Talk:Attachment parenting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

What does, "informed medical decisions about vaccination, circumcision, medical procedures, early solid introduction, etc." mean? I think pretty much every parent who isn't a deadbeat wants to make informed medical decisions. I don't see what that has to do with Attachment parenting.

Also, I put the criticisms in paragraph form. Since I'm not a proponent of attachment parenting I didn't do the other section as I might (even unintentially) be too POV for that task. I think the article would be greatly served by having the bullit list changed to paragraphs though. Kevin Rector 03:19, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Recent Edits

This version leaves much to be desired but it is fairly NPOV. The pro-attachment parenting bits can use some reworking, but the recent changed which read like an advertisement for attachment parenting (as opposed to an encyclopedia article about it) which removed all the criticism is not acceptable. This is why I reverted it. Kevin Rector 15:08, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Much of the criticism has been removed because it was substantially biased and not based on actual fact. This page was much better when initially added. Since when is there critcism of a philosophy in an encyclopedia anyway? If someone wants to read about mainstream parenting there is plenty written about it under 'parenting'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.6.181.20 (talk • contribs) 14:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC).

NPOV

This article is not NPOV. All the criticisms have now been read to be misunderstading AP rather than being valid criticism. Kevin Rector 22:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

If there are any valid criticisms then you should indeed include them in this article. --jonasaurus 21:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticism vs. Response to Criticism

The criticism is extremely short and timid, yet the response to criticism is volumnous. This entry is supposedly about a philosophy, but does not contain links to philosophy concepts such as the Naturalistic fallacy. This entry is about a concept supposedly grounded in scientific evidence, yet does not reference examples of such, or mention any controversial aspects. --jakethebluespruce 14:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the edits, criticism has slowly been edited out and replaced by rebuttal. Perhaps you can find some in the article text from three months ago or so. -Ben 01:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

AP doesn't need to use naturalistic fallacy. Attachment theory is grounded in fact. However, many AP proponents often emphasize "natural" approaches in other areas of their life and may even cite that as a reason to do AP. This is more of how people apply AP in their own lives than a reflection of the actual parenting theory. --Westendgirl 06:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

See #Response to criticism removed, below. Joie de Vivre 16:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

(It is now on the main page. If it is archived it will be moved to archive 2.) Joie de Vivre 16:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Crticizing AP because this method of parenting may be too demanding on the parent(s) is a little selfish. Parenting in itself is demanding reguardless of the method. Having unrealistic expectations and being uneducated about the stage of your child's development and their physical and emotional capabilities will cause parenting to be equally if not more demanding than AP. Don't you agree that a happy and emotionally healthy and stable child is worth the demands of parenting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.136.26.235 (talk • contribs) 05:01, November 6, 2005 (UTC).

Maybe -- actually I think it reasonable for parents to weigh the demands of different methodologies if they're unconvinced one is better than another in outcome -- but it's really not relevant whether a criticism is valid or not for the purposes of this article. What is relevant is whether a criticism is actually made, and by whom, and whether the article represents that criticism accurately. The same applies to responses to criticsm: if you or I regard a criticism as silly for reason X, that has no place in the article if (identifiable, citable) advocates of AP rebut the criticism for reason Y. -Ben 05:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder: Wikipedia talk pages are not discussion forums for the topic of the article. They are places to discuss improvements to the article itself. Joie de Vivre 16:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1