Breastfeeding is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 22, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 13, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted June 3, 2006 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 – 15:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Archive 2 – 06:33, 08 Dec 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Ditto. It may not be the "prettiest" site (early 90's web design), but I certainly have found it valuable as a breastfeeding mother. - Ageekgal 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add that link back. Heck, it's even used as a reference on the infant formula page. :) - Ageekgal 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it fails WP:EL. There are plenty of well regarded sites - why should we give preference to this one? If you regard it as authoritative enough to use as a reference then work it into the page; that is the way to go. TerriersFan 04:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Fine by me. (UPDATED) For my education, what part of WP:EL does it violate, exactly? Or do you object due to the pre-existing number of external links used in the article? - Ageekgal 04:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off I have not eliminated KellyMom - bear in mind that Kellymom is still there supporting one of the reference categories - I have simply removed duplication of it in the EL section. There are certainly (in my view) an excessive number of external links. The correct way to develop an article is in prose, using ELs as references as appropriate. The purpose of the references is to provide verification for the encyclopaedic content. Listing large numbers of links is a lazy way to write an encyclopaedia - if the links say something important then what they say should be in the body of the article, if not then they should be out. TerriersFan 04:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

This article was too long, so breastfeeding complications was split off as an article by itself.

BTW, there's a link below the edit window that automatically inserts four tildes when you click on it. Ciotog 23:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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