Talk:Child harness

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)

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

source of the picture

the source of the picture http://www.flickr.com/photos/31152685@N00/57536270/

Two wording-related points

I'm British, and noticed two things:

"Walking reins" is a rather uncommon phrase; most people just call them "reins" - for example, the eBay.co.uk category is called "Safety Harnesses/Reins". You might see "baby reins", too.

"the use of the child tether has increased, particularly in Great Britain" - does this mean specifically GB, or does it mean the United Kingdom? If the former, then it implies that Northern Ireland is excluded. 86.143.48.55 (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a US contributor--"child leash" is a commonly used synonym. It is not included in this article, is it worthy of mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dad of 9 kids (talk • contribs) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current picture

I recently noticed while skimming my referrer statistics in Flickr that a photo of mine is used to illustrate this article. I am tickled to see myself although it takes away a little of my mystique (ha) as a habitual uncategorized-page categorizer. --Oddharmonic (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leading Strings?

Should leading strings be mentioned here? They appear to be a precursor. --79.65.4.188 (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parent back pain

Walking with a small child holding its hand can cause a back pain for the parent. Some types of harness can help with that. Perhaps something that could be added as a benefit point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.125.149 (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Mex006.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Animal Backpack Harness.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Standard Child Harness.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in the Article

There is a subtle bias in some sections that could be perceived as favoring the use of child harnesses. For example, phrases like "when used short term and in a loving manner as a teaching tool" position harnesses as beneficial without much critical analysis. This framing assumes that harnesses are inherently positive when implemented correctly. Chloeczhou (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chloeczhou, do we have sources saying that they are negative when implemented correctly?

I suspect that this is very much a cultural issue, so if they're normal in your community, you think they're normal, but if they're rare in your community, you think they're kind of weird.

If I were going to expand this article, I think I'd be less interested in the parenting opinions parts, and more interested in the special needs uses (are these considered "restraints" under various countries' regulatory systems?) and their use while a baby is learning how to walk. It seems like it should prevent lower back pain in the parents/caregivers, especially for tall men, who have to hunch over quite a bit to hold a baby's hands. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]