This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Really great to see the new details on good versus poor latching. Some of the points added, e.g. "140 degrees", don't seem to be in the cited source, so it appears additional citations are needed. Something to consider is that when text is embedded in photos, it isn't accessible to people who use screen readers and isn't easily translated into other languages. I suggest adding the text to the body of the article in addition to being in the photos. Then you can cite each claim within the body of the article. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 05:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, What are your thoughts on making contraindications to breastfeeding its own separate section, rather than a sub-heading of "Process". I've been finding that it doesn't really fit well with the rest of the content in this section. I think this would make the section more readable for parents and providers. I'm not sure which Manual of Style is being used for this page, but when it comes to the Medicine-Related Articles, it seems like contraindications warrants its own section. [1] Would appreciate input Kporter0918 ( talk) 21:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Kporter0918, you've been doing fantastic work. I have a couple of general comments on sourcing:
FYI, there's a useful gadget here that highlights exactly what parts of an article come from a given editor: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Who_Wrote_That%3F . This is handy for reviewing others' work in big articles like this one. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 19:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians --
My name is Katie. I am a fourth year medical student pursuing Obstetrics and Gynecology as my desired specialty. Additionally, I'll be taking by Lactation Counseling (CLC) Exam tomorrow, so hopefully by the time this work plan is complete, I will be a Certified Lactation Counselor. As part of my 4th year of medical school, I am enrolled in a WikiProject Medicine Course, and hope to improve this page as a part of my coursework. Below, you can find my workplan to be completed over the next month. Please feel free to reply with any questions, comments, or concerns, and I'll try to work your feedback into my edits :)
Work Plan
- Areas of Focus:
---Lead/Intro Section: I hope to streamline this section and make it more concise to highlight the main focuses of this article. Additionally, there are some components of this section, as currently written, which are concerning for plagiarism, so I will plan to fix those. Additionally, given my role as a medical provider, I plan to clarify the medical information in this section to ensure that it is all factual and not misleading.
---Lactation: This section is fairly complete already, and is supported by an entire article on lactation. I think it may be helpful to change the title of this section to Breastfeeding Physiology, as "lactation" is a nonspecific term that can refer to anything in the breastfeeding realm. I will clarify the stages of lactogenesis, and the role that hormones play in milk production. This will help simplify the description of the changes that occur in the breasts throughout pregnancy and postpartum.
---Breastmilk: As currently written, this section has both some grammatical and also some medical errors/misleading statements. I plan to correct the medical content of this section, taking into account guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), CDC, WHO, and the Academy of Lactation Policy and Practice (ALPP), which is the governing body of lactation counselors.
---Process: This section is fairly long, and will be the main focus of my work. As currently formatted, the information that would be most pertinent to parents is difficult to find. I hope to reformat this section, so that the pertinent information is easier to find. This may require renaming sections to be more descriptive in the table of contents, reformatting into step-wise or Q&A style sections, and relocating some of the information into different sections where it may be better suited. In the "Exclusivity" section, I will also add a commentary on supplementation, as this is one of the most commonly asked questions on the Postpartum ward - "when should I supplement my milk?" or "I feel like my baby is not getting enough to eat." I would like to use this section to more explicitly address this concern.
---New section on pumping-and-dumping: It is a common misconception of parents and healthcare providers alike that pumping-and-dumping is required after consumption of a large variety of medications and substances. However, this is not the case. In fact, there are only a few, select situations which require pumping-and-dumping. I would like to create a new section on the Pump-and-Dump concept, and provide accurate/reliable resources for parents and healthcare providers to reference, should they visit this page for that information.
- General Changes:
I plan to alter the format of the above sections to be more accessible for readers. Especially for moms and parents who may be coming to this page for information, guidance, and support for their breast/chestfeeding journeys, this page is quite text heavy. I would like to simplify the format so that the information can be more easily found at a quick glance, while also keeping the page as comprehensive as possible.
- Illustrations:
I plan to incorporate some better images to illustrate a good latch. I do not feel that the current pictures adequately/completely describe the components of a good latch, which is another common problem parents report. I feel that adding additional guidance for parents by way of pictures will be extremely helpful.
Again please pass along any feedback you might have; it is greatly appreciated!
-- Kporter0918 ( talk) 18:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Katie. The content you've been adding is high-quality. Since you're working on the first few paragraphs of the article, which we call the lead section, I suggest taking a close look at the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines. In particular, the lead section should be up to four paragraphs long and cover all major aspects of the topic, so a lot of work goes into curating which pieces of information go in and which stay out. A recommended practice, especially if you're new to editing Wikipedia, is to update the body of the article first and then the lead. [1] Cheers, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Lead: The lead seems very detailed and provides a very concise explanation as to the practice of breastfeeding, the epidemiology, contraindications, as well as benefits and drawbacks.
Content: The content is relevant to the topic and up to date. See "Organization" for a few suggested changes.
Tone and Balance: The content seems to be more on the side of pro-breastfeeding than formula feeding. It may help to add some potential negatives of breastfeeding including: discomfort/pain that some women experience (cracked/sore nipples), potential interruptions with sleep/work schedule, father/partner may feel excluded due to inability to help feed the baby unless milk is pumped and saved for later.
Sources and References: Very thorough and numerous sources. Very impressive!
Organization:
Breastfeeding Physiology: It would be helpful to explain why Lactogenesis is divided into three stages and how this classification was determined in the lead paragraph in the section. I would also briefly define the first use of the term colostrum in the article so that laypersons understand what it means. The section on 'Lactogenesis III' seems unclear what separates it from 'Lactogenesis II'. Also, from my understanding pregnancy doesn't have to occur for breast-feeding to be possible (i.e. a wet nurse), so perhaps that can be mentioned. Breast Milk: Great section. Foremilk and hindmilk, used in the image caption, could be defined in the section as it is unclear where they fit into this process. Process: In one subsection, it states "as of October 2016". Since this was greater than 5 years ago, perhaps this can be updated with the current knowledge? Other than that, very detailed and elaborate section. Contraindications to Breastfeeding: Similar to how substance use was made its own section, it might help with organized to place all the viral illnesses under a common section perhaps labeled "contagious viral illnesses" to illustrate similarities. Also, untreated TB is a contraindication. Methods: Great subsection Health Effects: Very thorough section. Social Factors: Healthcare subsection could probably be moved elsewhere. Doesn't seem to belong. Prevalence: Good section History: some citations are needed Society and Culture: For the language subsection, a citation is needed for that statement. Workplace: Great discussion about US policies. May help to include a few other countries outside US and their position on breastfeeding in workplace. Research: Good section; albeit brief.
Images and Media: No changes needed! Great images!
General info Whose work are you reviewing?
Kporter0918
Link to draft you're reviewing Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) Breastfeeding Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)
- LessonsInSpencer ( talk) 01:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I was looking over the page and noticed how little is spoken of in the induced lactation section. I think there is a lot more info that could be added, including that of induced lactation in trans women. Here are a couple articles I found that could be worked off of. Unfortunately, there is only one research project on trans female induced lactation, but there is still plenty of literature regarding induced lactation or relactation in cisgendered women. Any thoughts?
Induced Lactation: Gaining a Better Understanding [2]
Case Report: Induced Lactation in a Transgender Woman [3]
The Breastfeeding Sourcebook [4] (specifically pages 143-148) Sneezygirl ( talk)
Lawrence_2021
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
The terminology that this and related articles use is the subject of ongoing discussion in the real world, particularly wrt LGBTQ+ inclusivity. Sometimes these discussions get very heated and are adopted by those who engage in culture wars for political point scoring. I think we should try hard to avoid bringing those culture wars onto Wikipedia, and particularly the language of culture wars with its group insults. One way of doing that is try to avoid arguing whether a term is good/bad/better/worse from our own opinions and understandings. An example of that would be explaining all humans have breasts and therefore 'chestfeeding' is an unnecessary neologism, or that therefore 'human milk' is an unnecessary alternative to 'breast milk'. While arguments for and against terms can be interesting I don't think those arguments should form the basis of article talk page discussions. Our purpose is to write encyclopaedia articles for readers, not to debate social issues and language change. Language will change because society adopts that change, regardless of whether that change is entirely sensible or a bit daft.
When Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals published their Gender Inclusive Language in Perinatal Services: Mission Statement and Rationale in February this year, the UK press went a bit crazy. One thing the press often claimed was that "Breastfeeding is now chestfeeding". In fact the document took a generally additive approach to terminology and their suggested phrase was "breast/chestfeeding". They also noted "There is no known UK precedent for the additive use of gender-inclusive language in perinatal services. In this respect, BSUH are leading the way." which is a big flag to us that this issue does not carry much WP:WEIGHT. Aside from the press response, there was an Editorial in the BMJ.
As noted further up this page, PMID 32330392 could be a source for mention some of the language issues around LGBTQ+.
Some editors argue that we should follow the terminology used by high quality sources. I think that should certainly guide us, but I don't think we are slave to our sources. French Wikipedians writing their equivalent article use mostly English sources, but may get upset if you ask them to use English terminology. We rely on our sources for facts, but what we write and the words we pick are ours. Another source of guidance is style guides. These often need to be read with consideration that their audience is different to us (newspaper readers, say). While one may find advocates with strong views on the internet, it doesn't mean those views have influenced the style guides of more generalist publications. For example, the Guardian style guide merely notes that "breastfed, breastfeeding" are single words, unhyphenated.
Be careful about claims such as 'majority of non-binary individuals prefer...' or 'a great many "gender non-conforming" individuals still identify as'. It is easy to accidentally expand one's own personal experience or group of contacts or recent reading material and assume this is widespread or widely held. When language is undergoing change, the terms people use can be highly associated with age, class, geography, politics and other groupings. If such a claim is relevant, sources please, and remember that English speaking readers come from all over the world, not just Brighton, England. -- Colin° Talk 19:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
In efforts to increase language inclusivity, medical comprehensiveness, and awareness that chestfeeding is not restricted to solely cis women, I have gone ahead and changed the title of the 'Breast Milk discussion to 'Human Milk'. It boils down to a critical need to increase inclusivity and awareness that this is not just a cisgender woman's experience, that trans and nonbinary folks chest feed, lactate, and produce human milk to nourish their children. The focus should not be explicitly on the 'breast' but on the delivery of human milk and absolutely the experience of the person chestfeeding, to which the majority of non-binary individuals have preferred the terms human milk and chestfeeding to describe this experience.
.
doi:
10.1097/ANC.0000000000000436. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Rberkow ( talk) 17:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Rberkow ( talk) 16:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)rnberkow
Explain breastfeeding 223.239.24.168 ( talk) 10:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allyschulz16.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LoMV.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allydiiorio.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Davie243. Peer reviewers: TatianaP22.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2021 and 19 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kporter0918. Peer reviewers: LessonsInSpencer.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sneezygirl.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
is it healhy for a baby to drink breastmilk of their mother who is suffering from diabetes ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.PRAKASH BABU ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I just removed this addition from Lehafken from the lead;
Re: It is unknown what percentage of women
, this kind of wording doesn't provide information and creates an inappropriately frightening tone. I don't object to including estimates on the percentage of women who experience chronic lactation insufficiency, however the source does not support 10-15%... for biological reasons
. What I've seen in the reliable secondary literature is that one study found that 15% of healthy first-time mothers had low milk supply 2–3 weeks after birth, with secondary causes accounting for at least two-thirds of those cases.
[3] In other words, this study found that low milk supply for biological reasons was around 5%. The claim that 5–8% may not experience milk coming in (lactogenesis II) at all.
is not supported by its reference at all as far as I can tell.
Clayoquot (
talk |
contribs)
06:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I removed another addition by Lehafken:
This is a general article that is supposed to cover every major aspect of breastfeeding for the entire world, so details such as volumes of colostrum per day are excessive. More importantly, I am concerned about
biased wording such as This is considered sufficient, calorically
, which implies that a) it might not actually be sufficient, just "considered" sufficient, and b) that for purposes other than providing calories there is credible doubt as to whether it's sufficient. The claim about semi-fasting state
is not supported by the source as far as I can see.
Clayoquot (
talk |
contribs)
06:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Hi everyone. I've been up for over an hour reviewing the edits by Lehafken. Lehafken, I really hate doing mass reverts of contributions by new users, but in this case I'm seeing just too many mistakes in addition to the issues I mentioned above. For instance:
it is unknown whether this provides benefits to the babies., which is essentially opposite to what the study concluded. Additionally, please review WP:MEDRS; we generally use secondary sources, not reports of single studies.
It is unknown whether this is due to healthier women being more likely to succeed at breastfeeding and less likely to develop those conditions, or whether breastfeeding causes the reduced incidence.
I'm making the difficult decision to revert your changes and promise I will try to check if I reverted anything that should be included, and re-add it soon. Some of the sources you brought are useful; they just need to be summarized more accurately. Best wishes, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 07:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll disclaim that I am a layperson and do not have experience editing on Wikipedia. Despite that, I think my concern has some merit. I've spent a decent amount of time doing individual research on the benefits of breast feeding compared to formula, and to put it simply it seems clear that there's a large amount of controversy around the issue. Several reliable-seeming sources promote breastfeeding and connect it to a host of benefits, and other reliable-seeming sources call some of those benefits into question and argue that the value of breastfeeding has been significantly overstated. Without seeing the controversy explicitly described in the article, I'm left quite confused.
The controversy has been addressed in popular publications like FiveThirtyEight, Time Magazine, The Guardian, The Atlantic, CNN, etc., and also in scientific publications, though I feel less qualified to say which of those are reputable. At any rate, it occupies enough space in the cultural consciousness around breastfeeding (at least in the developed world) that not addressing it seems strange to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.224.197 ( talk) 18:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a regular editor but I did notice the section I added to this article on LGBTQ nursing was removed by an anonymous editor without discussion or justification. Prior to adding the section in the first place, I did solicit input on the talk page and heard no objections. I would like to add it back. Dharmabum ( talk) 20:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I've removed unsourced content that I regard as trivia and unimportant for this kind of article (a source might be found at mama and papa but even with a source, I think it's unimportant here). This was the sentence: "In languages around the world, the word for "mother" is something like " mama". The linguist Roman Jakobson hypothesized that the nasal sound in "mama" comes from the nasal murmur that babies produce when breastfeeding." EMsmile ( talk) 08:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Really great to see the new details on good versus poor latching. Some of the points added, e.g. "140 degrees", don't seem to be in the cited source, so it appears additional citations are needed. Something to consider is that when text is embedded in photos, it isn't accessible to people who use screen readers and isn't easily translated into other languages. I suggest adding the text to the body of the article in addition to being in the photos. Then you can cite each claim within the body of the article. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 05:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, What are your thoughts on making contraindications to breastfeeding its own separate section, rather than a sub-heading of "Process". I've been finding that it doesn't really fit well with the rest of the content in this section. I think this would make the section more readable for parents and providers. I'm not sure which Manual of Style is being used for this page, but when it comes to the Medicine-Related Articles, it seems like contraindications warrants its own section. [1] Would appreciate input Kporter0918 ( talk) 21:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Kporter0918, you've been doing fantastic work. I have a couple of general comments on sourcing:
FYI, there's a useful gadget here that highlights exactly what parts of an article come from a given editor: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Who_Wrote_That%3F . This is handy for reviewing others' work in big articles like this one. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 19:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians --
My name is Katie. I am a fourth year medical student pursuing Obstetrics and Gynecology as my desired specialty. Additionally, I'll be taking by Lactation Counseling (CLC) Exam tomorrow, so hopefully by the time this work plan is complete, I will be a Certified Lactation Counselor. As part of my 4th year of medical school, I am enrolled in a WikiProject Medicine Course, and hope to improve this page as a part of my coursework. Below, you can find my workplan to be completed over the next month. Please feel free to reply with any questions, comments, or concerns, and I'll try to work your feedback into my edits :)
Work Plan
- Areas of Focus:
---Lead/Intro Section: I hope to streamline this section and make it more concise to highlight the main focuses of this article. Additionally, there are some components of this section, as currently written, which are concerning for plagiarism, so I will plan to fix those. Additionally, given my role as a medical provider, I plan to clarify the medical information in this section to ensure that it is all factual and not misleading.
---Lactation: This section is fairly complete already, and is supported by an entire article on lactation. I think it may be helpful to change the title of this section to Breastfeeding Physiology, as "lactation" is a nonspecific term that can refer to anything in the breastfeeding realm. I will clarify the stages of lactogenesis, and the role that hormones play in milk production. This will help simplify the description of the changes that occur in the breasts throughout pregnancy and postpartum.
---Breastmilk: As currently written, this section has both some grammatical and also some medical errors/misleading statements. I plan to correct the medical content of this section, taking into account guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), CDC, WHO, and the Academy of Lactation Policy and Practice (ALPP), which is the governing body of lactation counselors.
---Process: This section is fairly long, and will be the main focus of my work. As currently formatted, the information that would be most pertinent to parents is difficult to find. I hope to reformat this section, so that the pertinent information is easier to find. This may require renaming sections to be more descriptive in the table of contents, reformatting into step-wise or Q&A style sections, and relocating some of the information into different sections where it may be better suited. In the "Exclusivity" section, I will also add a commentary on supplementation, as this is one of the most commonly asked questions on the Postpartum ward - "when should I supplement my milk?" or "I feel like my baby is not getting enough to eat." I would like to use this section to more explicitly address this concern.
---New section on pumping-and-dumping: It is a common misconception of parents and healthcare providers alike that pumping-and-dumping is required after consumption of a large variety of medications and substances. However, this is not the case. In fact, there are only a few, select situations which require pumping-and-dumping. I would like to create a new section on the Pump-and-Dump concept, and provide accurate/reliable resources for parents and healthcare providers to reference, should they visit this page for that information.
- General Changes:
I plan to alter the format of the above sections to be more accessible for readers. Especially for moms and parents who may be coming to this page for information, guidance, and support for their breast/chestfeeding journeys, this page is quite text heavy. I would like to simplify the format so that the information can be more easily found at a quick glance, while also keeping the page as comprehensive as possible.
- Illustrations:
I plan to incorporate some better images to illustrate a good latch. I do not feel that the current pictures adequately/completely describe the components of a good latch, which is another common problem parents report. I feel that adding additional guidance for parents by way of pictures will be extremely helpful.
Again please pass along any feedback you might have; it is greatly appreciated!
-- Kporter0918 ( talk) 18:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Katie. The content you've been adding is high-quality. Since you're working on the first few paragraphs of the article, which we call the lead section, I suggest taking a close look at the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines. In particular, the lead section should be up to four paragraphs long and cover all major aspects of the topic, so a lot of work goes into curating which pieces of information go in and which stay out. A recommended practice, especially if you're new to editing Wikipedia, is to update the body of the article first and then the lead. [1] Cheers, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Lead: The lead seems very detailed and provides a very concise explanation as to the practice of breastfeeding, the epidemiology, contraindications, as well as benefits and drawbacks.
Content: The content is relevant to the topic and up to date. See "Organization" for a few suggested changes.
Tone and Balance: The content seems to be more on the side of pro-breastfeeding than formula feeding. It may help to add some potential negatives of breastfeeding including: discomfort/pain that some women experience (cracked/sore nipples), potential interruptions with sleep/work schedule, father/partner may feel excluded due to inability to help feed the baby unless milk is pumped and saved for later.
Sources and References: Very thorough and numerous sources. Very impressive!
Organization:
Breastfeeding Physiology: It would be helpful to explain why Lactogenesis is divided into three stages and how this classification was determined in the lead paragraph in the section. I would also briefly define the first use of the term colostrum in the article so that laypersons understand what it means. The section on 'Lactogenesis III' seems unclear what separates it from 'Lactogenesis II'. Also, from my understanding pregnancy doesn't have to occur for breast-feeding to be possible (i.e. a wet nurse), so perhaps that can be mentioned. Breast Milk: Great section. Foremilk and hindmilk, used in the image caption, could be defined in the section as it is unclear where they fit into this process. Process: In one subsection, it states "as of October 2016". Since this was greater than 5 years ago, perhaps this can be updated with the current knowledge? Other than that, very detailed and elaborate section. Contraindications to Breastfeeding: Similar to how substance use was made its own section, it might help with organized to place all the viral illnesses under a common section perhaps labeled "contagious viral illnesses" to illustrate similarities. Also, untreated TB is a contraindication. Methods: Great subsection Health Effects: Very thorough section. Social Factors: Healthcare subsection could probably be moved elsewhere. Doesn't seem to belong. Prevalence: Good section History: some citations are needed Society and Culture: For the language subsection, a citation is needed for that statement. Workplace: Great discussion about US policies. May help to include a few other countries outside US and their position on breastfeeding in workplace. Research: Good section; albeit brief.
Images and Media: No changes needed! Great images!
General info Whose work are you reviewing?
Kporter0918
Link to draft you're reviewing Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) Breastfeeding Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)
- LessonsInSpencer ( talk) 01:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I was looking over the page and noticed how little is spoken of in the induced lactation section. I think there is a lot more info that could be added, including that of induced lactation in trans women. Here are a couple articles I found that could be worked off of. Unfortunately, there is only one research project on trans female induced lactation, but there is still plenty of literature regarding induced lactation or relactation in cisgendered women. Any thoughts?
Induced Lactation: Gaining a Better Understanding [2]
Case Report: Induced Lactation in a Transgender Woman [3]
The Breastfeeding Sourcebook [4] (specifically pages 143-148) Sneezygirl ( talk)
Lawrence_2021
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
The terminology that this and related articles use is the subject of ongoing discussion in the real world, particularly wrt LGBTQ+ inclusivity. Sometimes these discussions get very heated and are adopted by those who engage in culture wars for political point scoring. I think we should try hard to avoid bringing those culture wars onto Wikipedia, and particularly the language of culture wars with its group insults. One way of doing that is try to avoid arguing whether a term is good/bad/better/worse from our own opinions and understandings. An example of that would be explaining all humans have breasts and therefore 'chestfeeding' is an unnecessary neologism, or that therefore 'human milk' is an unnecessary alternative to 'breast milk'. While arguments for and against terms can be interesting I don't think those arguments should form the basis of article talk page discussions. Our purpose is to write encyclopaedia articles for readers, not to debate social issues and language change. Language will change because society adopts that change, regardless of whether that change is entirely sensible or a bit daft.
When Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals published their Gender Inclusive Language in Perinatal Services: Mission Statement and Rationale in February this year, the UK press went a bit crazy. One thing the press often claimed was that "Breastfeeding is now chestfeeding". In fact the document took a generally additive approach to terminology and their suggested phrase was "breast/chestfeeding". They also noted "There is no known UK precedent for the additive use of gender-inclusive language in perinatal services. In this respect, BSUH are leading the way." which is a big flag to us that this issue does not carry much WP:WEIGHT. Aside from the press response, there was an Editorial in the BMJ.
As noted further up this page, PMID 32330392 could be a source for mention some of the language issues around LGBTQ+.
Some editors argue that we should follow the terminology used by high quality sources. I think that should certainly guide us, but I don't think we are slave to our sources. French Wikipedians writing their equivalent article use mostly English sources, but may get upset if you ask them to use English terminology. We rely on our sources for facts, but what we write and the words we pick are ours. Another source of guidance is style guides. These often need to be read with consideration that their audience is different to us (newspaper readers, say). While one may find advocates with strong views on the internet, it doesn't mean those views have influenced the style guides of more generalist publications. For example, the Guardian style guide merely notes that "breastfed, breastfeeding" are single words, unhyphenated.
Be careful about claims such as 'majority of non-binary individuals prefer...' or 'a great many "gender non-conforming" individuals still identify as'. It is easy to accidentally expand one's own personal experience or group of contacts or recent reading material and assume this is widespread or widely held. When language is undergoing change, the terms people use can be highly associated with age, class, geography, politics and other groupings. If such a claim is relevant, sources please, and remember that English speaking readers come from all over the world, not just Brighton, England. -- Colin° Talk 19:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
In efforts to increase language inclusivity, medical comprehensiveness, and awareness that chestfeeding is not restricted to solely cis women, I have gone ahead and changed the title of the 'Breast Milk discussion to 'Human Milk'. It boils down to a critical need to increase inclusivity and awareness that this is not just a cisgender woman's experience, that trans and nonbinary folks chest feed, lactate, and produce human milk to nourish their children. The focus should not be explicitly on the 'breast' but on the delivery of human milk and absolutely the experience of the person chestfeeding, to which the majority of non-binary individuals have preferred the terms human milk and chestfeeding to describe this experience.
.
doi:
10.1097/ANC.0000000000000436. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Rberkow ( talk) 17:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Rberkow ( talk) 16:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)rnberkow
Explain breastfeeding 223.239.24.168 ( talk) 10:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allyschulz16.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LoMV.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allydiiorio.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Davie243. Peer reviewers: TatianaP22.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2021 and 19 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kporter0918. Peer reviewers: LessonsInSpencer.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sneezygirl.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
is it healhy for a baby to drink breastmilk of their mother who is suffering from diabetes ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.PRAKASH BABU ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I just removed this addition from Lehafken from the lead;
Re: It is unknown what percentage of women
, this kind of wording doesn't provide information and creates an inappropriately frightening tone. I don't object to including estimates on the percentage of women who experience chronic lactation insufficiency, however the source does not support 10-15%... for biological reasons
. What I've seen in the reliable secondary literature is that one study found that 15% of healthy first-time mothers had low milk supply 2–3 weeks after birth, with secondary causes accounting for at least two-thirds of those cases.
[3] In other words, this study found that low milk supply for biological reasons was around 5%. The claim that 5–8% may not experience milk coming in (lactogenesis II) at all.
is not supported by its reference at all as far as I can tell.
Clayoquot (
talk |
contribs)
06:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I removed another addition by Lehafken:
This is a general article that is supposed to cover every major aspect of breastfeeding for the entire world, so details such as volumes of colostrum per day are excessive. More importantly, I am concerned about
biased wording such as This is considered sufficient, calorically
, which implies that a) it might not actually be sufficient, just "considered" sufficient, and b) that for purposes other than providing calories there is credible doubt as to whether it's sufficient. The claim about semi-fasting state
is not supported by the source as far as I can see.
Clayoquot (
talk |
contribs)
06:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Hi everyone. I've been up for over an hour reviewing the edits by Lehafken. Lehafken, I really hate doing mass reverts of contributions by new users, but in this case I'm seeing just too many mistakes in addition to the issues I mentioned above. For instance:
it is unknown whether this provides benefits to the babies., which is essentially opposite to what the study concluded. Additionally, please review WP:MEDRS; we generally use secondary sources, not reports of single studies.
It is unknown whether this is due to healthier women being more likely to succeed at breastfeeding and less likely to develop those conditions, or whether breastfeeding causes the reduced incidence.
I'm making the difficult decision to revert your changes and promise I will try to check if I reverted anything that should be included, and re-add it soon. Some of the sources you brought are useful; they just need to be summarized more accurately. Best wishes, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 07:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll disclaim that I am a layperson and do not have experience editing on Wikipedia. Despite that, I think my concern has some merit. I've spent a decent amount of time doing individual research on the benefits of breast feeding compared to formula, and to put it simply it seems clear that there's a large amount of controversy around the issue. Several reliable-seeming sources promote breastfeeding and connect it to a host of benefits, and other reliable-seeming sources call some of those benefits into question and argue that the value of breastfeeding has been significantly overstated. Without seeing the controversy explicitly described in the article, I'm left quite confused.
The controversy has been addressed in popular publications like FiveThirtyEight, Time Magazine, The Guardian, The Atlantic, CNN, etc., and also in scientific publications, though I feel less qualified to say which of those are reputable. At any rate, it occupies enough space in the cultural consciousness around breastfeeding (at least in the developed world) that not addressing it seems strange to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.224.197 ( talk) 18:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a regular editor but I did notice the section I added to this article on LGBTQ nursing was removed by an anonymous editor without discussion or justification. Prior to adding the section in the first place, I did solicit input on the talk page and heard no objections. I would like to add it back. Dharmabum ( talk) 20:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I've removed unsourced content that I regard as trivia and unimportant for this kind of article (a source might be found at mama and papa but even with a source, I think it's unimportant here). This was the sentence: "In languages around the world, the word for "mother" is something like " mama". The linguist Roman Jakobson hypothesized that the nasal sound in "mama" comes from the nasal murmur that babies produce when breastfeeding." EMsmile ( talk) 08:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)