Talk:Babywearing

message: Does anyone else get annoyed when people use "baby" as if it were a proper noun? Such as "if baby cannot hold his head up..." in this article. Rhobite 20:41, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
:Very much so, and quite a bit of this article isn't written in a very encyclopedic style. violet/riga (t) 21:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed all the "baby as proper noun" parts.  If it's a proper noun it should at least be capitalized...  But that's moot now.  But the article still reads more like an ad for babywearing than an article on it.  Hopefully someone will NPOV it one of these days. Icarus 04:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Baby" as proper noun

message: I fail to see any reason to maintain both this article and Baby sling.  It just makes two sites for spam fighters to watch instead of one. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there may be a good reason for the two articles seperated, but at this time there is not enough valuable content for two articles. I suggest we put all content in Babywearing now. Perhaps later, when enough detailed (and NPOV) content on specific slings is gathered, we can revive the Baby sling page. --Philippe 06:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I  believe I have improved both pages significantly. Please check my notes on baby sling's discussion page for suggestions on reorganization and renaming of the babywearing/baby sling/baby carrier/child carrier group. I would do it, but don't know how. Oh, and Nine In, Nine Out is not a spam site. Product sales are minor and secondary to the primary goals of the organization to support research and education. If a link to La Leche League would be acceptable in a breastfeeding article (despite the fact that La Leche League sells products) then a link to Nine In Nine Out is essential to a babywearing article. The organizations have similar goals in their respective niches. Jenrose 08:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally agree on the Nine In Nine Out link being essential to the article and not spam at all. How can a non-profit site directly related to the article content be spam? --User:tash 22:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to Baby sling 

message: This page needs a major cleanup. It is not neutral in tone. Philippe 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOPV 

message: Please do not add external links without discussing first. We know there are a million sites on this topic. We do not want to list them all here. Adding external links without discussing will most probably result in the link being deleted as spam. Philippe 15:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam in links  

message: I think the title says it all. Furthermore, the article seems to list advantages of babywearing and very few disadvantages at all, making it far from neutral. At this stage I would say that merging this into any other article would probably spoil the other article. Many other problems with this article are listed above but there are probably many more. --Hydraton31 19:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References, anyone? 

message: Attention: Given recent changes, I would like to remove some of the dispute, NPOV tags at the top of the page. What is needed to make this happen? Jenrose 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know-- still seems to me that the article makes a vast number of unsourced claims.  I have added citation needed tags to many of them.  There is virtually no counter position to any of these claims, merely some equally unsourced statements that care must be exercised.  Still seems a far cry from being a well-sourced, balanced piece to me. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the typo in the Kangaroo care mention which was breaking the link. Do I need to duplicate the dozen or so references from Kangaroo care which support the claims in that paragraph? I'll track down cites for the upper statements or remove them. Please also look at [[Baby sling] as well. I removed the merger note as it appeared to me that consensus was *not* to merge. I have some suggestions for a dramatic restructuring of Babywearing/Baby sling/Baby carrier and would like some feedback.Jenrose 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am going to do a major rewrite of the babywearing benefits section. Most of the claims there are overblown and unsupported, however there ARE good researched and supportable claims to be made. I may ask another expert to write this section, as she already has a well-documented blurb on just this topic. Jenrose 01:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove NPOV tags? 

message: I removed the entire Safety Considerations Section because it lacked encyclopedic information on the topic page.
:if this is incorrect in any way, please undo it. :)CaptainMurphy1989 (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety Considerations Section  

message: Any parenting technique has critics and there are some genuine downsides to babywearing. Does one parent have to quit work? There's nothing here. Not even criticisms with responses from supporters. Some more balance is needed here. Ileanadu (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms or downsides to baby wearing