Jump to content

Talk:Benjamin Spock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV

[edit]

This article seems to have a clear POV- reading it gives the impression that Spock revolutionized parenting for the better, and everybody loves him except the humbugs who believe you shouldn't kiss your children. 70.43.199.66 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

80,000 votes

[edit]

"He failed to get the required 80,000 votes"? I would have clarified this, but I'm completely baffled. What's so significant about 80,000 votes? I took it out--if somebody wants to re-add it, please explain what it means.

Chowbok 02:35, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Supposedly, he said after the 1972 presidential election that his ticket didn't do too badly, carried only one state fewer than did the Democrats. This was, of course, true. WHPratt (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People's Party?

[edit]

Dr. Spock the candidate for the Peace & Freedom Party! The People's Party is a right wing group I believe.

No, he was the People's Party candidate. Perhaps you're thinking of the Populist Party? The original Peoples' Party, from the turn-of-the-century, was better known as the Populist Party, and there was also a right-wing Populist Party in the 1980's. These third parties get confusing, I know... and it's possible Spock was also on the Peace & Freedom ticket in some states, but for certain he was the People's Party candidate. --Chowbok 03:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Peoples' Front of Judea?? Blankety-blank splitters!! We're the Judean Peoples' Front! WHPratt (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Spock

[edit]

I believe Peter Spock committed suicide by throwing himself in front of a car in front of the Boston Children's Museum. But I'm unable to find the corroborating newspaper account at the moment. Peter lived next door to me at Hampshire College. I can vouch for his history of mental illness, as he slashed his wrists there one morning in our bathroom. One of the most troubled people I ever knew. I wish I could have helped him more.

Qphilo

Old "conventional" wisdom

[edit]

"Previously, experts had told parents that babies needed to learn to sleep on a regular schedule, and that picking them up and holding them whenever they cried would only teach them to cry more and not to sleep through the night. They were told to feed their children on a regular schedule, and that they should not pick them up, kiss them, or hug them, because that would not prepare them to be strong and independent individuals in a harsh world."

This doesn't appear to have any source. What experts? Beyond that there's the distinction between what some experts were saying and what American parents were actually doing. It would be valuable to explore this in greater depth, or at least to link to a page doing so.

Overall the article seems a little too pro-Spock rather than neutral.

Mistaben 19:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Benjamim Spock was a follower of Sigmund Freud.When he wrote that parents couldn't even pick their baby, he was following Freud, that satanized these things as a kind of incest.In fact, I think to pick, to hug and even kiss baby, is good for the baby.He wants to feel loved by his father and mother.Another thing is that the bay on first months wants to be feedeven in late night, because while in monther, he was feed every second.In fact, Dr. Spock preached freudism disguised as baby and child care.

Another thing forgotten on this article is the link, between Dr. Spock and eugenics.In his last decades of lfe, Dr. Spock claims that he was against eugenics, but during his learning in universities, there was an obligation for every future doctor, to "learn" about eugenics.I didn't read the last edictions of Dr. Spock's main book, but on first edictions book, many eugenical belives were preached, again disguised, as baby and child care. Agre22 (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Unless you can find some (acceptable) secondary source which calls Dr. Spock a eugenicist (or Freudian), that would count as "original research" and, as such, be unusable by Wikipedia. 94.193.130.132 (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spock's Children

[edit]

I heard or read that his boys hated him for some reason. Is there any information on this, and is it relevant to this article? S.Rodgers--65.24.77.104 04:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hearsay reference

[edit]

I've cite-tagged the Permissiveness section. It's full of weasel words and unsourced POV. The one citation, for a Norman Vincent Peale quote, is to someone else quoting him. That's not a valid citation, so it was removed. — J M Rice 17:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited the Permissiveness section with some paragraphs from Dr. Spock's book Rebuilding American Family Values: A Better World for Our Children. I'll let someone else decide whether to remove the cite-tagging and perhaps reorganize that section a touch. Jeff kuta (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diet

[edit]

No mention of his own change to veganism and somewhat scandalous recommendation of the same to parents for their children? Has this issue been discussed before? MKV 21:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping position and SIDS

[edit]

There's been a lot of talk about evidence-based medicine lately, and one fascinating and startling comment made by some proponents is that Spock's advice regarding sleeping position has resulted in increased risk of SIDS up until the early 90s when heath-care providers stopped repeating Spock's advice. This transcript with Sir Iain Chalmers on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's "Health Report" show inspired me to add something to this article (note that you have to click on the "Show Transcript" link to actually see the transcript of the show). The actual words used in the interview were much more direct:

I bought a copy of Dr Benjamin Spock's book Baby and Child Care and I actually marked the passage saying that babies should be put to sleep on their fronts. Now I promulgated that advice - we now know that had people looked at the evidence by 1970 it would have been clear that this was actually lethally bad advice and it's been estimated that in the UK, had we taken notice of the evidence, it might have prevented about 10,000 deaths from cot death. And the estimates for US, Australia and Europe is over 50,000 unnecessary deaths and that's a tragic consequence of not paying attention to the need for evidence.

I've tried to be as even-handed as possible, but would appreciate any comments regarding whether I've used a sufficiently NPOV. Ben White 04:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the section violates NPOV and is likely incorrectly because SIDS was already declining before 90s back to sleep movement.
Entire section should be removed.
https://open.substack.com/pub/sensiblemed/p/post-3-back-to-sleep-series?r=123772&utm_medium=ios 2601:14F:8001:B880:DDB5:889F:5A8A:2C2E (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prompted by a Medium article, I looked back at the reference you site (https://watermark.silverchair.com/dyi088.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAApswggKXBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKIMIIChAIBADCCAn0GCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQM528sdNwdpBjbZQwTAgEQgIICTk8vJMHQhEXmVyFoCQQNxoW02MLgDrWn91eX7jYCX83SUGs5nLnI0uvgbDl6M6QIIxoP9Ucmfvm0mXtzT2xa2n30sX-ljaJwoVzpjcRI-OwFp-N_hpj49x1L2KwKAI0ISDPM2zc5L3cECEyQylQS96WoDsnmuPT9Xsy8_TupoUJ7DkxjbhwVopuzGbBMnVTmqJo6IOsh1P8pEnkHNMHf00UnEghChH8UZt4PlleMg1RjWkEq8I5pw0uwRkFEPhG6ZkMwMQ0Z6izHBC4Awy2QxElfGO69qeWxQ4p66z6A1oTUjByDWnMldxOoKlh3T2DWzS_zOhPSIDB6kq2IOz53WpBjTOkPT2g5p6kvKTsbKjMbx89ic5KJqjlSmRvJ_l3wYunfhgX2qyqCvKxbjC6pf_5q0l2Xru8RaI1BTHbZw800OzUHY8vl6XLG_eYWelm7Ty-PRnrq24D2jk3m4jcoLOCEiDVsDyIT0F1kciCLJKNiSXQC8rbM6KSSjH-EiTwPDrITzDwhw1BhgBsbEtaCZRIpze9uOYNeF3l08qKH_LniK96swov9SoOmcvEf9X-FoCm5wPAo5nVagH0lJV1pyRjRQg-zL4eLtbgVl9Cdxtu3QbuOng8tCTWmjV-wlONSjIz1ighUuoZaPzHVxRJD_ZReFSRbys_KyXWb0xvkKliol-i88cAB4k5894A9abBKf2gv0chZTRo-rIoEVYAJm0S8GpYtPsptGRPqglX94U-_ZOyngcQHZyqVOJMnFaRQxT-XGS4ktU00UaA2_klU). I think you are misreading it. On page 3 it clearly states "The sudden shift in favour of front sleeping is best illustrated by ‘Baby and Child Care’ by Dr Benjamin Spock who recommended the back position in his 1955 edition, and the front position in 1956." it states this prior to the quote you include. As such, I don't think your edit is NPOV. I'm not an expert on it, but from your own citation it seems Spock reversed course in 1955 and did not recommend prone sleeping. P Todd (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spock's children

[edit]

In the misconceptions section, the article currently says "Spock had two children: Michael, formerly the director of the Boston Children's Museum and since retired from the museum profession." Who was the other child? Also, the two lines about Spock's grand-daughter do not seem to be relevant to the article. Unless there are any complaints, I'll delete them. Catpigg 08:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Spock's main book

[edit]

At least the first edictions of Dr. Spock's main book, had many bad advives.If the baby was crying, nothing was to be did, he wrote.Another thing is that there's a claim that he was a jew.Anti-semithical sites blames "the jew" Dr. Spock's books as the source of drug use, sexual revolution and many other things.Agre22 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Was he actually Jewish? It's somewhat irrelevant anyway, as his ethnic background has nothing to do with his work (he's wasn't the only Jewish doctor or psychologist at that time, after all). Oddly enough, it is Christian fundamentalist fanatics and anti-semetists that are his harshest critics, mostly due to their bias.
I also think it kind of gets glossed over that he was one of the first people to move away from beating the tar out of children, as was quite common back then. A lot of people who are are proponents of this, even today, think that "not beating children" equals "permissive parenting." Never mind the fact that spanked children just behave worse [1].Legitimus (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in site such as this: [Dr. Wu Tao-Wei] there's an article against this doctor.This is an anti-semithic site.In fact, the first editions of this book were terrible and they sold millions of books.Here in Brazil, this book was a commercial failure.Dr. Spock presented freudism such it was a science, while it is a godless believe.Many persons are helped by freudism?Yes, but many persons are also helped by voodoo or pentecostal cults.This book sents freudism disguised, as a way to treat babies.At least on the first ediction of this book, this doctor was against breast-feeding and he gave the "advice" of cruelly ignoring the baby's cries.Please anyone listening baby's cries, must go to the baby.Why to be cruel with his own baby?About circumcision, this doctor changes his believes, as this site: [SPOCK] shows.The author never uses the words "eugenics" or "freudism" , but in the old ediction that I read, concepts clear from eugenics and freudism are(disguised as baby's care) in dozens of pages of this book. Agre22 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

First Wife?

[edit]

The biography section mentions a second wife. What happened to his first wife? Who did he have his children with and why are they not mentioned in that section?Redland19 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Exactly! The article fails to mention his first wife, Jane Spock, who did a great deal of the research which helped to form his seminal child care book. Thomas Meier's biography of Spock discusses her contributions in detail. The present Wikipedia article is bizarre not only in failing to mention her, but in puffing up to a mind-boggling extent the dubious contributions of second wife Mary. Jane Spock was the intellectual workhorse on whose shoulders the book rose into existence. One has to wonder if, in strict justice, her name should have been beside Benjamin Spock's on the cover. Yet this article admiringly reports that, a generation after all of the work had been accomplished, Mary Spock provided "inclusionary language." Big whoop. Younggoldchip (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness Book of World Records bestseller reference

[edit]

"Spock's baby book was a perennial bestseller. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, it outsold all other books in the Nonfiction category except the Bible."

I really doubt that the bible would be classed as "nonfiction", except by a very old version of the Guinness Book. Does anyone know what version/year this came from? The current Guinness Book website actually lists the Guinness Book itself as the best selling "copyright book" (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/arts_and_media/books_and_magazines/best_selling_copyright_book.aspx) and excludes the bible as being in the "non-copyright" category; there's no mention of fiction/non-fiction. I'm removing the bible reference for now.

Niteling (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permissiveness section

[edit]

Just a note for now. The overly long block quote in the section really needs to go. Spock seems perfectly clear in describing his perspective on the issue, but this many words of direct quote is far too many. We should summarize his position in our own words, and perhaps only quote the minimal snippets necessary to convey his voice (or skip direct quote altogether). LotLE×talk 23:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about a copyvio so much. But I do see this as having a clearly pro-Spock bias. It's reinforcing the Spock camps claims that he was not permissive. In fact, I'm not that familiar with it but there is definite evidence he sometimes was, e.g. in discouraging spanking [2]. Superm401 - Talk 18:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discouraging spanking DOES NOT EQUAL permissiveness. Permissiveness is a broad spectrum of neglectful behaviors wherein bad behavior has no consequences whatsoever (no reprimand, no time out, no loss of privileges). Note that up to Spock's time "spanking" was often done with rods or paddles and left marks, yet it was both legal and acceptable.Legitimus (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue involved with this section was a very much discussed and debated during The Vietnam War era. The belief that children who were raised by parents using Dr. Spocks books were propagandized into becoming hippie anti war activists were quite popular at the time. Baby boomers were raised on his books. Many baby boomers became involved in the counterculture. Dr. Spock's political activities were widely reported. Was not a stretch for traditional lifestyle and Vietnam War supporters to see some sort of nefarious conspiracy. He denied it and the truth is in the grave with him. Of course we have to go by sources so I could not mention hippie and can not directly mention the conspiracy theory. But the sources do tie the criticism with the era. And Spock himself believed the criticism had to do with his political activities. I added this to the lead since this is an important part of his identity to people of a certain age. I added context to tie the issue to the era by adding material and changing the title of the section. Edkollin (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations from the book are necessary, because the "best evidence" of what he wrote is what he wrote, not what he or anyone else later said about it.John Paul Parks (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Veganism

[edit]

Shouldn't it be mentioned that in later life Spock became a vegan, and recommended it in his book? York Times article --N-k (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life

[edit]

I just removed the following: "As the oldest child, Spock was expected by his parents" from the "life" section, as the rest of the sentence has gone AWOL. I also think that the section is a bit thin. I don't really have time ATM to go through previous edits to see if perhaps there was any (useful) content there at some prior point in time, but thought I should point it out for when someone does have a few... Jedikaiti (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life section is woefully lacking

[edit]

It's almost laughable that there is hardly any information at all in this article's section on Dr. Spock's life. Come on, people! I am pretty sure there's plenty of information on this out there in dead tree form and on the interwebs. I recall that he was on the US Olympic rowing (crew) team. Maybe? --23:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See Also

[edit]

I dont really think the reference to Fred Rogers is well placed here. While the core of their notoriety both involve children, the same could be said for hundreds of other individuals. Nothing links Spock and Rogers other than this generality, so why should the articles be linked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.97.63 (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Benjamin Spock. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twice the same 1968 Boston Five

[edit]

Under Social and political activism, “In 1968… Boston Five”. These are the five named above (in a paragraph beginning with “In 1964…”) about a 1968 affair. These two mentions of the same affair should be merged. (I am not sure enough of my English to do it myself.) --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benjamin Spock. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Misconceptions

[edit]

Unfortunately he was incorrect in key respects, notably when he presumed [his notions of] common sense - for example, the necessity of demonstrating affection toward the child - were common, when in actuality they were quite rare. And again when he rather patronisingly urged mothers to trust their instincts, and be confident they knew 'more than they thought', when in actuality many mothers' instincts were disciplinarian and authoritarian, detracting from the child's psychological development and well-being, and in fact knew 'less they than thought they did', rather than more. 122.151.210.84 (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benjamin_Spock&oldid=1240277502"