This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Attachment parenting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Is there a third-party reliable source reference, that proves that Sears coined the term "attachment parenting"? I realize that that's what it says at attachmentparenting.com, but that's what's called a primary source. Anybody could make a webpage like "slicedbread.com" and put it on it, "John Smith coined the term 'sliced bread'". So, do we have a reliable peer-reviewed secondary source that says that Sears originated the term? -- El on ka 06:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The "Criticism" section of an encyclopedia article should not be followed by a rebuttal. Wikipedia is not a debate forum. I have removed the section and placed it here so that the arguments can be worked into the main article if someone wants to do so. Joie de Vivre 16:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Attachment parenting adherents argue that the extra parenting effort is an investment in future ease, since the resulting strong relationship often makes future parenting simpler. Rather than being "strenuous", attachment parenting theory regards being available to one's children as natural and instinctive.
In response to the above-mentioned American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement recommending against co-sleeping, Attachment Parenting International issued a response which alleged the data referenced in the statement was unreliable, and that co-sponsors of the campaign had created a conflict of interest. [1] This response also outlines calls for an "objective, comprehensive, and independent report which analyzes the relative risk of all types of sleeping environments. Only when that is available can the CPSC truly assist parents in making the best decisions for their family."
This section had nearly 20 links plus a book list. I have removed these per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory, and substituted the dmoz template. Anyone interested in adding links to this article should click on the link for the Open Directory Project in the External links section, and see about submitting the link there. Joie de Vivre 15:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.natural-parenting.net
Seems a bit biased, but maybe it is just me. I know there has been more criticism regarding the hindering of child development and social development, but that doesn't seem to be here. Am I just not seeing the neutrality? Vaguely ( talk) 07:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Biased in which direction? Fainites barley 10:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Can any attachment parenting person explain why the API site has material from and direct links to attachment therapy sites? Fainites barley 10:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I just moved the bit about "a pseudoscientific definition of reactive attachment disorder" from the introductory part of the article to the Criticism section.
I think the former placement gave too much emphasis to this issue and gave the reader an impression that the whole AP is "pseudoscientific", which I think is not fair.
Besides, this critical point is suspectible, as it lacks references. Where exactly has this "pseudoscientific" definition been forwarded. I did not find any reference to DSM-IV in "The Attachment Parenting Book" by Sears & Sears. I have just translated that book into Finnish.
Jussi Hirvi ( talk) 09:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The API site contain an Attachment therapy version of Reactive attachment disorder (which bears little relation to the DSM-IV-TR version) from an attachment therapy website here. It also provides a link on the same page to Nancy Thomas - a proponent of attachment parenting as used within attachment therapy. These unvalidated "do-it-yourself" diagnosis lists have been heavily criticised by the APSAC Taskforce report on attachment therapy as has the form of attachment parenting used within attachment therapy. Indeed proponents of Sears AP wrote to the Taskforce in a published letter pointing out that their version of attachment parenting was indeed a very different thing - something the Taskforce acknowledged. Such links on the API site are therefore relevent and of interest. Fainites barley 22:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
There was a black-and-white distinction made in the intro, which I just corrected. The misconception presented that "Either the child developed secure attachment to parents OR the child was at risk to develop Reactive Attachment Disorder" (RAD). However, the RAD is very rare condition, and is not complementary concept to secure attachment. If the child is not securely attached, he will most typically be a) avoidantly or b) ambivalently or c) disorganizedly attached. These are forms of insecure attachment, and most pathological of these is disorganized attachment. However, in all of these secure and insecure attachments the child has formed relatively stable attachment style (which is, internal mental models of self and others, and their relationships). In RAD there is total lack of attachment style (the child lacks expectations of others and has no sense who is their caregiver), and this condition is mostly encountered for example within orphanages with constantly changing caregivers. I have seen this black-and-white rhetoric in somewhere else, but really it seems unfair. For normal parents it is not the question whether your child develops attachment - it is the question what kind of attachment it will be. Of course the most optimal form of attachment is the secure style. Jalind ( talk) 07:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It should probably be mentioned in the article that all of the parenting practices that comprise attachment parenting practices predate Dr. William Sears creating the name "Attachment Parenting". Baby-wearing, co-sleeping, extended breastfeeding, etc. where all practiced by various tribal groups and indigenous groups before Sears called said practitioners attachment parents. AP simply is a name given to the combination of these practices combined into a parenting philosophy. -- Cab88 ( talk) 21:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed this- Less sensitive and emotionally available parenting or neglect of the child's needs may result in insecure forms of attachment style, which is a risk factor for many mental health problems.Where is the scientific data to back this up? And what are the many mental health problems? Are the many mental health problems Depression,Schizophrenia,OCD? There are no sources to back up this claim. And if there are any, they need to added to the article before this statement goes back in.-- 99.177.248.92 ( talk) 20:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I removed this statement from the introduction :
"In the United States, the popularization of co-sleeping coincided with increases in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome mortality and inadvertent infant strangulation–suffocation. Therefore, he American College of Pediatricians and the Consumer Products Safety Commission warn parents not to practice co-sleeping. citation needed"
Here are the reasons :
- data seems to contradict the claim that SIDS increased recently.
- the statement fails to make the distinction between cosleeping (sleeping in the same room) and bedsharing (sleeping in the same bed).
- the American College of Pediatricians does consider bedsharing dangerous, but only when coupled with the parent under influence of drugs or alcohol, (or has his awareness impaired for any other reason), or smoking, or when the bed surface is too soft (as in a sofa). About bedsharing in normal conditions, it only says that its benefits are not confirmed by studies.
- the statement is too long and only partly pertains to the topic of attachment parenting ; after all, there is an article about cosleeping. Therefore, the statement should be in the criticism section rather than in the introduction. However, as there already is such a claim in that section, I simply deleted the statement.
Goutte de pluie ( talk) 09:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
A person affiliated with Attachment Parenting International contacted me via e-mail and was concerned about some of content and attribution in this article. This person attempted to change the article, but those edits had some formatting issues, appeared to have COI, and were reverted. I am requesting that others take a look at those edits and see what they think. Furthermore, I encouraged that person to discuss the issues on this talk page. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 02:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Sears was not the first one to use the term AP. There are earlier works from Tammy Frissell-Deppe and from Katie Allison Granju that carry the term in the title. Please check and possibly update. -- Stilfehler ( talk) 13:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
What I am missing in this article is a clearer differentiation between AP and attachment theory, plus a clear differentiation between AP and older concepts of childrearing (such as for instance Benjamin Spock who heavily focused on motherly sensitivity as well as on common sense, half a century before Sears&Sears). Why is Spock not good enough? I think this is a question to be tackled in order to really describe what AP is about. -- Stilfehler ( talk) 13:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Later in the page, it says that he read it in a book, and picked it up from there. That is directly contradictory from him coining it himself.
Emmawingate (
talk) 00:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
This whole article seems a bit biased, but there seem to be rebuttals posed under each of the "7 baby b's" These all seem to be there for the sole purpose of disproving and contradicting the practice rather than giving an unbiased explanation of what it is. Criticism should be kept in the criticism section.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Attachment parenting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Attachment parenting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I would like to know where the citations for the images are. I am new to Wikipedia, and I am not positive if the citations are missing, or just difficult for me to find. Are there citations for all of the images? Emmawingate ( talk) 20:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The majority of this article stems from work by William Sears, as well as his wife. While he was a physician, most of his claims seem unfounded. You even mentioned earlier in the article that some of his theories is based off of his personal parenting experience. We know that there were more criticisms, and yet all that is mentioned here is his lack of consistency in fundamental terms. This is a problem, especially given how important operational definitions are in the field of biology and psychology. That being said, this is by far not the only problem with his work, and there were disputations within the earlier sections. This needs to be expanded upon, a criticism section should have more than one sentence. You could easily move this section under controversy, which would help the flow. Emmawingate ( talk) 00:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Attachment parenting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Is there a third-party reliable source reference, that proves that Sears coined the term "attachment parenting"? I realize that that's what it says at attachmentparenting.com, but that's what's called a primary source. Anybody could make a webpage like "slicedbread.com" and put it on it, "John Smith coined the term 'sliced bread'". So, do we have a reliable peer-reviewed secondary source that says that Sears originated the term? -- El on ka 06:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The "Criticism" section of an encyclopedia article should not be followed by a rebuttal. Wikipedia is not a debate forum. I have removed the section and placed it here so that the arguments can be worked into the main article if someone wants to do so. Joie de Vivre 16:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Attachment parenting adherents argue that the extra parenting effort is an investment in future ease, since the resulting strong relationship often makes future parenting simpler. Rather than being "strenuous", attachment parenting theory regards being available to one's children as natural and instinctive.
In response to the above-mentioned American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement recommending against co-sleeping, Attachment Parenting International issued a response which alleged the data referenced in the statement was unreliable, and that co-sponsors of the campaign had created a conflict of interest. [1] This response also outlines calls for an "objective, comprehensive, and independent report which analyzes the relative risk of all types of sleeping environments. Only when that is available can the CPSC truly assist parents in making the best decisions for their family."
This section had nearly 20 links plus a book list. I have removed these per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory, and substituted the dmoz template. Anyone interested in adding links to this article should click on the link for the Open Directory Project in the External links section, and see about submitting the link there. Joie de Vivre 15:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.natural-parenting.net
Seems a bit biased, but maybe it is just me. I know there has been more criticism regarding the hindering of child development and social development, but that doesn't seem to be here. Am I just not seeing the neutrality? Vaguely ( talk) 07:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Biased in which direction? Fainites barley 10:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Can any attachment parenting person explain why the API site has material from and direct links to attachment therapy sites? Fainites barley 10:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I just moved the bit about "a pseudoscientific definition of reactive attachment disorder" from the introductory part of the article to the Criticism section.
I think the former placement gave too much emphasis to this issue and gave the reader an impression that the whole AP is "pseudoscientific", which I think is not fair.
Besides, this critical point is suspectible, as it lacks references. Where exactly has this "pseudoscientific" definition been forwarded. I did not find any reference to DSM-IV in "The Attachment Parenting Book" by Sears & Sears. I have just translated that book into Finnish.
Jussi Hirvi ( talk) 09:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The API site contain an Attachment therapy version of Reactive attachment disorder (which bears little relation to the DSM-IV-TR version) from an attachment therapy website here. It also provides a link on the same page to Nancy Thomas - a proponent of attachment parenting as used within attachment therapy. These unvalidated "do-it-yourself" diagnosis lists have been heavily criticised by the APSAC Taskforce report on attachment therapy as has the form of attachment parenting used within attachment therapy. Indeed proponents of Sears AP wrote to the Taskforce in a published letter pointing out that their version of attachment parenting was indeed a very different thing - something the Taskforce acknowledged. Such links on the API site are therefore relevent and of interest. Fainites barley 22:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
There was a black-and-white distinction made in the intro, which I just corrected. The misconception presented that "Either the child developed secure attachment to parents OR the child was at risk to develop Reactive Attachment Disorder" (RAD). However, the RAD is very rare condition, and is not complementary concept to secure attachment. If the child is not securely attached, he will most typically be a) avoidantly or b) ambivalently or c) disorganizedly attached. These are forms of insecure attachment, and most pathological of these is disorganized attachment. However, in all of these secure and insecure attachments the child has formed relatively stable attachment style (which is, internal mental models of self and others, and their relationships). In RAD there is total lack of attachment style (the child lacks expectations of others and has no sense who is their caregiver), and this condition is mostly encountered for example within orphanages with constantly changing caregivers. I have seen this black-and-white rhetoric in somewhere else, but really it seems unfair. For normal parents it is not the question whether your child develops attachment - it is the question what kind of attachment it will be. Of course the most optimal form of attachment is the secure style. Jalind ( talk) 07:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It should probably be mentioned in the article that all of the parenting practices that comprise attachment parenting practices predate Dr. William Sears creating the name "Attachment Parenting". Baby-wearing, co-sleeping, extended breastfeeding, etc. where all practiced by various tribal groups and indigenous groups before Sears called said practitioners attachment parents. AP simply is a name given to the combination of these practices combined into a parenting philosophy. -- Cab88 ( talk) 21:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed this- Less sensitive and emotionally available parenting or neglect of the child's needs may result in insecure forms of attachment style, which is a risk factor for many mental health problems.Where is the scientific data to back this up? And what are the many mental health problems? Are the many mental health problems Depression,Schizophrenia,OCD? There are no sources to back up this claim. And if there are any, they need to added to the article before this statement goes back in.-- 99.177.248.92 ( talk) 20:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I removed this statement from the introduction :
"In the United States, the popularization of co-sleeping coincided with increases in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome mortality and inadvertent infant strangulation–suffocation. Therefore, he American College of Pediatricians and the Consumer Products Safety Commission warn parents not to practice co-sleeping. citation needed"
Here are the reasons :
- data seems to contradict the claim that SIDS increased recently.
- the statement fails to make the distinction between cosleeping (sleeping in the same room) and bedsharing (sleeping in the same bed).
- the American College of Pediatricians does consider bedsharing dangerous, but only when coupled with the parent under influence of drugs or alcohol, (or has his awareness impaired for any other reason), or smoking, or when the bed surface is too soft (as in a sofa). About bedsharing in normal conditions, it only says that its benefits are not confirmed by studies.
- the statement is too long and only partly pertains to the topic of attachment parenting ; after all, there is an article about cosleeping. Therefore, the statement should be in the criticism section rather than in the introduction. However, as there already is such a claim in that section, I simply deleted the statement.
Goutte de pluie ( talk) 09:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
A person affiliated with Attachment Parenting International contacted me via e-mail and was concerned about some of content and attribution in this article. This person attempted to change the article, but those edits had some formatting issues, appeared to have COI, and were reverted. I am requesting that others take a look at those edits and see what they think. Furthermore, I encouraged that person to discuss the issues on this talk page. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 02:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Sears was not the first one to use the term AP. There are earlier works from Tammy Frissell-Deppe and from Katie Allison Granju that carry the term in the title. Please check and possibly update. -- Stilfehler ( talk) 13:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
What I am missing in this article is a clearer differentiation between AP and attachment theory, plus a clear differentiation between AP and older concepts of childrearing (such as for instance Benjamin Spock who heavily focused on motherly sensitivity as well as on common sense, half a century before Sears&Sears). Why is Spock not good enough? I think this is a question to be tackled in order to really describe what AP is about. -- Stilfehler ( talk) 13:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Later in the page, it says that he read it in a book, and picked it up from there. That is directly contradictory from him coining it himself.
Emmawingate (
talk) 00:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
This whole article seems a bit biased, but there seem to be rebuttals posed under each of the "7 baby b's" These all seem to be there for the sole purpose of disproving and contradicting the practice rather than giving an unbiased explanation of what it is. Criticism should be kept in the criticism section.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Attachment parenting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Attachment parenting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I would like to know where the citations for the images are. I am new to Wikipedia, and I am not positive if the citations are missing, or just difficult for me to find. Are there citations for all of the images? Emmawingate ( talk) 20:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The majority of this article stems from work by William Sears, as well as his wife. While he was a physician, most of his claims seem unfounded. You even mentioned earlier in the article that some of his theories is based off of his personal parenting experience. We know that there were more criticisms, and yet all that is mentioned here is his lack of consistency in fundamental terms. This is a problem, especially given how important operational definitions are in the field of biology and psychology. That being said, this is by far not the only problem with his work, and there were disputations within the earlier sections. This needs to be expanded upon, a criticism section should have more than one sentence. You could easily move this section under controversy, which would help the flow. Emmawingate ( talk) 00:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)