Talk:Froebel gifts

Froebel Gifts

(This discussion of commercial links in Froebel Gifts copied from User talk:CliffC)

I am concerned that there are errors and a significant lack of knowledge expressed in this article, as well as the hypocrisy of deleting other commercial external links but leaving 3 links to essentially the same site by the ozpod.com sites owner whose page content is primarily links promoting the sales of non-Froebel toys. Why has the froebelgifts.com link been removed time and again despite a variety of sources suggesting it should be present? Google ranks its content higher than the barebones WP article. There are no mentions in this article about their use by the Bauhaus, in George Stiny's design grammars, and the connections to unit blocks, Montessori apparatus, etc. I believe the controllers of this article should admit a lack of understanding and bias. Authors/experts such as Norman Brosterman shake their heads at the content herein. This is exactly the range of problems that gets WP mocked and keep those knowledgeable on the subject from weighing in. This article needs more depth, images, and especially more attributions for researchers of the subject. I'm happy to oblige but not until I can see a balanced approach to the topic minus the hypocrisy. Oh, and of course Froebel Gifts are a commercial product ... they generate over $400M USD in sales annually in South Korea alone ... evidence of their ongoing use as educational tools and not simply curiosities of the Wright lore. There are dozens of worthwhile external links that provide WP readers with the full range of impact the Froebel Gifts have had (and continue to have) on society worldwide. Why are they not included? PatternSeeker (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Scott Bultman

If you think the Froebel Gifts are a commercial product, then I suggest you delete this article (of which I am the author) in its entity. While I share your concern about baby classroom and their marketing of poor quality immitations of the original Froebel Gifts (probably sourced in Asia and completely misrepresented by their website) I think you are over reacting by purging Frank Lloyd Wright's endorsement of Froebel Gifts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.40.185 (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, of course Froebel Gifts, as designed by Friedrich Froebel and described in the article, are not a commercial product. However, when you describe them as the Froebel Gifts and scatter links to the educational toy site ozpod.com throughout the article, then yes, they become a commercial product. Wikipedia has strict rules about links to commercial sites, listed at WP:External links. Among them are "2. External links should not normally be used in the body of an article" and "4. In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site". Regarding babyclassroom.com, we are not concerned at Wikipedia about any company's alleged "marketing of poor quality immitations", we are concerned about companies using Wikipedia to promote sales of their product, and that is why on 14 October I removed the external link to babyclassroom.com with this edit, as well as removing your duplicate link to ozpod.com in this edit.

As to the mention of Frank Lloyd Wright, on 14 October I added the original paragraph on Wright's "endorsement" of the Froebel blocks. (In it I called them "the Froebel geometric blocks" because it is tiresome to the reader to read Froebel Gifts, Froebel Gifts over and over.) I was careful in my wording to conform closely to a mention of the blocks in Frank Lloyd Wright--the Lost Years, 1910-1922, page 359, but did not properly cite the book, as I should have. With this edit, you substituted a quote from Wright, added some apparent synthesis of the published material ("used them as a design tool and for creative inspiration throughout his life"), defined "Froebel Gifts" as a direct link to ozpod.com, and re-added your duplicate external link tagged with "Buy original Froebel Gifts online".

I have reverted the article to its 14 October state, but expanded the Wright paragraph to also include a similar supporting quotation from Wright, without synthesis, and cited two sources. --CliffC (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Too complex?

Just a guess from a casual reader of the article: "Gift 5 Considered by many[by whom?] too complex for a young child," could be because they would fit into the CPSC small parts cylinder, and thus be considered unsafe as a toy for children under 3, or could be simply due to their number.159.192.222.154 (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That might be true, but since no reference has been supplied, I am removing the undocumented assertion as part of a major overhaul and expansion. Reify-tech (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)