User talk:Blakenathanweber

August 2014

Hello, I'm Binksternet. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to On Becoming Baby Wise seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to On Becoming Baby Wise. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I replied to your questions. See User_talk:Binksternet#Babywise. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• As it continued, I realized others might want to weigh in on the discussion, so I moved it to Talk:On_Becoming_Baby_Wise#Conflict_of_interest_--_new_editor_associated_with_book. The reason for the new heading about "conflict of interest" is explained there. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Blakenathanweber. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article On Becoming Baby Wise, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. With this comment you made, you established that you are closely connected to the book, On Becoming Baby Wise, working with the authors to improve its reputation. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings to all editors of Wikipedia and specifically all editors of the Wikipedia page covering On Becoming Babywise,

I have known the authors of On Becoming Babywise since 1993. I worked for Multnomah Publishers from 1993 to 2001. I knew the book intimately during my 8 years with Multnomah, who was the exclusive publisher of On Becoming Babywise. For three of those years at Multnomah, I served as Assistant to the Publisher/President/Owner (Donald C. Jacobson). I have worked for Hawksflight & Associates, Inc. from 2001 to the present. Hawksflight & Associates, Inc. represent the world wide rights of On Becoming Babywise from 2001 - 2015. All this to say, I have thorough and complete knowledge On Becoming Babywise and the authors for 22 years now, steming back to my first year at Multnomah Publishers. I lay this out on my talk page so that there is no confusion who I am, why I am speaking about this book, and where my information comes from. I want to be fully in the open with my views, my information, my verification, and my motives.

A year ago I was being inundated with questions and comments from young parents and medical professionals about why the Wikipedia page on On Becoming Babywise is so one-sided and critical of such a proven best seller over time when the book has such incredible medical support around the country and the world. I signed up for an account on Wikipedia under my name at the time and made some edits to the site to bring both sides to this page. One of the edits I remember making was telling a little bit about our author, 26 year Pediatrician Dr. Robert Bucknam, M.D., and I referred to him as "popular" in the sentence. Immediately an editor said that our author is not "popular" and edited that (among many other things that were edited; all of which is record on Wikipedia and you can read for yourself). I thought that was exceptionally strange given the current Wikipedia page on this author's book, Dr. Robert Bucknam, M.D., refers to his critic, Dr. Bill Sears, as "popular Pediatrician." At that point I figured this Wikipedia page was being "guarded" by some anti-neutral or at least anti-On Becoming Babywise editors. So I stopped adding verifiable fact on the page.

Today, I want to open up a diologue with as many people as possible to gather input, because I continue to hear from so many parents, readers, and medical professionals who are appalled at the one-sided, negative nature of the current Wikipedia page on On Becoming Babywise. (especially given Wikipedia's own stated purpose to remain completely neutral in verifiable fact) So let me put a few questions out for discussion:

Does it seem fair or normal to have a book represented on Wikipedia with no biographical information on one of its two authors that wrote the work 22 years ago? Does it seem fair or normal to have such author biographical information removed or edited because some person/editor who espouses neutrality which is at the heart of Wikipedia's existence simply doesn't want to see it attached to the author's book page? In the current Wikipedia page on On Becoming Babywise, does it seem fair or normal to divide the page into 5 sections (one of them being "criticism") and yet all 5 sections on this book's page are laced with criticism? And does it seem fair or normal to you to see no hint of medical support listed on the entire Wikipedia page for a book which has such readily available medical support right in the book or listed on Amazon.com by R.N. C.L.E., Pediatricians, Professor of Pediatrics, Obstetricians, Pediatric Neurologists, Pediatric Cardiologist? (given the current Wikipedia page on On Becoming Babywise lists 5 medical critics, displays their resumes, refers to them as "popular", and even takes the time to quote them in their critiques)

I look forward to seeing a neutral dialogue about what is fair and what is normal for a Wikipedia page remaining or achieving true neutrality. I am new to this whole Wikipedia thing, so feel free to let me know if I am not signing in correctly, not signing my name to my articles where I need to, or not writing my comments in the right place here on Wikipedia's site. I have written to Wikipedia and believe I am following the counsel I received to a T while I dot my "i's." Thank you, in advance, for your collective thoughts and wisdom as we look for real neutrality for the medical support that has been in writing for more than 20 years for On Becoming Babywise and for the 26 year Pediatrician who wrote this work 22 years ago with co-author Gary Ezzo.

Blakenathanweber (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Blake Nathan Weber, President

       Hawksflight & Associates, Inc. (world wide rights distributor for Parent Wise Solutions & On Becoming Babywise)

{{WP-PROVEIT}} {{Wikipedia-- citation needed}}

{{WP- PROVE IT}} {{Wikipedia- citation needed}} "The American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) warned against the book, stating that its advice could result in infant development problems.."

You cite one man's opinion from 1998, Dr. Aney, not AAP. The AAP is 62,000 Pediatricians and you have mistakingly quoted one man's opinion, Dr. Matthey Aney from a April 1, 1998 article where he wrote his personal opinion. Please prove your source #6 that you cite. That is not the AAP making any formal statement nor have they ever done so.

00:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Blakenathanweber