Talk:Baby sling

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Parenting (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parenting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParentingWikipedia:WikiProject ParentingTemplate:WikiProject ParentingParenting articles

Untitled

If you have a problem with the current tone of the article, please discuss that here. Significant efforts have been made to bring this article within compliance and within the style of Wikipedia, and we can't fix it further if you don't tell us what is wrong. A link to recall notices is extremely relevant to the subject, given how many carriers have been recalled and the historical impact of product recalls on product development, promotion, public image, etc. It is also an extremely useful link, not promotional at all, and gives substantial information which ties in with the article subject but which would not be appropriate to include in the body of the article. If you have familiarity with the history of babywearing and baby slings, you will understand what an important role recalls have played.Jenrose 00:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large parts of this article are promotion talk. Should be cleaned up. Philippe 12:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed reference to attachment parenting. Wearing a baby is as old as mankind, while attachment parenting is a to be a contemporary principle, coined by a single pediatrician.

References vs. advertisements

YOUR SHOP IS NOT A "REFERENCE". Do not add it again if it has been removed. It is disingenuous and against the spirit of wikipedia to plop a cite in the reflist just for the purpose of getting your link in outside the "external links" spot. Jenrose (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Babywearing Terminology

Simple Pieces of Cloth (SPOC) is an actual term within the babywearing community which is descriptive and far more specific than simply "cloth slings". Most slings and baby carriers are made of cloth. Simple pieces of cloth are distinct and different because they are not sewn into a specific shape, and may or may not be specifically intended as baby carriers, which is distinct from cloth slings of other types, such as ring slings, pouches, mei tais, etc. The term "Simple Piece Of Cloth" was coined by Tracy Dower of the MamaToto project, but was picked up in wide usage within the babywearing community, and as a very specific jargon, is completely appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia entry about baby slings. Do not assume that simply because you know a shorter way of saying something, that your understanding of the subject is complete... in this case, editing "SPOC" to "Cloth slings" made the article less informative and less useful. So I'm putting it back the way it was.Jenrose 07:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I am adding mamatoto.org to the external links. It provides many free video resources on a variety of baby carriers, and therefore provides a unique resource that cannot be included in the wiki.

People seem to be forever tempted to add their favorite how-do-I-make-may-own baby-sling websites to the external links. There are hundreds of sites on this subject, and we do not want to list them all. Please refrain from spamming the external links section.

Discuss before you add a link!

Philippe 12:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a link to some fun baby sling extras -- a baby sling cartoon avatar maker and a baby sling wearing celebrity page. I tried to add them before but they got taken out as spam. While they are indeed on my site, they're both free. (http://www.mammasmilk.com/pages/celebrities.php and http://www.slingdirectory.com/dollmaker/dollmaker.html). Is this possible? -Jude

We're writing an encyclopedia, not a pop magazine article, so fun isn't a primary aim, and accurate, non-commercial content is. If people want to find stories of celebrities wearing babies, google should handle their needs nicely. Incidentally, if you'd like to upload a public domain or GDFL image of a baby-wearing celeb and add it to the article, it would be far less likely to be reverted. We're looking for content in our articles, not links to other sites. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the external links to exclude a link going to a "for-profit" business website selling these products. I replaced it with a link to the non-profit organization that is responsible for continuing research in this area. November, 9th 2006, -Kristine

Yes, but that "not for profit" site is engaged in direct retail sales, so I have removed it along with another commercial site. See WP:EL. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Babywearer does not sell slings. The only stuff they sell directly is advocacy gear, which many, many organizations linked elsewhere in Wiki also sell. For example, La Leche League has many different kinds of things they sell, ranging from memberships and books to breastfeeding products. Yet talking about breastfeeding without mentioning La Leche League in an encyclopedia would be bizarre and wrong, as it has had a historical role in the modern resurgence of breastfeeding. The Babywearer has been instrumental in helping change the face of modern baby carrying around the world. It is *the* English language online central meeting point for the babywearing community worldwide and provides huge numbers of useful articles, resources and networking for people looking for more information. It is completely remiss for an english-language article about baby slings to NOT refer out to The Babywearer. Leave it alone. On the other hand, thank you for kicking Nifty to the curb, the repeat spam they do is ridiculous and inappropriate. Jenrose 08:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to educate yourself on the topic before assuming anything, with all due respect I must disagree. In reference to NINO (http://nineinnineout.org). I believe the other site you removed was mamatoto.org(?) which is another site that is instructional only and is not a commercial site.

The external link to "wearyourbaby.org" appears to be a front for a company that sells one type of baby sling (Moby Wrap). Is this ethical? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.249.88.18 (talk) 18:38, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings. Historically, MamaToto has been an advocacy site, focused heavily on education and networking, and not-for-profit. I had to hunt to find the carrier sales you were talking about--I believe they are secondary the mission but I am not comfortable with allowing a vendor to keep a link on the site, and selling carriers=being a vendor, and may well be jeopardizing MamaToto's 501(c)3 status, let alone their "linkability". I will remove the link, reluctantly, because I think the concern about allowing advertising is valid, and though MamaToto does have much valuable information, being consistent and sticking with links to places that do not sell carriers seems like the only fair and prudent thing to do. Thank you for calling this to my attention. Jenrose 00:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

I put "Risk of spoiling" back in the concerns list. I know proponents claim this is not true, but allmost all opponents claim this. Please discuss before removing again. I can live with rephrasing, but it is not fair to leave this concern out. Philippe 07:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References please? If not, take it away. (The whole article is in dire need of references anyway). --J-Star 12:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the section on hip position to be more neutral and to more accurately reflect that this issue is controversial. The section as it read before reiterated some aggressive marketing statements promoted by certain types of carrier companies who seem to be trying to oust more mainstream carriers from the market on this basis without having any real scientific evidence to back up their claims. I think that such statements are inappropriate on wikipedia. I believe wiki should only state that wide-based carriers reduce the risk of hip dysplasia when there is actual research out there proving this. Marketing campaigns should not be on wiki. The way the section read before, the "misconception/concern" was that wide-based carriers are too wide for the baby and then the article went on to say how they are actually beneficial in preventing hip dysplasia. In the world of babywearing the true misconception/concern is that non-wide based carriers increase the risk of hip dysplasia. This has never been shown one way or the other. Calling attention to the fact that this issue is inconclusive and that more research is needed is actually a useful item for wiki. The Orthoseek article cited does make a conclusory statement that in the context of hip dysplasia "it appears logical to discourage putting the baby’s legs in the extended position, and encourage keeping the baby’s hips spread apart." However, this does not support the need for extremely wide-based carriers. Moreover, the Orthoseek article cites nothing in support of such statement and does not even provide an author for the article. The Orthoseek website is actually run by the Wheaton Brace Co. which makes the Pavlik Harness (a treatment for hip dsyplasia). I left the citation in to keep this article more neutral and out of respect for the original author, but I really question that this is a valid authority. Indeed, almost all of the articles on the internet that support that conclusion originate from commercial sites. Cdmmd2326 (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Babywearing

I agree that this page could be merged with Babywearing, since the term "babywearing", per se, is also a term coined by a single pediatrician, Dr. Sears. Zeilermom 03:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a reason to 'not' merge both articles. Babywearing may document Sears' vision on carrying an infant in a sling, but the concept of slings may be as old as mankind. I do agree that both articles overlap too much and should be cleaned up. Philippe 16:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you make a good point. Perhaps "babywearing" should remain separate, but then it requires heavy editing to clarify that it is part of a particular philosophy of parenting.

I have edited both sections extensively. I have done my best to be balanced. I have removed several commercial product names and external links. I would like to link to www.thebabywearer.com (which, while it does sell some advocacy products, does not sell carriers and serves as a central meeting place for parents and many vendors.) I have not added that link yet although links to articles are present that were placed before. The Babywearer website has extensive citations to research in many of the articles. I have not added that link yet and will wait to do so.

Babywearing and Baby Sling should not be combined, but I would strongly recommend changing Baby Sling to Baby Carrier, removing Child Carrier as redundant, and forwarding the Baby Sling link to Baby Carrier. "Babywearing" may have been coined by Dr. Sears, but use of the phrase has extended well beyond attachment parenting and it is not required to be an attachment parent to "babywear". To reflect this, I have expanded the section on breastfeeding to encompass multiple modes of infant feeding and to recognize that babywearing and breastfeeding are not always easily done simultaneously.

I have not done extensive citations, as most of my writing is easily and quickly verifiable through google, and much is based on my 13 years of experience in the babywearing community. My credentials, if it matters, are that I helped found Nine In, Nine Out, have used and reviewed at least 100 different carriers in just about every category, and coordinated the first international babywearing conference. My writing on babywearing and baby carriers has appeared in books, magazines and on a number of web sites. Although I have designed several carriers, I do not advocate them or mention them in these articles. I tried to maintain what I could of the existing pages, but did edit them heavily to reduce the promotional nature and balance the presentation. I have not yet touched the "benefits/disadvantages" bulleted lists. Jenrose 00:24, 11 Nov 2006

References required

This whole article is in need of references. Expecially the "Practicality and use" and "Concerns" sections contain totally unreferenced statements.--J-Star 12:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole articel, is just a junk page linking to commercial sites.

Its pages like this, that are turning wikipedia into a big joke, commercial adveritising, internet marketing tool —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.163.32 (talk • contribs).

The article has been substantially edited, commercial references removed, references and content added. Jenrose 07:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Went back and cited 15 points, I'm not done, just tired. I removed the refcite. Please do not edit the article titles to make them less specific just because you don't immediately get them. Added clarification in SPOC section so that people aren't tempted to revert it to the generic "Cloth slings". All slings are made of cloth, or the vast majority anyway, a "Simple Piece of Cloth" is a babywearing term to describe a very specific type of carrier, often abbreviated "SPOC".Jenrose (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark

I just found out that "Baby sling" is a trademark used in the 1990s for one particular type of baby carrier. I will remove most of what is written in this page and start a stub refering to the _actual_ baby sling. If we need an article on other cloth-like-baby-carrying-devices, we need another name. --Philippe 07:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa! Hold it! First of all, check to see that "Baby sling" is trademarked and that it's a valid trademark. Second, this doesn prevent anyone from calling a baby sling for just that: baby sling. I mean just because there is a franchise called "Target" doens't mean we can't call a paper dummy at the shooting range a "target". Be bold... but not rash. Check first if we actually need to rewrite the article. --J-Star 08:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we _do_ need to rewrite for reasons stated on this talk page. This page has hardly any references and is very spam-prone. Moreover, I'm not convinced about what the words "baby sling" mean in the English language. As I understand a _sling_ goes over one sholder, while the baby carrier depicted in the article is something totally different. Point is: I just think this article has the wrong name. Perhaps we should rename the article as it is and create a new Baby sling(tm) article. We would _still_ need to rewrite the existing article. --Philippe 11:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of people who use the term "sling" to mean a baby carrier that has rings, and "baby carrier" to mean ALL carriers like the ones dissucssed in this article.

Recalls link

I have removed the recall link. Per links normally to be avoided, the recall link fails several points:

1 - The link does not provide a unique resource beyond the article. The issue of recalls is already mentioned within the article. If the link should be used to verify this point, it should be used as a cited source (and the cited source has to be carrier-specific, not baby-general), not an external link.
9 - The link is just a generic search page for child-related recalls, not even carrier-related recalls, but ALL child-related recalls. Further, anyone who visits the site must narrow it down further by performing a manual search.
13 - The link is most certainly not directly related to the article's subject. I think the only article that it could be directly related to would be Baby related recalls. The link is far too generic and not specific enough to keep, which renders the "it is relevant" argument moot.

Beyond those direct violations of WP:EL, there are three other issues:

1. Recall links are 100% absolutely unnecessary as anything more than a cited source (and the cited source has to be carrier-specific, not baby-general). We can't be linking to a general recall in every article about some random product just because that random product might have one listing among the thousands in the recall link.
2. Recalls are company-specific, not product-specific. These recalls are recalling specific brands and makes of carriers, not just carriers in general. This makes it feel more like a promotional link ("DON'T USE THESE CARRIERS! THEY'LL KILL YOUR BABY! USE THE ONES NOT LISTED HERE!") than an informational link.
3. This article, and all others on Wikipedia, are not US-centric. They must be relevant worldwide. Unless we link to every single recall of baby carriers (not general recalls on baby things) from every single country on the planet, we can't include one link with generic recalls from one country.

For these reasons, I have removed the link. If you feel it should be kept, please discuss it here and gain consensus before adding it back. Thank you. --13² 22:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image descriptions

changed them so they actually describe what's in the image, removing irrelevent things like an esoteric type of cotton from a specific country or whatnot.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Baby sling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]