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

Health and fitness Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles 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.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am wondering what the Dr. Emmett Holt book is. I did a little poking around and the only book I could find that seemed to fit the description of the article is *Diseases of Childhood and Infancy* (1897). Anyone have any further info on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeyouglad (talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only book in book which I am familiar with in which Dr, Hlt talks about CIO is his "Care and Feeding of Children" (originally published in 1894). You can view the 1907 edition here (it's public domain): http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/15484 Cab88 (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone with the ability to do so, apply a revert please. User 24.195.18.178 has commited some rediculous acts of vandalism. captbananas 05:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference to the movie "Meet the Fockers" should be moved into a Trivia or a Popular Culture section.

I agree. 68.79.11.47 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return at progressively increasing intervals to comfort the baby (without picking him up). For example, on the first night, some scenarios call for returning first after five minutes, then after ten minutes, and thereafter each fifteen minutes, until the baby is asleep.

I think that's called progressively decreasing.

I think going from 5 to 10 to 15 is indeed increasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.18.165 (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-no, the 'duration between intervals' is increasing, but the 'intervals' themselves are decreasing in frequency, i.e. progressively decreasing intervals. Alistair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.220.243.134 (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article completely ignores the controversy over the Ferber method. Since it is generally considered a method of CIO and all forms of CIO are controversial in some circles, this should should be mentioned in the article. Though it should also be noted that the Ferber method somewhat less controversial then extreme CIO methods where the baby is simply left to cry till they stop. --Cab88 (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it CIO is just wrong. Ferber distinguishes his method from CIO and to call it a form of CIO is to demonstrate bias against the Ferber method. 67.198.88.145 (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some experts, such as Dr. Sears, disapprove of any method that involves letting a baby cry for any amount of time. Unsurprisingly, these experts disapprove of Dr. Ferber's method. This is all spelled out in the article, which cites Dr. Sears' book and one other article (which is more than most general articles on the subject on the net). I simply do no understand how anybody could say this article is not neutral. It is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogercraig13 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and since there's been no mention or discussion of the tag since it was applied, it appears to be resolved. I'll pull it.TjoeC (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have two concerns about the current "Criticism" section.

First is that the entire section is based on one extremely weak source. The link is to a Gazette article, not a peer reviewed source, and it in turn talks about a conference paper (not a peer reviewed publication). The section closely paraphrases content in the Gazette article, and the statements about "long term risk of PTSD" appear speculative, and not based on any prospective longitudinal data.

Second is that I was not able to identify concerns about harm after searching TRIP Database. To the contrary, the Canadian, US, and UK pediatric guidelines all recommend caution about co-sleeping in modern beds, and none indicate harmful effects of the Ferber method (which they also distinguish from "Cry It Out"). See here, for the Canadian example.

I suggest that this section be deleted, or if not, then heavily edited to (a) eliminate speculation based on very low level sources, and (b) put in the larger context about the recommendations of multiple national pediatric organizations.

I was going to go ahead and delete, but I decided to post this first before making the change. Thanks, and best regards! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and edited it, adding another link to co-sleeping, which is a much more well-developed and sourced page. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the way it is cited, the last sentence of the "Cry it Out" section seems to suggest that the author of the Psychology Today post, "Dangers of Crying It Out", is a pediatrician. She is a professor of psychology and should not be included in this statement. Belchertina (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)belchertina[reply]

Not only that, but she does not even address the Ferber method or any other "graduated extinction" methods. She does, however, post a link to a study she and her colleagues completed analyzing different sleep training methods. While in the Psychology Today article, she states all the studies were flawed, the research she linked to seems to support "graduated extinction" methods.

"Williams appears to have been the first to formally apply Unmodified Extinction to problematic bedtime behavior. Extinction has a strong record of accomplishment, now having been evaluated in 19 separate research studies involving

552 participants...the procedure has proven highly effective in eliminating bed-

time problems and night wakings, and improving sleep continuity...It appears safe to conclude that Graduated Extinction, as applied to bedtime problems and night waking, now stands on equal empirical footing as its predecessor."

I think it is safe to remove it as a citation against the method. ~2026-24093-08 (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The short description of this article states that the Ferber method is disputed, however, it doesn't cite much evidence of it being disputed by reputable sources. Much of the disputes come from "mommy blogs" and articles from "attachment parenting" experts, who do not have any replicable studies showing that the method is harmful. On the contrary, studies have found that the method does not show any statically significant long-term harms.

Any reason to keep the "disputed" portion in the short description? It should not be based on "feelings" but facts and data. Jacket2018 (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]