Talk:Child harness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We have had an email stating that the image on this page is a copyright violation. The source image has now been deleted so I can't give a link (as I would usually do in this situation). But from the information in the email I've removed it as a verified copyright problem. -- sannse (talk) 00:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Rational?
The last paragraph of this article seems to be pretty biased. I don't see how it's necessary to claim that increasing acceptance is due to more "rational" thought in Britain. That doesn't strike me as neutral. Plus, if there is going to be an external link favoring child harnesses, there ought to be one opposing them. Right? I'm new to this.
[edit] Links neutrality
It looks like a good harness advocacy link got deleted as a result of the carnage left here by the childharness.net (200.78.105.103, 200.53.113.11, 200.78.65.24, 65.2.186.186) spamming attempts here. What we are left here with is only the negative perspective. The manufacturers website (http://smallplanetkids.com/) that was here before was a good presentation of the child harness advocacy position, and was labeled as such per item 4 of the what should be linked to. Of course, we can remove the negative link to balance things out, but the article will be poorer for that. This will also create a drive to put pro- and con- arguments into the article making it a quarrel instead of an encyclopedia article, or even worth - a one-sided exultation with little encyclopedic content as happened on the Babywearing page.
I can hear someone saying "it is a manufacturer, therefore, it's commercial." Granted, every manufacturer exists to sell products or services, but are we to ban all the manufacturers from here then? Can Boeing company be trusted to present benefits of airplanes and passenger aviation? Or what about this page Mirror mount that only has manufacturers' links? I think a distinction has to be made here between a link to somebody that sells Viagra on eBay and a legitimate manufacturer's website with good information.
Does anyone except childharness.net visit this article? Somehow I am not too enthusiastic to engage in an editorial discussion with a persistent-spammer-turned-spam-vigilante-after-having-been-banned? Anybody? ReAlly 19:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
I agree that legitimate manufacturers' websites could be used to illustrate a topic and/or provide a NPOV when an issue may be controversial. Zeilermom 02:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Misrepresentation of the arugment against
I don't believe that the external link meets any of the qualities and guidelines Wikipedia outlines for who one should externally link to (blogs). As the author of the external link, it most certainly is NOT an argument against the use of a harness. It would be interesting to know who submitted the link to Wikipedia. Even better would be to have it removed as the revelance is questionable at best.
- Good point. I added a non-blog one with arguments against. It looks more appropriate in other ways too. ReAlly 20:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] source of the picture
the source of the picture http://www.flickr.com/photos/31152685@N00/57536270/
