_Baby_Wise&type=revision&diff=783796661&oldid=783794866

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_Becoming_Baby_Wise&type=revision&diff=761976353&oldid=761974410

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_Becoming_Baby_Wise&type=revision&diff=621256670&oldid=621251671

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_Becoming_Baby_Wise&type=revision&diff=508505973&oldid=508483359

Talk Page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:On_Becoming_Baby_Wise#Question_Regarding_Legitimacy_of_Rejections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:On_Becoming_Baby_Wise#NPOV_dispute_.22Criticism.22_.22Religious.22_.22Summary.22

Melodiya52 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The result of this complaint is that the page was protected for one month starting on 12 July 2017 to protect it from "COI/sockpuppetry/SPA" disruption and so that people could work out these issues on the talk page. This would be a good time to start working out those issues. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Minor grammatical changes and some other edits to streamline the article

I made a few minor grammatical changes and changed the heading called "editions" into "background" and a few more reasonable minor edits to streamline the article to look line other normal wikipedia articles. I have given reason for each edit that I made in a copy of current version in my sandbox User:SKeiqe/sandbox. I request an administrator to update and merge this non controversial improvement into the article. Thanks. --SKeiqe (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You must be talking about the alternate version of the article that you are preparing in your sandbox: User:SKeiqe/sandbox.

• This change to your sandbox introduces the publisher Hawksflight without telling the reader that it is run by Blake Weber who formerly ran sales for Multnomah, and that Hawksflight handles the Ezzo books exclusively, effectively making them self-published.
• This change to your sandbox attempts to make Dr. Robert Bucknam into an authoritative source despite the fact that he rubber-stamped the Ezzo book in 1995, the book having already been written by the Ezzos. At the time, Bucknam was a new pediatrician and not a widely respected authority.
• This change to the header makes it seem as if the history of the book starts in 1995 with Bucknam and Ezzo writing the book. However, the book was started much earlier by the Ezzos with a religious slant, and the only thing changed in 1995 was to trim the religious references to make it secular.
• This change asserts that Bucknam directed the improvements to the book, including its supposed "integrity", but there is no reference to support the assertion.
• This change diminishes the criticism from mainstream to "some" mainstream.

I don't support your request that your sandbox work is incorporated into the article. I think your work is promotional and non-neutral. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

Online Resources for Parents

Parents that are looking for help on using Babywise with their babies, can turn to the Babywise Friendly Blog Network. This blog network is a network of moms that write help articles on the topic of Babywise. Find these bloggers at the following links:

• Carrie- Wiley Adventures
• Caitlin- Twin Mom and More
• Christine- Christine Keys
• Emily- The Journey of Parenthood
• Katrina- Mama’s Organized Chaos
• Kimberly- Team Cartwright
• Natasha- Let’s Be Brave
• Valerie- Chronicles of a Babywise Mom Mamasorganizedchaos (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mamasorganizedchaos: Thanks for your suggestions. Unfortunately, they cannot go in the article itself, as Wikipedia is not a link directory. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

COI editing

I was contacted independently to edit this page by Blake Weber, who knows the authors and he offered compensation for that editing to ensure POV against what he felt was NPOV editing. I have no institutional, commercial, or other affiliation with this book, its authors, or the method suggested by it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

COI tag

Given the history of direct conflicted editing, I've added a conflict of interest tag to this article. This signifies that the article has been extensively edited by someone with a conflict of interest, and is likely to have bias, in the form of missing negative content, overemphasis on "positives", non-neutral language (all of which are violations of the WP:NPOV content policy), and is likely to have unsourced or poorly sourced content, in violation of the WP:VERIFY content policy. It is likely that the content promotes the subject of the article, in violation of the WP:PROMO policy. Independent editors need to review the article and correct it, and then may remove the tag. If you do so, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Advert

@Jytdog: Please explain what on the page looks like advertising. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Per the above statement that I made about COI and to assume good faith, I am letting these tags stand for awhile so you can discuss what it is you think is promotional about the page or an outstanding COI that is not addressed with neutrality and sourcing in the page. If you don't respond, then I'll assume that you have no leg to stand on. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

As you are appear to be standing down from editing warring spam into the page, I will remove the advert tag. Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Again, you lie: please point to a diff where I "edit warred spam" into the page. If you cannot provide that, then this is another example of you willfully misconstruing my edits to paint me in a bad lite. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

This is being discussed at AN. I presented the initial diff adding spam, and the two diffs where you edit warred to remove the APA criticism. There is no point further discussing this here. Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I won't let your lies stand here: I did not remove any criticism, the criticism did not come from the AAP, and I added additional critical citations that weren't in the article before. There was no critical content removed by me at all and actually some more than was there before I started editing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's voice

I'm concerned about one passage in Wikipedia's voice:

The material presented in Baby Wise is not radical or new, it is simply a re-articulation of various practical methods which are reminiscent of parenting styles advocated by some Evangelical [ref'd to Lewis 1999] as well as secular (such as Tracy Hogg in Secrets of the Baby Whisperer, who deems the routine E.A.S.Y. = Eat, Activity, Sleep, You) child-rearing advisors.

Up to "evangelical" and the citation, this is old; a Wikiblame search found someone adding "radical or" in front of "new" in 2011. The second half needs a citation and should be unwound syntactically. But I'm not sure we should be making any statement about its not being radical or new in Wikipedia's voice, and it stands out against the way the book is presented in the rest of the article. However, I am not informed enough on what is or was "new" in childrearing even in the context of educated Americans to mess with the wording. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Broken link

For citation 5.

Working link.

https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/article-abstract/14/4/21/17282/Babywise-advice-linked-to-dehydration-failure-to?redirectedFrom=fulltext — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9900:5FB9:39BC:E13:E06D:72F8 (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022

The portion of the introduction that states the AAP recommends against this book is false on it's face. The cited article is merely a commentary submitted to the journal by an independent physician and does not represent a statement by the AAP at whole. This is quite misleading. While the statistics posited by the original author (Dr. Aney) to the AAP are legitimate and worth discussion / publication, the characterization that his commentary is tantamount to an AAP positional statement or opinion is false. The most simple edit would be to remove the statement quoted below: "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) warned against the book, stating that its advice could result in infant development problems such as dehydration, poor weight gain, slow growth, delayed development and failure to thrive, as well as lack of milk supply in the new mother and involuntary weaning of the infant. The Babywise series of books was observed to be in direct contradiction to the AAP's own policy statement, "Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk," which recommends 8–12 nursing sessions every 24 hours for newborns, feeding until the baby is sated." Blazerfan7 (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. There does not appear to be consensus for this change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 july 2022

Under the Reception section, add after the following sentence:

In 1998, Bill Sears, evangelical author, pediatrician, and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Keck School of Medicine of USC, best known as the foremost proponent of attachment parenting.

Add the following:

... attachment parenting, a notorious parenting style considered opposite to the Babywise style.[5]

The goal is to provide some more context, and on top the linked academic resource highlights specific key differences, this could potentially be added later in a different section, comparisons of two major parenting styles at the time is very interesting imho.

Thank you in advance. --2001:861:5100:5C60:5D66:A321:973:A672 (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2023

Change "In 1985,Gary Ezzo received his Master of Arts degree emphasizing Christian Education from Talbot;." to "In 1985, Gary Ezzo received his Master of Arts degree emphasizing Christian Education from Talbot." Tulaash (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done. You are proposing no change at all. Binksternet (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't mean to be pedantic , but there is a change - adding a space after 1985 and getting rid of the ; after Talbot. Sure they're minor grammatical errors, but those can be important. Tulaash (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

   Done. Mojoworker (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2023 (2)

Change "The Ferber method of getting a baby to sleep similarly includes putting the baby to bed when awake[14]" to "The Ferber method of getting a baby to sleep similarly includes putting the baby to bed when awake.[14]" and change "In response to the controversy[13] Multnomah Books stopped publishing the text in September 2001.[20]" to "In response to the controversy,[13] Multnomah Books stopped publishing the text in September 2001.[20]" Tulaash (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done. You are proposing no change at all. Binksternet (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Same here - I was suggesting adding a period after "awake" and adding a comma after "controversy". Tulaash (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

   Done. Mojoworker (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)