Talk:Infant sleep training

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Women's Health C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Darci1200.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is desperately in need of some updating by those who are knowledgeable in this area of study.--97.122.126.246 (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this assessment. It avoids the real issue here which is babies and children who's sleep needs are NOT being met. This article should be focused more on how to establish healthy sleep habits in our children. Sleep training also referred to as sleep shaping is essential for healthy long term sleep habits. This article should include information on how to establish healthy sleep habits and the many options that can be considered to help babies who have not established a healthy foundation for sleep. The title is not appropriate for the content it provides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.12.234 (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very thorough article with multiple resources and external links. It is concise and complete, and the writing is easy to follow. The article is divided into clear sections. It is relevant information that can be of use to a variety of people, including parents, physicians, and caretakers. It will be helpful to include this article in a category.Erinfreier (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Unbiased - This article is very unbiased because you present multiple methods of sleep training without advocating for any one (even though one in particular worked better for you).
2. Referenced - Good use of reliable references.
3. Notable/Important - Obviously this article is very important because a new (or veteran) parent's sanity could depend on it. It's a hot issue and there are many articles about this topic in baby magazines and baby books. And even entire books written about the topic. So it definitely deserved a Wikipedia page!
4. Complete/Concise - This article is very complete, especially for our purposes! It is also concise. You mentioned that you could write about this for hours, but I think you provided just about the right amount of information, and links where users can find more info if they want to.
5. Visual - It might be nice to add a visual of a sleeping baby next to a screaming baby. Haha.
6. Linked - Wikipedia automatically created many hyperlinks, but you also included other external links to BabyCenter.
7. Clearly Written - Yes, very. Good job, English teacher!
LaurenEditor (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the previous two discussions.

The article is not "a very thorough article with multiple resources and external links." A "thorough article" would include many methods of both the No Cry and Let Cry "camps." The "multiple resources" include only 5 books, three of which are only listed within the article, and the "external links" refers to three different pages within 1 website (which is owned by Johnson & Johnson, an international American pharmaceutical, medical devices and consumer packaged goods manufacturer).

I disagree that the "article is very unbiased because you present multiple methods of sleep training." It does not include any description of the methods used in the No Cry methods beyond one or two word label: "nursing, rocking, co-sleeping, responding to crying, and alternating feeding and sleeping schedules and habits during the day and at night..." Each of these deserves a paragraph in the same way that "feberization" and "Extinction" has. Further more it refers to nursing

"Good use of reliable references" should not be applied to an article that includes only one book and one website in its five references.

I agree that the article "definitely deserved a Wikipedia page!"

I realise that "LaurenEditor" is being humourous in her idea for pictures. I suggest that pictures should be avoided.

I agree that it is clearly written and concise.

Suggestions. The article should include links to the Feber Method and the Extinction Method.

To appear less biased, incorporate these quotes: from the Australian Association for Infant Mental Health Inc. (Affiliated with the World Association for Infant Mental Health), from their paper Position Paper 1: Controlled Crying (http://www.aaimhi.org/inewsfiles/controlled_crying.pdf) “AAIMHI is concerned that the widely practiced technique of controlled crying is not consistent with what infants need for their optimal emotional and psychological health, and may have unintended negative consequences.” “If controlled crying is to be used it would be most appropriate after the child has an understanding if the meaning of the parent’s words, to know that the parent will be coming back and to be able to feel safe without the parent’s presence. Developmentally this takes about three years. This varies between children so observing children and responding to their cues is the best way to assess when a child feels safe sleeping alone.” “A full professional assessment of the child’s health, and child and family relationships should be undertaken before initiating a controlled crying program.” From the Australian Breastfeeding Association (http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/wakeful.html) {I believe the ABA is soon to update their website, and so this link may not work in the near future. I intend to amend the link when I am aware of the change.) “Sleep patterns appear, disappear or change as the baby grows from newborn to older baby to toddler. Sometimes it is possible to find a cause of the waking, but usually there is no apparent reason. Parents can be reassured that each baby is an individual. Sleep patterns will change as a baby matures.”

Further Reading should include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-sleeping

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferberization

as a start.

OberonViking (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page will receive an overhaul within the next week or so, from honors Developmental Psychology students at the University of Connecticut. They have been working all semester on this revision, and would appreciate feedback once the changes are posted.Lettyn (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you all for your contributions to Wikipedia. The article in its current state reads too much like an advice manual, which is specifically to be avoided in Wikipedia. This is clear from the lead already which phrases something as a problem--that problem being not Infant Sleep Training, the title and subject of the article, but Infant sleep. The lead also refers to the article itself, "this article will discuss", another thing to be avoided. The lead should identify what Infant sleep training (I'm about to move it because of capitalization) is, what kinds there are, et cetera. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening

What is the aim of this page? Based in what is in the page, the opening should include

1- an outline of the sleep requirements and routines of infants

2- man-made, Western regimes used to modify sleep patterns in infants

A link should be made here to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep

The development of sleep over the first year

The third and fourth paragraphs particularly read like a guidebook. They could be scrapped, with some of the information embedded in the first two paragraphs.

I think including 'nursing to sleep' should not be listed as a 'negative sleep association' of itself, though I understand that many of the 'regimes' would say that it is. I think it would be better to leave out the negative associations at this point, leave that for the theorists of the Sleep Training Methods.

Good sleep conditions

This entire section reads like a guidebook for parents (plagiarised?). It is very poor grammatically, notably through the lack of paragraphs and the repeated incorrect use of commas and of the word 'however'.

Again, I think that the description of good sleeping conditions is something that should be left to the different theorists, as they do present different conditions, sometimes conflicting with others. Perhaps it should be included with the different theories.

I think the article would be improved by removing this section.

When your baby has trouble sleeping

The title itself sounds like it has been borrowed from a pamphlet: Wikipedia is not meant to be a source of advice.

The information in The First Four Months and Five Months and Older should be assimilated into The development of sleep over the first year.

"Training methods are usually implemented when infants reach five months of age." should be in the Opening.

The title of this section should be changed to Sleep training methods.

Each training theory should be better researched, referenced and linked. Where there is no Wikipedia article, such as for Focal Feeding, one should be created and that theory should be explained fully. This page needs to only outline the different theories of sleep training.

Notice that Controlled Crying or Feberization has a reference that does not exist on this page, [5].

Other influences on infant sleep

This is another section that suffers from a lack of paragraphing.

Rather than defining co-sleeping, a link sold be made to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-sleeping

The first and second sentences are knowingly contradicted by the third. I suggest that there is no need for these three sentences, or that these factors are of acknowledged though research has linked them to affecting sleep consolidation.

What should be the second paragraph, referring to the difference between breast-feeding ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding ) and bottle-feeding ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_formula ) is incomplete and lacks the basic links that I have included. It could be made clearer that both methods do not affect sleep consolidation within the normal range.

The third paragraph, talking about temperament, is also incomplete.

Overall

There is not enough referencing.

There are no direct references to the different theories.

There is no information on non-Western methods, nor 'natural' methods.

The writing and grammar is poor.

There are formatting and punctuation errors.

OberonViking (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd like to see
I would like to see a section on the history of sleep training. Where did the idea come from? Are there other cultures that have been doing it for a long time already? etc.
Benalt613 (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This "article" doesn't say a word about the substantial controversy (c.f. [1], [2], [3]) surrounding particular methods such as the Ferber method. In its current state the page is not an article, it's a straight advertisement for these methods. Unacceptable. --78.35.234.113 (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right! Lova Falk talk 11:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section is emblematic of some NPOV issue that also apply in part to other parts of the article too. Let me list the major issue currently:

• The section talks about "sleep consolidation", which the idea of having a baby or child sleep for an extended periods of time (i.e. through the night) vs having multiple much shorter sleep/wake periods, but it seems to imply that children sleeping a long single sleep period over shorter multiple sleep periods in one night is proven to be superior/desirable/natural order of things/etc. healthwise and thus what every parent MUST strive for. The problem with this is that not everyone or every "sleep expert" agrees with this nor is it clear the sleep science conclusively supports this at this time. Some argue that multiple sleep-wake periods is not fundamentally worse health-wise vs one long period of sleep and that the real benefit to "sleeping through the night" is more one of convenience for the parents, especially if both are working parents work a 9-5 job, rather then some long term health benefit. Now a counter argument is that given the way modern western lifestyles work these days, it's necessary to adapt children to sleep one in one single long stretch of sleep over multiple stretches, since we typically don't live a lifestyle that does not operate on such a strict schedules typical of most Western people, such as one typical of a tribal society. This issue can be addressed by including different POV's on what is "Good sleep habits" in babies and young children in both health-wise and convenience/practicality-wise in modern western societies, as well as how do non-Western cultures approach this issue.
• The section mentions that "Moreover, co-sleeping, which is defined here as sharing a room or bed with parents or siblings in response to an awakening, can be detrimental to sleep consolidation." but this assume that "sleep consolidation" is more important that other benefits to co-sleeping whether via room sharing or bed-sharing. Putting aside that debate over the safety of bed-sharing and focusing on room-sharing, which has been shown to provide benefits in terms of SIDS prevention, this section fails to point this out which could lead the reader to assume the sleep consolidation benefits outweigh any benefits to room sharing. Given that the D in SIDS stands for death, I think most experts would agree that preventing infant death from SIDS is more important then sleep consolidation for however long room sharing provides such a benefit. Thus this section should point of the fact that room-sharing has benefits so that people unfamiliar with the practice don't get the wrong impression.
• The section states that Formula-feeding provides benefits to sleep consolidation but fails to mention that breastfeeding has health benefits that most if not all breastfeeding researchers would argue outweigh whatever benefits formula feeding would have towards sleep consolidation, assuming sleep consolidation can even be said to indisputably beneficial to all babies (health-wise or convenience-wise). Again, fix this by letting people unfamiliar with breastfeeding and it's benefits known about them they don't draw the wrong conclusion here.
• Overall the article suffers from an issue where it seems to make assumptions about the importance of "sleep consolidation" when in fact idea of sleeping through the night as the natural, normal, ideal, expected state of being is not been shown in the article to be a proven fact. A central area of dispute is whether the longest stretch of sleep length is more important then total hours sleep in a 24 hr. period, even if in multiple smaller stretches. We need to address what can be proven about what the normal/expected sleep habits if infants/toddlers would be in nature outside of societal influence vs what is considered ideal/preferential if the child is going to live as adults in a modern western society. I just haven't seen any proof that not "sleeping through the night" is inherently unhealthy regardless of lifestyle in the same way that eating a diet lacking certain nutrients, for example, has been proven to be regardless of where one lives or the typical lifestyle of their society. To fix this, we need to include some background on how sleep training experts came to the conclusion that "consolidated sleep" was necessary and/or ideal and just to what degree scientific research back this up, both in terms of western lifestyles and universal human sleep needs. One other issue is if say experts all agreed that sleeping long stretches as older children/teens and as adults is healthier or at least necessary in a modern western lifestyle, does not mastering this skill in infancy/toddler years lead to an much greater difficulty in mastering this skill later in life?

--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new user/editor for this site and need to add input on this page for a class project. While I believe this article is fairly balanced in its content (as opposed to previous, probably dated, comments) I believe there are a few things that could improve this article. The section titled "Good sleep conditions" seems like the two paragraphs aren't really connected and the first belongs in its own section. The second paragraph could be expanded as there are many other things that are important to safe sleep and the prevention of SIDS, for example use of a pacifier, a fan or some type of air circulation, no exposure to cigarette smoke, etc. Theelephantpoet (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is full of issues, not limited to citing outdated and non-gold standard studies, littered with personal opinions and projections. Needs a complete overhaul — starting with information about Emmett Holt, and presenting the lastest 2018 to 2022 papers. Maleekakashyap (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maleekakashyap: It's wonderful to see that you want to improve the article! You are not only free to, but encouraged to improve articles (and this article does appear to need some improvement). However, all edits must be done within Wikipedia's editing guidelines. In some of your edits, you just remove large amounts of referenced information without any edit summary explaining why. Edit summaries specifying why information in that edit is being removed are very helpful to other editors for a number of reasons and can also help with edits not getting reverted. I would greatly appreciate it if you would use them in the future when editing.

I would also note that Wikipedia does not require "gold standard studies" in most cases, only that the source meet "reliable source" standards (while some studies may carry more "Due weight" than others). (I should note that there are exceptions, such as certain biomedical information that must meet WP:MEDRS standards). Wikipedia's "Verifiability" policy states that "If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." Wikipedia's "Due Weight" policy also states that "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."

If you have any questions, please feel free to message me on my talk page or ask for help at the Teahouse. Thanks!! Wikipedialuva (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was the whole purpose of the edit — removing US-centric content, personal opinions, sweeping generalisations on the topic, and presenting a global perspective. Referenced information need not necessarily be up to date or correct, which you would be able to tell if you followed through on the new links/ studies — or opened the old ones (from the removed content). For example, sleep training has no scientific basis. It is more of a cultural practice. I will leave certainly leave details on the edits going forward. Maleekakashyap (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]