Talk:The Mosquito

compoundsecurity.co.uk

I have just taken some time to review some of the web sites with external links in question. The mosquito importers that someone referenced earlier is clearly a commercial site, which states: "The Mosquito Importers search the globe for new products and bring them to North America. Do you have a new innovative product you want brought to the US? Do you like our products and want to resell them in the US? Contact us and let us know." This does not look at all like any web site that's been set up mainly for the purpose of reference or information.

The about page you are referring to has been changed.

As for the UK site compoundsecurity - the majority of the site appears to be a shopping cart. This site used to offer unique information, but it appears that they have removed most of it. There are only three newspaper articles on the entire site, which can probably be linked to directly. It is clear that now the web site has only one purpose and one purpose only - to sell the Mosquito products internationally.

This means that this web site now too falls in the category of links to avoid as per WP:LINKSTOAVOID, which discourages linking to sites mainly intended to promote a website and discourages links to lists of manufactuers, suppliers or customers.

In light of my discovery that the compoundsecurity UK site consists mostly of a shopping cart, I am going to remove it from the external links.

--Purpleblue1 (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTOAVOID opens with "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject" in bold print. If compoundsecurity.co.uk is the official page of the Mosquito device, the link should not be removed. --McGeddon (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

McGeddon, with respect, I disagree with you on this point. The guidelines do state that linking to official web sites is permitted, however, this permission is in reference to "any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any" (first point under what should be linked). Nowhere in the guidelines does it say that product manufacter's should always be listed on the product's page. This becomes especially important when the manufaturer's site clearly offers little more than a shopping cart to sell their products. Why should they benefit from Wikipedia's traffic and exposure when they have no value to add to Wikipedia? Isn't the purpose of External links to add value to the Wikipedia page? And if there is no value to the link then, why add it?

Also, the compoundsecurity site is a web site for a company, not the Mosquito product. And this article is about the product, not about Compound Security. A link to Compound Security web site would be more appropriately placed on a page about Compount Security.

I think this external link to compound security should remain deleted. --Purpleblue1 (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

With a little digging, I found a source which confirms that Compound Security is owned by Howard Stapleton, the inventor of the Mosquito. The site is entirely about the Mosquito product (despite the URL, the title graphic on all pages is "Mosquito Teen Deterrent"), and this is clearly the "official page of the article's subject". Linking to it is entirely supported by WP:EL. --McGeddon (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no value to Wikipedia readers in this link. Quality standards must be observed. Who are you trying to help with this link - the Wikipedia readers or the Compound Security's shopping cart site?

I am deleting this link again. If we cannot agree on this point, I suggest we engage in a dispute resolution process, involving a neutral third party. I suggest in the meantime this link remains off the page.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What "quality standards" are you referring to? We have a clear list of standards in WP:EL, and the "official page of the article's subject" is specifically exempt from the usual concerns of link quality. Surely any business or product article on Wikipedia will link to an official website that tries to sell you that product?

I've requested an opinion from a neutral third party. --McGeddon (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I've taken a quick look at the company website and I can certainly see where Purpleblue is coming from, and on the other hand it is certainly desirable to use the manufacturer's website. Therefore, how about a compromise? The company's website has a FAQ page which seems to provide information on the product without any sales pitches. Would this be acceptable to everyone? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 16:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality standards with Wikipedia readers in mind. Will this link help them by educating them further? Probably not. The site is mostly a shopping cart and it is not right to link to a shopping cart simply because the company was first to make the device some years ago (which, by the way, doesn't mean they are still the only ones that make this device now - the article you quoted in support of your argument above is from 2005).

By all means, give them credit in the article itself as the inventors of the Mosquito, but no need to link to their shopping cart.

Wikipedia is not a catalogue of products and links to their manufacturers. Wikipedia is not getting a commission from their sales. If their link doesn't offer unique value-added, it shouldn't be there. You can still mention them in the article, just without an external link.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion! The problem with the FAQ page is that is not neutral - the manufacturer is not going to put any information on that page that is not positive about their product. So with respect, I maintain my original position that this link to compoundsecurity does not offer unique value added.

Also, items from the FAQ page can actually be disputed by experts, for example, health effects.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with a link to the FAQ. An ideal link would be to a specific Mosquito sub-page, but given that the primary product of Compound Security is so clearly the Mosquito device (so far as I can tell, they sell only one item which is unrelated to it), I don't see a problem with linking to the main site. --McGeddon (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To add to my argument above against a link to the FAQ page, it's not a good idea to link to that page because of the controversial nature of the product. The first answer on the FAQ page states that "Mosquito... is completely harmless even with long term use." Yet, in this article sources are quoted, such as the BAuA Report (which is issued by the German government, if I remember correctly), that do not consider this device "completely harmless". They consider the effects "relatively small" if the group moves away from the area.

So the "completely harmless with long term use" reference - essentially the first thing on the FAQ page - is not accurate and may be considered misleading.

Therefore, I think crediting Howard Stapleton as the inventor of the Mosquito is appropriate, but linking to compound security web site is not.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Most manufacturer websites will be strongly biased towards presenting a positive view of their product, and selling that to the reader (the top external link for Apple Inc. takes you a large splash screen advertising the new $1,499 iMac, and presumably doesn't dwell on its flaws) but it's acceptable to link to them from Wikipedia articles about the companies or products - the reader can appreciate the context, and it's useful to provide a link.

If there's a controversy surrounding a product, it can be written about in the article (as is already the case with the Mosquito). There's nothing in existing WP:EL policy saying that we should avoid linking to company websites which fail to acknowledge controversies. --McGeddon (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Apple Inc. that you are referring to is about the company - Apple Inc. - therefore, their external link is appropriate to the Apple website.

It's one thing for a manufacturer to focus on positive aspects of their products, it's quite another thing to attempt to mislead, especially with sourced evidence to the contrary.

WP:EL states that their guidelines are "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Linking to a manufacturer's shopping cart should be treated with common sense by not allowing a link in the External links. The guidelines also state that "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable."

Like I said earlier, Wikipedia is not a catalogue of products with links to their manufacturers' shopping carts. It is appropriate to talk about the inventors and/or manufacturers in the content of the article, but it is not appropriate to link to their shopping cart from External Links.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You are greatly misrepresenting your case by referring to compoundsecurity.co.uk as a "shopping cart"; the site has a FAQ, testimonials and other information. User:Bettia has specifically suggested linking directly to the FAQ, so there is no way that this can be considered "linking to the manufacturer's shopping cart". Could you explain your objection to linking to this FAQ? --McGeddon (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is the site is "mostly" a shopping cart, with little other useful information, and I believe I made this clear throughout my posts without any misrepresentation. If you direct people to the FAQ page, most other links they click on will be to the shopping cart.

I already explained my objection to the FAQ page in the two paragraphs I posted, following the suggestion from User:Bettia . Furthermore, I do not believe that the FAQ page contains any unique information that is not already discussed in the article, so no point sending people there. And if there is some information that is missing from the article, then like User:Binksternet suggested, bring is here and source it.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I can only repeat that WP:EL specifically says that "a link to an official page of the article's subject" overrules the other WP:EL guidelines regarding "providing a unique resource" and "web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services".

Unless you are disputing that this is the official site of the product, the link is not breaking any WP:EL guidelines, and your concerns about "mostly a shopping cart" and "contains no unique information" (and even WP:ELNO#3, "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material", if you're arguing that the manufacturer's site fails to adequately address the health issues) simply do not apply here.

The line in WP:EL about all links having to be "justifiable" is a summary of the purpose of the policy, it's not an additional "if someone thinks a link is 'unjustifiable', delete it". And yes, all WP policies should be treated with common sense, but as WP:COMMON says, "invoking the principle of ignore all rules on its own will not convince anyone that you were right". --McGeddon (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And I can only repeat what I said earlier too: "WP:EL states that their guidelines are "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Linking to a manufacturers' shopping cart should be treated with common sense by not allowing a link in the External links. The guidelines also state that "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable."

Also, I just did a quick search online to have a better understanding of what pages can make up a shopping cart, other than the explicit "buy this product now" pages, so to speak, and it seems to me that all shopping cart software packages contain pages like "FAQ" and "testimonials" as well as other information, like return policy, for example. So if the site is mostly a shopping cart, even if it contains a few pages like FAQ and testimonials, it's still a shopping cart.

Therefore, even if this company was the first manufacturer of the product some years ago (and it's reasonable to expect that there are other companies manufacturing this product now too), this does not mean that they are guaranteed to have a spot in external links in Wikipedia, given the nature of their site.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

To respond to your paragraph about "justifiable" - every editor is entitled to disagree with another editor. Why are you so passionate about this link anyway? To use your own words, it seems like you are "pushing" this link - why is that?

Every editor can delete something, including external links, if they disagree that that something should be in the article, as long as there is discussion going on, which is happening now.

Also, think about the big picture here. Product manufacturers have marketing departments. Their marketing departments are there to promote their products and drive traffic to their web sites. They know that Wikipedia is a good way to do it (Wikipedia ranks extremely well in search engines). So in order to get an external link in Wikipedia, all these marketing departments now have to do is create a page about their product, and link to their site. Yes, the page needs to explain notability, but the marketing departments will not have any trouble doing that - that's their job, to differentiate their products and present them as special, or "notable". In other words, they will say something like "this product is notable because it's the first time in history this scientific or mechanical principle is applied this say, blah, blah, blah..." And these are people who are paid to do this. On the other hand, people who are truly interested in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia are volunteers. Do you think Wikipedia volunteers will have the energy and resources to keep up with paid marketing specialists?

So before you know it, Wikipedia turns into a cataloque of products with links to their manufacturers. I think that's wrong.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not passionate about the link, and have no connection to the product or company, I'm just making sure that Wikipedia policies get enforced properly. The guidelines say it's okay to link to the official page of a product, and I'm making sure that the link isn't being deleted for the wrong reasons.

Yes, product spam is a problem, and we have strict notability and conflict of interest guidelines to make sure that advertisers don't abuse the system. (I don't know how familiar you are with the concept of "notability" on Wikipedia, but it's about significant third-party coverage of a product, it's not just about saying "first time in history, blah blah blah".) I think Wikipedia volunteers do a pretty good job there.

Wikipedia being full of non-notable products would be a bad thing; it being full of notable products - like the Mosquito, which has received a great deal of press and academic coverage - is useful. And it's always useful to the reader if we can link to a site which we've agreed is the official site of the product (even if it's ugly, or misleading, or nothing but a shopping cart).

If you're suggesting the link needs to go because Compound Security's site can no longer be considered the "official" site of the Mosquito device, then that's fine, we can start looking around for precedents and getting some further outside comment on this. Is that the main point of your argument, once we've got past "common sense" and "justifiability"? --McGeddon (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the product is now quite controversial and has been covered in the media quite a bit. But this wasn't the case when this page was first created. The peak of media coverage, so to speak, started in February 2008 when Liberty and other parties took a stand against the device. But this page was created long before that, when there was hardly any coverage of the product in the media, if any.

Also, perhaps the reason the product received so much attention is due, at least in part, to Wikipedia. So what I'm saying is let's not assist manufacturers in turning ordinary products into "Mosquitoes" that receive a lot of attention - and sales - after they are listed in Wikipedia, partly because of their Wikipedia exposure.

So what I am saying is that this link should just be left out because there is no value-added to the reader in this link.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree that non-notable products should not have Wikipedia articles.

If "no value-added to the reader" is the core of your point, then I'm afraid WP:EL doesn't agree with you - yes, we shouldn't normally link to a site which "does not provide a unique resource", but WP:EL makes a specific exception for "an official page of the article's subject". Unless you're arguing that this is not the "official page of the article's subject", WP:EL fully supports the link's inclusion. --McGeddon (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the policy does agree with me because, like I stated earlier, ""WP:EL states that their guidelines are "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Linking to a manufacturers' shopping cart should be treated with common sense by not allowing a link in the External links. The guidelines also state that "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable."

I am familiar with the notability guidelines of Wikipedia, yet, this page was created well before any significant third party coverage of the product happened. And just to be clear, it was not me who created this page. At the time this page was created, the only notability was the claim that only people under approx. 25 years of age could hear the sound.

So what I am saying is that it's not a good idea to open doors to marketing departments for creating pages about products that they consider "notable", even if their definition of notable is against the Wikipedia definition of notable. If a page is added about a product that's not notable, a volunteer would have to read the page, research the product, determine that it's not notable, argue with the person who created the page in the first place, then delete this page, only to see it appear again and again because marketing people are paid to promote their products, and would be paid to reinstate the Wikipedia pages. Now imagine if there are hundreds, thousands, if not millions of articles that will be like that?

It's a lot easier for a volunteer to just delete an external link to a manufacturer's web site, and take the incentive away from the marketing specialists to create pages about their products in the hopes of obtaining a valuable link, and traffic as a result of that link.

If we can't agree on the interpretation of the Wikipedia policy, then perhaps there is another dispute resolution process that can be explored, say mediation.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask User:Bettia to return and give another third-opinion comment (although if anyone else is following this thread, it'd be good to get some opinions). Is it fair to summarise this disagreement as "WP:EL allows a link to the official website of a product, even if that website is commercial, misleading or provides no unique information" versus "all Wikipedia policy should be applied with common sense, and it is common sense not to link to a commercial, misleading website which provides no unique information"? --McGeddon (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What I would also add to the summary of my position is that commercial links should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and in this particular case an external link is not warranted.

I would also kindly ask anyone who will comment on this discussion to please read all arguments from both McGeddon and myself thoroughly, and not rely strictly on the summary presented to give an opinion. Thank you!--Purpleblue1 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK here's your third opinion. I am a relatively newbie editor and try to follow common sense rather than what the rules say (there is only so much one can take in at a time). It seems to me reasonable to link to the manufacturer's site, be it a shopping cart or not, simply because that provides a usefukl *link* for readers. Whether it provides useful *information* is more debatable, but I don't see any reason not to provide a link that people can find anyway. (Though in the alternate they could just plug it into Google.) SimonTrew (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to link to it can seem like wilful cussedness, i.e. we don't like 'em so let's not link to 'em. SimonTrew (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Replacement URL

Can we please look at the www.mosquitoimporters.com page as a replacement for compoundsecurity.co.uk. They seem to be adding more relevant information and are moving away from any kind of sales pitch. It looks more like a manufacture's page than the manufacturer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickthat (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your suggestion, however, I consider adding the link to External links on this page inappropriate and have deleted it for reasons in my posting above (in Incorrect Comment).--Purpleblue1 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Looking more like the manufacturer's page than the manufacturer" implies that if a company has a bad website, a user with some web skills could make a better one, include affiliate links, and link to that instead. This would be an unhelpful thing for WP:EL to encourage. --McGeddon (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro Neutrality

I've tagged the intro of the article since it has still not improved. It still makes no mention of why the gadget is notable, or why it is controversial. Please don't remove the templates until it the intro is written in a neutral fashion. Purpleblue1, since you are extremely active in this article, and I agreed not to continue editing, maybe you could clean up the intro? Thanks akaDruid (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As to the notability of the device, Liberty, which is a fairly serious organisation has objected to it. This also shows it is controversial. I know this is my psersonal opinion, but it excludes people from public places for no good reason, and has an indiscriminate effect. That seems very wrong to me. That is what has made it controversial. Obviously it is capable of use in a way that is both ethical and legal, but it is often used in a way that is neither. This is a fairly common opinion amoung young people and many older people. I know all of what I wrote after the owrd controversial is either POV or original research, but anyone who considers whether to keep it tagged might want to take them in to account.

They is also one council where a council officer bought one, and when a councillor found out they ordered it locked away in a cupboard and not used. They then offered it to the local police force, who refused to use it as well. I cannot prove this or tell you which council, because I would cause great embarrasment to people who do not deserve it, but it is true. Dolive21 (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the Intro, it seems NPOV to me. Am I missing something? I think it does a good job of not swinging either way, and of restricting itself to proven facts. I know I come to this with a pre existing moral position on this, but I think I am able to tell whether it balances the different opinions. Dolive21 (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi akaDruid,

You are right - the intro doesn't say why the device is notable or controversial. But does the intro have to say that? The intro just has some basic information about the Mosquito, and then there is a section that elaborates on the controversy and Human Rights issues on the page - is that not sufficient? But if you feel strongly that something about controversy needs to be added to the intro, then to be honest, I don't have a problem with that at all. I can't write much right this minute, but will come back to this article as soon as I can, and also do some digging on the Internet to see what new information is now available.

I won't remove the tags you added, although I do think the they are a bit much, especially the Advertising one. An example of an ad would be "The Mosquito is the greatest thing ever! Go out and buy one! Now!" - and nowhere in the article is the text anywhere near like that. But that's just my personal opinion. And like I said, I will add something to the intro about controversy as soon as I can.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability is a primary criterea for inclusion in Wikipedia; asserting notability should be done in the introduction. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style says:

The article should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence that, as briefly as possible, provides the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to two questions: "What (or who) is it?" and "Why is this subject notable?".

See also Wikipedia:Notability.

If it helps, i will state my bias is the other direction: I believe these devices should come with a button that must be held down while they are operating; ensuring there is a person who takes responsibility for their operation, and ensuring they are not use indescriminately. Otherwise I view them something like e.g. a can of mace that automatically sprayed everyone who walked into a park akaDruid (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

akaDruid,

I added a small bit about controversy to the intro - what do you think? I tried to do this in the most neutral way possible. The reason I am quoting the supporters in that bit is only because I didn't want to paraphrase what they said in a way that was "demonising" in any way, so I thought I would just include a quote directly from the source.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to chime in that I experienced these things on several occasions in Tokyo, and I'd like to voice my vehement opposition to them. They're not annoying, they're debilitating. Everything mentioned in The Mosquito#Health effects should be taken seriously; it's not simply a “noise”, it’s a pulsing. Something like this: |>-|>-|>-|>-|>-|>-|>-|>-|>-. Bang loud, quickly fades out, and then repeats, probably 2-3 times per second. When I came across them, it went straight to my inner ear and made me disoriented within seconds and physically nauseous within a minute of exposure. The fact that it emits at up to 94 decibels, to me, should make it highly controversial. At 85 dB, OSHA requires hearing protection in a factory. 94 decibels is louder than a lawnmower, and these speakers are usually stuck run above your head on sidewalks. To some of the previous comments in this article, to me, The Mosquito less of an anti-loitering machine and more of a military sound-weapon. It is truly that bad; imagine an instant, pulsing ear infection simply because you walked past a department store that doesn't want kids loitering about. Just my 2 cents. -- Masamunecyrus^(talk)_(contribs) 06:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi Dolive21 (talk),

The purpose of the Mosquito is not to keep young people away from public places for no good reason - believe me, I wouldn't like that either - but to keep trouble-makers away from private property. I think that's a common misconception about the device that it's used to deter people from public property - it's not intended to be used that way. Owners of property do have a right to protect their property. The inventor of the device has made a public request for regulation of the device's usage. Perhaps the opposition can join him in that request to get some sort of a regulation done faster in order to come up with a "win-win" solution, as opposed to flat out saying that the Mosquito is bad and should be banned completely, because a lot of people don't agree.

If the Mosquito is misused - that's unfortunate. But then again, anything can be misused. I knife can be a useful utensil, and yet can be a lethal weapon when misused. The same is true with a baseball bat, or a rope, or many other objects. Should we ban them all because of the possibility of misuse?

I agree that Liberty is a notable organization and they do valuable, good work, no doubt about it. However, when reading some of the articles where people (especially politicians) go out of their way to portray the Mosquito in a negative way, calling it a weapon and all, I can't help but wonder if they are using the Mosquito as a tool to get their name in the paper?.. --Purpleblue1 (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Mosquito can be used in a way that is entirely legal and legitimate, but they often are not. The laws I cited only apply where the device has an effect on someone elses land or in a public area. The problem is, many of them are used so as to effect public areas. Most of the testimonials are about youth gathering outside shops etc. where they have a perfect right to be. I have no problem with people protecting their property. They are in fact marketed as a way to get people to stay out of public places. Dolive21 (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Used outside of shops? Sure, but don't shops often own / lease / rent the space around them? Sometimes just a little bit of space, but sometimes large lots? Therefore, "outside" of shops is still private property.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact the device is designed to target a specific age group with an, by the designer's intent, unpleasant effect makes it's function, whatever that might be, discriminatory against that age group and thus in violation of the anti-discrimination laws which permeate the countries in which it's use is mentioned in this article. Any defense of it as legitimate or legal in any way is fallacious, and in my opinion, totally naive (at best) in a way which is inappropriate for what is supposed to be a site containing strictly legitimate information. At least TRY to be smart while writing an encyclopedia, would you, oh gracious registered users? 71.142.214.37 (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Purpleblue, if they own the land that their device affects, then that is legal, and will be until the government extends age discrimination laws to cover goods and services. If a shopping centre wants to use it, that is legal, if regrettable. But if the local branch of Londis (for Americans, 7-11) uses it to annoy people on a public street, then that is ilegal. Dolive21 (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is not. Since sound propagates outside the property (and theoretically for infinite distances) it is a nuisance in common law. You ever been kept awake by a car or burglar alarm? SimonTrew (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I may have been unclear. If it affects only their land they are not creating a nuisance statutory, private or public. If you can hear it in a public place or on your land, then it affects you, and it is a nuisance. Whether it is private, statutory or pubic depends on the circumstances.Dolive21 (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Subbing changes

I've made some changes to this article just to sub it, but have not meaningfully changed any content.

SimonTrew (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

External links - another suggestion

After a quick trawl of the Compound Securities website, I found this downloads page, which contains a collection of tests and reports produced by third parties. As it provides technical information about the product itself in a more neutral format without any claims or spiel, would you gentlemen say that this satisfies Wikipedia guidelines? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is fine, but I'm still unsure why we're being delicate about avoiding "claims or spiel" from the official manufacturer, when an article like iPhone links to a site that brazenly tries to sell the reader an iPhone. --McGeddon (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just trying to end this dispute by finding a spot of common ground, that's all As for the iPhone, it certainly does have a button to buy an iPhone plastered on each and every page, but its article also has a link to the technical data page in the same vein as I'm suggesting here. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the link. Bettia ^{it's a puppet!} 10:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

To add my two penn'orth, I think that link is fine. It's not exactly plastered at the top of the page as an ad banner, after all. SimonTrew (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable enough resolution to this dispute - thank you for your help Bettia (bring on the trumpets!)--Purpleblue1 (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Curious

Is hearing loss with age a British specialty? I'm 41 and still hear well into 22 kHz - in the mornings... hearing does worsen with time of day - fatigue, driving, telephone etc. - but even then 16 kHz is clearly audible. 90 dB in broad daylight? no thanks... NVO (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well no doubt hearing range does vary from person to person, I can't see why the British would be particularly sensitive. I can always hear a television (old CRT kind) on in the next room, I mean even if it is on Standby or Mute, as something inside it vibrates, presumably, at I think 31 kHz. (The horizontal scan I thin I would have to look up the exact figures and it varies NTSC/PAL but you get the gist). I am 36 and have always been able to-- one reason I never use standby but switch the power off.

As mentioned above, It's probably more that the British put up with more infringements on their freedom than other countries thus the market exists here more than elsewhere. I feel regardless of age if it is audible to ANYONE beyond the private property, it is quite frankly a common law nuisance. I suppose the defence/defense would be that other things like trains or traffic are equally loud, but they are not emitted constantly. Supposedly there is a form of torture where you just play the same song over and over. The song itself may not be objectionable but it drives you nuts. I see an analogy here. SimonTrew (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sidebar: The TV's CRT whine is primarily in the mid-15k region; I doubt 31k is going to bother folks as much as 15-and-a-half.

Hearing range varies widely among individuals in a population. Upper frequency limit reduction due to age isn't universal for all persons. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)