Talk:Breastfeeding

Template:Mainpage date Template:FormerFA Talk page archive:

/archive1 – 15:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Failed v0.5 nomination

I've failed the article per the many comments at its FARC. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing milk - a choice?

Violetriga, my alteration to the wording of the 'breastfeeding in public' section was small, but the point I endeavoured to make is significant to the subject of that section. It may be obvious to you, but it is a widespread misconception that all mothers who choose to express will be able to. The sentence below suggests to the uninformed that whether to breastfeed or feed expressed breastmilk is a choice, and that is frequently not the case:

"Some mothers choose to pump or express milk by hand so that they can carry a small bottle of milk with them if they plan to be out at mealtimes."

The 'option to express' is commonly used in arguments against breastfeeding in public, and for this reason I believe that the modifiers are appropriate if this is to be used as the closing sentence on the subject of public breastfeeding. My alteration, however, made the sentence clumsy. I welcome suggestions on how to improve it.

above unsigned commment was made by 203.167.131.10 20:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Perhaps it should read

"Some breastfeeding mothers choose to pump or express milk by hand so that they can carry a small bottle of milk with them if they plan to be out at mealtimes."

Isn't any woman who can breastfeed, given a decent pump, able to express her milk? As for using pumped milk to avoid breastfeeding in public, it's just not very practical. Even if you bring a bottle, your breasts still get full of milk. Unless you actually nurse, you'll have to go somewhere to pump it out anyway, or else risk plugged ducts or mastitis. (Believe me, I've had both, and they're no fun.) It's much easier to just feed the baby directly. MamaGeek TALK CONTRIB 11:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all valid points, but to answer your question: When a mother encounters pump resistance - especially common after the first three to four months - the quality of the pump may have little to do with how easily she finds it to express and how much milk she is able to let-down for a pump. Then you have the expense - even good manual pumps can run into hundreds of dollars, electric more. This sentence has the subtle implication to the uninformed that expressing milk for feeding in public places is a viable option financially or practically - or indeed, that it is even physically possible - for any mother choosing to do so. Assuming that the general public will be aware of these things is misguided. This gap in public knowledge on breastfeeding is frequently displayed in editorials and online forums. The wording as it stands feels a little ignorant to me. I'm undecided over whether it even has a place in the section on public breastfeeding, as there is already a section on expressing. If it does, perhaps a longer, detailed section on breastfeeding in public would be appropriate since this is an important factor in breastfeeding rates and duration. above unsigned commment was made by 203.167.131.226 08:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

What is pump resistance? I've never heard of it.

Anyway, I think a sentence on feeding expressed milk belongs here, but you're right, it does need to be edited. Your point about being able to express is a valid one. I also don't think a distinction needs to be made between "pumping" and "expressing by hand." The word "express" alone covers both. How about the following:

"Some breastfeeding mothers who can express their milk will carry a small bottle with them if they plan to be out at mealtimes."

BTW, you should always sign your comments. Simply put four tildas (~~~~) at the end, and Wikipedia will handle the sig for you.

MamaGeek TALK CONTRIB 13:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that amendment to the wording. It's a small change, but at least it raises the question "So some mothers can't?" rather than "So why doesn't everyone express?". I'll alter it, if no-one else objects. Oh, and thanks for the tip! 203.167.131.226 13:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BA/AmE

This article should remain British English. It was mostly written in British English, passed FA like that and has remained that way for over a year. violet/riga (t) 18:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally written in American English (I was one of the contributors -- under a diff. user name). There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says a violation of policy that's been "stable for over a year" is not to be considered a violation.

Please stick to policy. It exists so we can focus on content, not spelling. Thanks, --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 18:15 (UTC)

Firstly, discuss, don't break WP:1RR.

Secondly, the MOS is a guide not a rule.

Thirdly, you can't deny the above three points. Sorry but I think that they take massive preference over first contributor. violet/riga (t) 18:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, you say that we should focus on content and not spelling - well who do you think wrote most of this article? violet/riga (t) 18:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy, or guidelines, or suggestions, or whatever, exist in part so that people can think about more important things than spelling and formatting. Moreover, they exist so that what a particular person (let alone an admin) "thinks" or feels won't rule the day. You think one thing takes "massive precedence," I think another does. We disagree. Ergo we follow policy/guidelines so we can stop fighting about something that ultimately is quite silly. Guidelines say that the first non-stub version (to which I contributed -- under a diff. name) takes precedent. It doesn't say that a somewhat stable result of "dialect creep" should be cast in stone. So please stop reverting me, unles you can cite something other than your personal views. (I'll wait a few hours before making more changes, though.) --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 18:33 (UTC)

Guidelines exist to help with the majority of cases. They are not always the most appropriate way to go about things. I see no reason why you should come along and suddenly change something that has been in place for well over a year. violet/riga (t) 19:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you don't revert again, for two reasons:

If the original article was in AmE then technically your first edit (of three) was a revert - a further one would mean you violate the WP:3RR policy
Discussion is preferred to edit-warring. Generally things should be left at the status quo and discussed until a clear way forward can be found. I plan to keep this as British English and, if you are determined for it to be AmE without compromise then I can only suggest mediation.

violet/riga (t) 19:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on believing that your (as far as I can see) unmotivated, guideline-violating changes (from estrogen to oestrogen, anemia to anaemia, to name two) must be maintained no matter how much they disturb people who think that we should adhere to guidelines in order to promote peace and harmony on WP, then, yes, let's request mediation. No need to waste others' time here. Cultural Freedom 2006-06-25 20:04 (UTC)

Disturb is a rather strong word! I don't understand your final comments as they seem to be contradictory. We always go by policy, and usually go by guidelines, but it's not right to think that every situation can be covered by them. violet/riga (t) 20:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: Imagine I really believe in spelling reform. Imagine I really believe that the American spelling system, while weird in plenty of ways (defense, for ex., should be defence, unless fence were changed to fense, which is closer to the Latin defensa -- and there are few other weirdnesses), is best as a global variant of English. And, either way, it's just the system I use. Spelling matters to some people. (It certainly matters to you.) Yet I would never impose this on anyone, esp. not in a community where all dialects are to be respected, in accordance with policy and guideliness the community has developed. Imagine that I contribute to a Wikipedia article that includes the spellings "estrogen" and "anemia". And then you come along and willfully change those spellings to your favorite spellings. And you make other changes. Then, a year later, I come along and change them back, following spelling guidelines that the Wikipedia community has developed.

And your response? You invoke a principle that doesn't exist: your violations, because no one caught them within a period of X weeks (where X is more than a few), shall (you decree) no longer be considered instances of guideline-violation (or "non-following").

"Disturb" is indeed the operative word. When an admin, at his or her fiat, claims "I plan to keep this as British English" it is indeed disturbing to those here who believe that we should follow guidelines more closely. Can you tell me why you changed the spellings in the first place? Was it wrong then? Why won't you just change them back? It's not a rhetorical question. Think about it. You made a mistake. I was trying to rectify that. You simply reverting me. (And then upbraided me for my errors....)

Meanwhile, how do we request mediation? (I ask because it seems like you have not interest in compromising.) Send answer via email if you wish. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 21:02 (UTC)

It appears that we disagree on several things, and I'm sorry but your "I was here before you" stance doesn't work when there is nothing to link your new account to previous edits here. Try Wikipedia:Mediation. violet/riga (t) 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my point. It is in no way "I was here first." I was trying to get you to step into the shoes of the people you "violated" (too strong a word, perhaps, but reflect on the force of your "I PLAN to keep this .... in British English"...) with your initial changes. My linking my account to the previous one is irrelevant to my point. You violated guidelines, and you don't seem to care. I'm trying to understand why you don't care. Could you answer this non-rhetorical question: why won't you undo your spelling changes? Your primary reason seems to be "X amount of time has gone by". And that reason doesn't exist in any guideline, it's your will, not (as far as I can see) community will. Invoking reasoning like that, talking about "common" (even if it's not reflected in community guidelines anywhere) sense, etc., just doesn't seem like reasonable admin behavior to me. But, I'm very new here. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 21:23 (UTC)

You're new here? I thought you were one of the original contributors to this article?

I have explained already about my original changes, as taken from your talk page: "I can't recall changing it and thus cannot explain my reasoning, but it does appear to have been against guidelines, but as I did so much work on the article I don't think it was a major thing." violet/riga (t) 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have explained why (as far as you can remember, and I know it was a while ago, and I wouldn't expect you to remember) you made the changes intially. But that's not really what I'm getting at. My main question is why you won't change them back; after all, you recognize the changes violated guidelines. Why be stubborn about this? The issue itself obviously is a big thing to you. Think of all this time we've spent discussing this. Why not just follow the spelling guidelines, instead of invoking (what you think is) common sense? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 21:46 (UTC) P.S. (Yes, I am more or less new here. I worked briefly on biology articles a couple years ago, but then disappeared. But I guess by "new" I meant "inexperienced".)

It's hard to hold these discussions on two pages. I'm rather amusing that you are calling me stubborn when you clearly are too. violet/riga (t) 21:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wouldn't deny being stubborn! :) I strongly believe that dialect creep should be avoided, and that the invokation of "a violation of guidelines that took place a while ago doesn't matter" principle is really bad for Wikipedia. (And I think it's bad in general.) I believe both of those things strongly. That's why I'm pushing this. You're claiming your change from American spellings wasn't a major thing yet my change is a major thing. I see why you feel that, I think, but nothing of what you've described is actually in existing guidelines. I think that, too is bad for Wikipedia: people invoking common sense, which hasn't been codified, is generaly an instance of their invoking the principle of their own will. This might not be what's happening here! I don't know you. Maybe something else is going on. But I do know that spelling policy was debated at length (I'm reading it now), and that the decisions arrived at were wise: for topics not tied to a particular region with its own spelling, the spelling of the first überstub version is always to be considered the correct spelling for the article. Period.

Your are violating that well-reasoned, carefully thought-through guideline. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 22:00 (UTC)

No set of guidelines could possibly cover every eventuality. I have not violated any guidelines, especially since the one you are referring to was only added to the Manual of Style after I made the changes. I hope that is a good enough reason to not change it back. violet/riga (t) 22:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure, anyone who accused you of being anti-American (or anti-spelling reform, anti-Shakespeare [for he mostly used "American" spellings] etc.) because of the changes you made a year ago would be committing a great injustice. Your changes may well have been entirely innocent. The question is: what do we do now? The guidelines are quite clear on this: when conflicts arise (and the topic of the article isn't tied to a particular region), "the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used." The guideline does not say "the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) after 2004 should be used." My change was intended to follow that guideline. The additional benefit would be that a few minutes would be removed from your purgatory tally (kidding). In sum: the timing of the establishment of the guidelines has nothing to do with what we do now. What we do now is follow the guidelines, seems to me. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 22:21 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that I think that, in this case, the guidelines do not adequately match the situation. As I said above, I really think that it should remain BE. violet/riga (t) 22:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like nothing will change the fact that you think what you think. Your reasons for saying the guidelines don't apply (or match) the situation are themselves peri-guideline speculations and reasoning on your part. You should be able to refer to community-wide standards, in some way. That's what I've been trying to do. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 22:33 (UTC)

I generally do, but they don't apply in this case. violet/riga (t) 22:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I have been contending that your arguments seem to amount to "it's just what I want." I've been trying to suggest, in particular, that your "it's been stable for a long time" argument is particularly bad for Wikipedia. I explained this on my talk page by way of an analogy: The fact the U.K. "took" Northern Ireland a long time ago isn't a reason for the U.K. not to leave Northern Ireland. There may be plenty of other reasons! But the passage of time per se isn't one of them. You then said "Suddenly we're talking politics?" It wasn't sudden. The question of spelling became a political issue in March of last year ([[1]]), when you started "fixing" spellings by changing them from American to UK for no good reason. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-June-26 06:09 (UTC)

March of last year? You mean many months after it had already passed through peer review and featured article candidacy using British English? If that is the first such change that you are saying I made then you are mistaken that it was me that initiated the Ame-->Be change. In that case I brought the two words in line with the rest of the article. violet/riga (t) 07:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you, and you alone, initiated the change. I'm saying you're a part of violation, one that is political, that should be corrected, since correcting it is good for the Wikipedia community.

You took an article that had inconsistent spelling and you normalized the spelling in a direction opposite of that which the guidelines recommend. (And, looking through the article's history, I see you made many other such changes. I didn't look into this closely before because I thought the guidelines were very clear on this matter, and never imagined anyone would simply revert me.) My contention is that what you and others involved in the dialect drift of this article should have done is to look at the article's history, discover the spelling used in the first non-stub version, and use that. You still haven't given an adequate explaination of why you didn't do that, and, more importantly, why, now that a dispute about the spelling has arise, you believe violating the guidelines (which say "if all else fails... go by the first nonstub version") is a good idea here, beyond saying, in effect, a violation that's been around for a while shan't be considered a violation -- a notion that is your opinion, not a community-vetted idea. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-26 08:15 (UTC)

The guideline you refer to did not exist when this article was going through its rewrite. And I mean total rewrite - what existed before no longer bore any resemblance to how it was after it reached FA status. During that time it became BE, and as no guidelines existed at the time no violation occurred. You coming along and changing it to AmE simply because you want to is totally inappropriate. The guideline exists to help with ongoing disputes, not one that has been stable for well over a year. violet/riga (t) 16:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out before, the guideline refers to a method for determining current spelling, based on past events. There is no "nonstub version after this policy went into effect" clause. Moreover, there is nothing that I can see -- if I'm wrong, I sincerenly apologize! -- about FA status having anything to do with conferring a change on what is considered the correct spelling. Finally, I didn't "come along." I made a change that I thought accorded with guidelines, one that rectified a situation created by your "coming along" and changing the spelling of the many who worked on the article in its original form (and it was not "just because I wanted to"). Again, I see no guidelines that say that a certain amount of work on an article entities the editor to change the dialectic. You're invoking principles that make sense to you, but which haven't been vetted by the community. You're being, it seems to me, almost possessive about this article, which ignores the feelings of others who worked on it previously. It seems adhering to guidelines would be a good idea here. Or proposing new ones, if you really believe what you're saying! But I think a "someone who works on an article later gets to change the dialect that is considered correct for that article" principle would be a bad idea. And any principle based on the dialect at time of FA status would be bizarre, seems to me. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-26 16:49 (UTC)

You really are talking in circles now - you keep going on about your thoughts on the matter but it doesn't change my opinion. You came to this article and invoked a spelling war. I see no reason why. It just appears that you have come to a random article and found that you have some small justification to change it to your preference. That's just not on. violet/riga (t) 16:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained my motivations: I like proof-reading and copyediting articles. I start with a spell-check, after a review of an article's history to make sure I adhere to WP guidelines about Eng. dialects. I took that first step, and you immediately reverted me, invoking what I believed and still believe to be very bad reasons, reasons that you invoke as "common sense," but which I don't believe are common sense. One could just as easily say you invoked the spelling war by not seeing 1) I actually had good intentions; and 2) I was following MoS guidelines; and then, 3) leaving my minor changes as they were. But you didn't. You felt that this issue was important enough to simply revert me. Why? (And a] it's not a random article for me, as I explained; and b] I don't believe I'm talking in circles at all.) Please reflect on my points here before responding. I won't respond again without some reflection. Please assume good faith. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-26 17:07 (UTC)

You're not talking about complicated things - I don't need to spend ages thinking about what you're saying. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong - simple as that.

To quote WP:MOS that you seem to hold so dear:

If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)

I think that you need to reflect on that one. violet/riga (t) 17:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still curious: why was it so important to revert me? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-26 17:37 (UTC)

Because I don't like it when people change from one long-standing dialect to another. Yes, I have a natural bias against AmE and would prefer articles that I have worked extensively on to be in BE, but I always try to take a common sense approach to such things. Plus, there are too many people that push a country bias, and your edits (innocent and well-meaning though they may have been) came across like that. violet/riga (t) 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But when you yourself changed the dialect from AmE, as it was originally, to BE, that is okay? Is it because no one stopped you? Are you saying that it's okay to violate WP policy so long as no one catches you? Or are you saying that the practice of changing long-standing dialects is only unacceptable if the change is from BE to AmE? -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 11:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not worthy of comment for two reasons:

Your bias is too clear from your user page,
You clearly haven't read the rest of the discussion above.

violet/riga (t) 13:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing attention to an Excellent article

The breastfeeding article is on my watchlist, but I'm not one of the ones who usually puts a whole lot of time into it. For those of you who do, I wanted to point out an excellent article I just encountered, which contains a wealth of information, and should be a useful source for improvements to the Wikipedia article. Anyway, without further ado, I give you

Suck on This from the EcologistOnline, 04 Jan, 2006

MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. violet/riga (t) 19:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture references to breastfeeding

I am curious: would this article be a good place to put some pop culture references to breastfeeding? I am thinking of (for example) the episode of Friends where Joey is made uncomfortable by Rachel's breastfeeding her daughter; or the episode of Anything But Love where the right to a woman breastfeeding is challenged by the Jamie Lee Curtis character. -- Jalabi99 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they can be added in prose form rather than a bulleted list then I think it would nicely illustrate the awkwardness that it can cause. violet/riga (t) 19:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Everybody's Doing It" excuse

I was just glancing over the reasons for Defeaturing this article, and one which I found somewhat odd was this: "Seems to have a strong bias towards breastfeeding, whereas bottle feeding is a choice made by many."

To make a very hyperbolic analogy, smoking is a choice made by many, but that doesn't mean that articles about the tobacco plant should include a pro-cigarettes section. :p

Removing my tongue from my cheek, what I mean to say is that the encouragement of breastfeeding (especially in underdevelopped countries) is currently a great objective of governments, health organizations and the UN, because its benefits have been proved, and the risks of its avoidance are also well reported.

The fact that many people choose to use other methods which are less healthy, doesn't mean that these methods should be given equal "air-time". One should also not forget that the reasons for choosing bottle-feeding include vanity (fear of future breast-sagging) or the logistic impossibility of breastfeeding (such as a mother who works in a factory, away from the child). These reasons have no influence on the content of the article on Breastfeeding. MIP 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We are not here to advocate on behalf of a particular point of view, no matter how correct we think that view is. To take the specific example you cite, it's crystal clear that an article about tobacco or cigarettes that doesn't cover pro-smoking points of view would be an utterly inadequate one. If there are verifiable, reliable sources who recommend or approve of bottle feeding, and such sources are not a miniscule minority, then those sources should be noted in the article. Nandesuka 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize, but I am not familiar with those sources. Maybe I took Paediatrics in a very biased medical school, but all we learned about were the benefits of breastfeeding and the dangers of bottle-feeding. :o\

Presumably, you also learned that cars are dangerous and walking is healthy. May I presume that you believe that the article on automobiles should advocate that no one ever drive a car ever? Nandesuka 11:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words into my mouth and please WP:AGF. I never said people should not bottle-feed (I, myself, was bottle-fed, and not breastfed). I'm just saying that all the literature I read while I studied paediatrics, and all the guidelines from the ministery of health point towards the consensus that the alternative is not equal.

In my initial comment, I meant to transmit the idea that I don't understand how bottlefeeding can be given equal focus on an article on breastfeeding, or how not doing this is excessive bias. I agree that the alternatives should be mentioned in the article - just not in as much detail as the thing they are alternatives to.

Let me put it this way: breastfeeding is a biological function, just like breathing - if the article were about breathing, the fact that it didn't delve too deeply into artificial ventilation would not be seen as a bias; it would just be a reflection of the fact that the article is about the biological function itself and that the alternative is not as good as the original. MIP | Talk 14:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting that because breastfeeding is a biological function, we shouldn't be discussing bottle feeding? Please clarify. Nandesuka 15:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I'm just saying that in the breastfeeding article we don't have to give bottlefeeding the same amount of focus. To focus primarily on breastfeeding in the article about breastfeeding is not bias, contrary to what the argument in the De-Featurization discussion suggests. Let me give you that Defeatured Article quote again:

"Seems to have a strong bias towards breastfeeding, whereas bottle feeding is a choice made by many."

Of course it is primarily about the characteristics of breastfeeding, because it's the article about breastfeeding. Let's put it this way: would you complain that the article about Rice has a strong bias towards rice, whereas pasta is a choice made by many at dinnertime?

If we were discussing a belief or a theory, I have no doubt that both the pro- and the anti- views should be given equal time. But this is about a thing: the extrusion of milk through the mammary gland to feed juveniles. Alternatives should definitely be mentioned, but don't need to be written in too much depth.

Not mentioning them in depth is not a bias. MIP | Talk 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know many reliable sources who accept it (for those situations where breastfeeding is impossible or not advisable), but none who recommend it. Could you point me to some of those sources? Thanks! :o)

The point of your question eludes me. Nandesuka 11:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of your question eludes me. :p (Just kidding.) I was just asking for a couple of links to reliable sources which recommend bottle-feeding instead of breastfeeding. The fact that I'm not familiar with any has led you to believe that I was acting on opinion and being "soapbox-y" (which, again, was not WP:AGFy on your part). Since this is the result of bias during my paediatrical training, I would like to remedy it by consulting the appropriate literature. MIP | Talk 14:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "it's crystal clear that an article about tobacco or cigarettes that doesn't cover pro-smoking points of view would be an utterly inadequate one". So does this mean that the Wiki on Tobacco is utterly inadequate?! :confused: MIP 21:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having gone over and taken a brief look, I'd say: Yes, that article is utterly inadequate. Nandesuka 11:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seriously come across a research article (not from the 1800s :p) which you would trust as reliable information that cigarette-smoking is beneficial and, thus, lead you to recommend cigarettes to your patients as an exercise in EBM? MIP | Talk 14:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a medical diagnostic tool or a health clinic. Restricting the definition of "benefit" to "medical benefit" is inappropriate. Nandesuka 14:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. ;o) Are you going to add the pro-smoking stance? MIP | Talk 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I've been through the article doing a general tidy up and making the formatting more consistent. Compared with other articles on Wikipedia, this one was well cited, and there weren't any of the glaring errors which often creep in over time. I've also converted some of the old external link format references to the newer ref format. I hope you find it an improvement. Stephen B Streater 22:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]