Talk:The Mosquito/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about The Mosquito. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Stub

This is a stub article, how can i make it say so? It needs to be expanded. --User:MPN

Also: this is a real product. I am not making this up, therefore, i have added an external link. --User:MPN

This IS a real product, but if for some reason it doesn't belong here, you can remove it. I am not intending to break any policies. --User:MPN

Have added an article from the BBC on its use in Wales to the External Links section. --Black Butterfly 17:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Who knows how to make a user box I need an ANTI Mosqutio userbox talk or to me in my discussion TrackMonkey 21:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Have added an article from the BBC on its use in Wales to the External Links section. --Black Butterfly 17:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete tag removed

Wow this sounds pretty interesting. I removed the speedy delete tag, MPN, so you shouldn’t have to worry about it disappearing right away. I think the user added it before you listed the external link so it just looked like a joke. Right now I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion. Might go through some dissuasion if someone nominates it as an article for deletion though. I can see the product getting a lot of criticism, which is something you might want to add to the article. I fixed it up a bit. Mrtea 05:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Figured I should mention Mosquito (device) was recently deleted, cited as being a "wild hoax". Note this list of Google News articles, however. Mrtea

Thanks! MPN 03:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely not a hoax. They're being installed in Hinkley, Leicestershire, UK. You can buy them here [1] It did sound like a Deus ex machina product when I heard of it. Unfortunately it looks like they're going to become more common. Rather discriminatory to those who retain youthful features and decent young citizens I feel. I am 27 and can hear the 17.7 kHZ ringtone. There are also to be higher powered ones only available to local authorities and the police. They're not going to make young people feel better about adults, surely. And it is being seen locally in Leicestershire to only shift problems elsewhere and not addressing the root cause of young people having limited social facilities.

Liverpool Street Station, London?

I noticed an annoying high pitched sound in Liverpool Street train station when I first started commuting through it (December 2005). It's still there every morning and every evening when I go through. Had wondered if it was (i) anti-vermin or (ii) designed to discourage crowds from forming (it seems to be most noticable in the central areas). Wondering if it could be this. There was a report in this morning's Metro that Welsh schoolkids have sampled the 'Mosquito sound' and are using it in school as a ringtone which is not audible to teachers. Not sure if that's technically feasible but interesting to hear (ho ho).

Here is my question how do they know that these students started using it if teachers can't hear it TrackMonkey 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it became comericially available, regardless of if before hand it was being down it started to be done. Wolfmankurd 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Backfire?

I've found a bit about the concept backfiring:

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=14031&in_page_id=2

(Synopsis: teens use the recorded sound on cell-phones to get a cell phone signal inaudible to teachers)

I don't have a clue on how to fact-check that.

Noobs, just use something like y = 30000 sin 44100t or something. No need to record... Besides I'm sure that a simple sinusoid can't be as annoying as a compound wave DESIGNED to annoy. --Marco 17:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea

Just wanted to leave this comment to the device is question. Telling your future custumers to buzz off does not sound like a good idea to me. --81.216.186.73 11:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti

Anti "the Mosquito"

ya, who likes the box joinTrackMonkey 21:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any easier (=not so much code) to add these boxes? --Marco 21:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Marco, find that template and place it on your userpage. Contact me if you get stuck. And, TrackMonkey, I'm sorry but that box is disgusting. :P --Carbonrodney (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

NPR Coverage

There was recently coverage of this device on National Public Radio in the U.S. The inventor was interviewed along with his teen-aged daughter. He claimed that he has sold "about 1000" of these devices. I think the statement that it has only been tested at one place is out of date. --rogerd 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to find out where else the device had been tested as Howard Stapleton is from Merthyr Tydfil in Wales and the device was first tested in Newport. Bridgend comes to mind, the safety aspects have not been fully investigated. This device is similar to sonic insect repellents, it's not pleasant to think that society treats it's young people like insects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnritchie (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The "freemosquitoringtones" thing

A comment I added in the "Teen Buzz" talk page, which is relevant here too.

The MP3 versions of high pitch sounds are simply misleading. First of all, MP3 encoded with 44100 sampled per second simply cannot encode pitch higher than 22050 Hz. I triple checked the "22.4khz Tone" using GoldWave. Second thing, what you DO mostly hear in those sound files is the MP3 psychoacoustics encoding error, as MP3 encoders reduce inaudible sounds such as high-pitch sounds. I made some examinations, and even with 192kbps, high-pitch sounds are reduces and resampled. Therefore, most MP3 files cannot be used for those tests.

– Fuzzy 15:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Device Illegal?

I removed the paragraph that said that this device was illegal, as there really was not justification for this assertion, and certainly no links backing this up. However the user appears to have reinstated it. This appears to me to be purely the users POV that the device "should" be illegal, rather than it actually being illegal. Trying to make out that a law to stop torture is contravened by this device is a little naive. Anyone else care to comment? Awheewall 20:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You removed it stating that a car alarm etc with the same reasoning should be illegal but everyone can hear it however the mosquito only people in the age range of 13 - 31 approx can hear it. It does break EU/UK Human Rights Artilce 3. And if it was just down to me why are there users correcting spelling and gammar. And the inventer could the noble price for peace who f**king voted for it it is assult as i manage to get the mosquito tone at 8Mhz (everyone can hear) and it pissed off everyone in my study. the age range was 13 to 65. Out of 40 people 5 complainted of headaches.

Above paragraph was entered by Legalrights101, who didn't sign their name.

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which is what I assume you refer to states in article 3 that: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

There has been no evidence put forward, nor can I find any myself, that this device breaks that convention. Logic would dictate that if that were true then this device would be outlawed and thus not available for sale. However as you can see from the external link to the manufacturer of this device on the main page, these are freely available for sale. I am not trying to get into a tit-for-tat argument with you regarding this, I just think you should re-think your position, and realise that your section on human rights seems to be your POV. Wikipedia policy is quite clear that no part of any article should be a personal POV. If you still believe that this device is illegal and/or breaks article 3 of the previously mentioned convention, then please supply the evidence to back up your claim. I will resist editing the page this time, however if not such evidence is forthcoming then I will reinstate my edit. Also please refrain from using foul and abusive language on this or any other page, and also please sign your contributions on the talk pages. Awheewall 19:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I am from the UK and I can (just) hear the tone, although for how many more years is another matter. Whilst I appreciate your view on this matter, the fact remains that this device IS legal in the UK currently. I'm afraid that a TV programme even on the BBC doesn't constitue fact or the law. Although I did not see the programme, I would guess that it was an investigation of the device and the possible implications of it should a case be brought under the Human Rights Act, or any other suitable law. British law is based on case law, i.e. for something like this device to be outlawed, someone, like yourself maybe, would have to bring a successful case to court. Prior to this happening, no such law will exist. This is the current situation as I see it. Had you been able to give references aside from the TV programme, this may have been a different matter. So I'm sorry to say that until you or someone else tests this matter in court, it is quite wrong to claim that it does break the law or is illegal. I'm sure you can understand that Wikipedia should only contain facts that can be proved with external references. As you haven't managed to provide any, this section really should be deleted. I'll give you the opportunity to respond with evidence before I choose this course of action. And many thanks for engaging in this debate. Awheewall 20:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually British law has several sources, including case law (known as common law) as well as statute law, Community (european) law and custom ( now a very minor source). As it happens you are right about the HRA when it is used by private citizens, but when used by a public body where it affects a public place it is very dicy from a HRA perspective. It is illegal for any group if it affects a public place or someone elses private property. Whether it comes under statutory nuisance, the tort of nuisance or the crime of Public Nuisance depends on the circumstances. Dolive21 (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

URL for Human Rights Article 3 : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm Craig7006 19:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence relating to breaching Article 3 should be removed - from a legal perspective anyway a product or sound cannot possibly itself violate a law. It would be the use of it which was illegal. More to the point though, the European Convention on Human Rights does not itself provide enforceable rights as between private citizens. A teenager could not, therefore, bring a legal action against the owner of a shopping centre using this device alleging a "breach of human rights". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.228.186 (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Liberty on the mosquito device

Would add this myself but am not very confident of how to do it properly-- http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/mosquito-device.shtml this is the briefing from Human Rights group Liberty on the Mosquito device. It includes what Liberty sees as 3 potential ways the use of the device could be challenged, including 2 ECHR sections it could be challenged under. Surely the fact that the major British Human Rights and Civil Liberties group is suggesting the device could be illegal is relevant, and perhaps a good way to resolve this dispute would be to have a section entitled "possible legal issues" or suchlike, and cite this article. Would do it myself but both rushed for time and not very familiar with wikipedia conventions. --Ian

Not at all. Liberty is only expressing an opinion. Wikipedia deals in verifiable facts. Until such time as a case against the mosquito is won, it is not factual to say that it is illegal, or even that it might be illegal. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

which is why i suggested heading the section "possible legal issues". I realise that the "mosquito" has not as yet been found to be illegal. But as i said i think the fact that the largest civil liberties group in the UK is concerned about the legality of the device under human rights legislation is significant - and is a "verifiable fact" - see the weblink. 12.215.65.5 18:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Ian

That is why I added the link the article. But I am sorry, it comes under the category of "they would say that wouldn't they?". The fact that Liberty has a predictable opinion does not make their opinion fact. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of The Mosquito in a new KFC Commercial

Not sure if this is related to this specific article, but I've seen a new KFC commercial targeted at kids (it's about a kids meal or something... I'll have to see it a 3rd time to refresh my memory), however, BOTH times I saw it, about 5 seconds into the commercial this high frequency buzz kicks in right before they mention the kids meal portion. I just thought this would be relevant enough to include in this, (or another article, if there is one, concerning this noise). If it is, I'll try to grab more information to get some sources. geoff 02:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

here is one potentially credible source... http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=32243 geoff 02:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

M and S

Uses one in Blackheath, not sure how effective it is I spent 45mins with it at the source to see the effect. Noting that it only works for people who arnt intentionally loitering IE if they want to stay they will. So it is really an anti loitering deviceWolfmankurd 20:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the approximate age when people stop being able to hear this device?

It would be useful if this was included in the article. Anyone got any idea or citation? I'm curious myself as well.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

An NPR article says that it is inaudible to most 30-year-olds, and offers a short MP3 of the sound to download: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5434687 I downloaded the MP3 and was able to hear it (I'm 28). --65.6.65.184 (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I am 30 and I heard it just fine. Both .WAV (wave) versions. (mp3s mess up audio) And it made me cringe. Its worse than having your finger nails scraping a chalkboard, continuously. Even at small levels the sound still makes you cringe. I see no humane use for this, subjecting all youth to this sound intentionally should be a crime. What about non-teenagers? This is absurd, we are becoming so lazy with our kids that we need an ear wrecking sound to control them? GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO DO, REINVEST IN YOUR COMMUNITY. I heard that sound over 10 minutes ago and it still echos in my mind. Anyone who uses this thing should be ashamed of themselves, your intentionally causing harm on another human being. Its disgusting how they say its a BUZZ. ITS NOT A BUZZ, its like a female opera singer at her highest pitch she can reach, at a loud volume. Something that no human should be forced to hear.Gravitroid (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A british councillor who I discussed this devce with heard it loud and clear. He is 29, if it helps. Dolive21 (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Harmless?

Please don't say it is harmless in the lead (irritating is ok); if young people were to stay for hours next to that device with that continuous sound, it could impair their hearing. Some people complained in France after a juridic case. And noise-induced hearing loss is not proven in to very high frequency. So, in doubt, don't follow commercial points of the manufacturer. But retain a critical view. So, please remove the adjective. — STAR TREK Man^{[Space, the final frontier...]} 10:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current sources are taking the manufacturer's claims at face value, but they're all we've got at the moment. Do you have a specific source for "some people complained in France", or anyone specifically complaining about the hearing loss issues of this technology? --McGeddon (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to take manufacturer claims in a lead of an encyclopedia? Sorry, I don't have the time to develop for now but plz take a look at fr: with a translator. — STAR TREK Man^{[Space, the final frontier...]} 11:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's looking a lot better. We should be careful to avoid synthesis of studies that don't actually refer or relate to the Mosquito device, though, particularly the ultrasound aspects - "the use of ultrasound for non-medical purposes is discouraged" seems, to me, like an irrelevant and out-of-context quote, as the source is specifically talking only about ultrasound imaging (which uses a much higher frequency). --McGeddon (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

McGeddon - this was definitely a good call on your part to add the unpublished synthesis flag - I think this article definitely needs it - well done. --Purpleblue1

Unless anyone has any objections, I'll proceed to delete the "ultrasound for sonography" sections of "Health effects", as per WP:SYN. --McGeddon (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to delete that section as well, since the reference doesn't have anything to do with the Mosquito --Purpleblue1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

There are a number of unsourced claims within the text of this article which I am going to remove. These include:

'harmless' - This is a only a claim by the manufacturer. Maybe a more detailed section could include medical studies and a link to Noise-induced hearing loss.
Popular - It might be popular with some people; its certainly very unpopular with others.
Irritating - is highly subjective. Some people might find it so, but its not a sourced fact only a claim by the manufacturer.

Legal - While the Home Office say it is "not banned", others contest that is illegal. This has not been tested by any court.

akaDruid (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

harmless - I agree. This wikilink should be added this way.

irritating - This one I do not agree with you. Several teen testimonials said the device was irritating (comparing its sound like a "schalk screeching on the blackboard") to the point of leaving the area. — STAR TREK Man^{[Space, the final frontier...]} 13:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

harmless - about the suggestion of adding a link to noise-induced hearing loss - I don't think it's a good idea because if the studies don't talk about the Mosquito specifically, this will be unpublished synthesis. If you can provide a reference that specifically talks about the Mosquito and the noise-induced hearing loss, then great. Otherwise, the link should be left out.

irritating - I agree with STAR TREK Man 18:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC) -- User: Purpleblue1

If we have a source for the testimonials, then we could put "teens have said it is irritating"; but equally other articles have quoted teens saying they can hear it but it doesn't bother them. akaDruid (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Kent Ban

I moved the reference to the Mosquito ban in Kent to the "Legal Status in the UK" and clarified this reference. The ban only applies to the Kent council-owned buildings, and not any other property in Kent. The way the reference to the ban was written previously was misleading, implying that the Mosquito was banned from Kent entirely, which is not true. Purpleblue1 (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)--Purpleblue1 (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

BAuA Report

I am assuming good faith and choosing to believe that someone misread the source when they changed the article intro to indicate that the BAuA report agreed that the device was harmless. If someone can read German better than me and a come up with a better summary than "We reviewed this device in an attempt to certify it as safe, but it failed" then feel free to include it.

here's the google translation

I was the one who changed this reference and it was intentional. You are misquoting the source. Looking at your earlier revisions, I cann see that you are obviously biased against the Mosquito (and perhaps misinformed) and you are letting this bias interfere with your editing. This source is *not* saying that the device is unsafe. The source is saying that the device is not "completely safe", especially with long-term use (which could be hours, days, weeks, months or even years of exposure, since the source does not specify what "long time" they are referring to) for which the device is not intended. The purpose of the Mosquito is not to have it on 27/7, but only when problems occur, especially after hours. Small children and infants don't loiter on public property when it's dark, so they wouldn't be affected. Why do people keep missing this point that the Mosquito is not on 24/7 for everyone to hear at every street corner?

The article you are referencing does contain agreement that the Mosquito is safe: "The risk for the target group of the young people and young adults is relatively small. They can depart from the acoustic irradiation range, if they hear the unpleasant tone." Because the article contains this agreement, you cannot make the claim that this German Ministry disagrees that the Mosquito is harmless. As for the title of the article, all is says is "Use of ultrasonic deterrents not completely without hesitation". If you can't read German well (like you are suggesting in your posting above), please don't misinterpret the references.

As far as the changes I made this time, I took out the sentence from the introduction that mentions this completely. There is a Health Effects section with more details about this, and having the same information in two different places is redundant and unnecessary.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Let's not get into edit histories - yours contains only your view on this subject - but assume good faith.

I'm glad you can read German, thank you for your translation. Would you say these conveys the tone of the whole report? It seems a minor sentence to me. The majority of the report, including the title, appears (from the Google translation) to say the opposite. This appears to be a standards body; the device appears to have failed to meet the standard - is this correct?

The opinions on the actual use of the device or targets groups I don't feel can be included - we have no verifiable data on actual usage and must be very wary of accepting a manufacturers claims at face value.

I think that the introduction currently does not convey any sense of the notability of the device, and contains some very dubious and unsourced details. Some also give the impression of being added only to defend the manufacture or use of the device, rather than expand the information given by the article.

Having said all that, you may be right about my having a bias which affects my editing. So I haven't made any more edits, and I hope that other editors can help improve the article. akaDruid (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This was a very honorable response you posted akaDruid!--Purpleblue1 (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Noise Laws

I have deleted the entire section about Noise Laws since none of the references on which this section was based even mention the Mosquito. Unless someone can locate a credible source that discusses the Mosquito and noise laws in the same publication, this section should not be here.

Also, a reference to environmental laws was deleted because again, the source credited does not talk about the Mosquito.--70.71.6.84 (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should explain why I added this bit. I added it because the page did not cover some of the legal points, and as a law student I was able to fix that. The sources do not mention the Mosquito because they are general sources on the law. This is what you have to do when there is no case law on a point. Luckily these were quite simple points and it is easy to tell what a court would rule. Dolive21 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would be a big mistake to try and predict what a court would rule before a case even goes to court! Wikipedia should be about facts, not predictions or opinions. I agree with the first poster in this section that if a source doesn't mention the Mosquito, then the source shouldn't be quoted and/or included. I think that's one of the main principles of Wikipedia editing. Otherwise, people can to go the extreme and add all sorts of irrelevant information that does not discuss the Mosquito at all. To give an example, why not include a bunch of information about gravity, implying that if a Mosquito device falls on someone's head, it will hurt? Like I said, I agree with the first poster that if sources do not talk about the Mosquito, they are irrelevant.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I must respectfuly disagree with PurpleBlue above. The law is actually fairly clear on this point. If a car cannot have number plates fitted to it, a reference to the Construction and Use Regulations to show that number plates are legally required in the UK would be allowed, even though the relevant law does not mention that specific car. In this case the law is quite clear, and it is perfactly possible for lay people to understand it. In any case the Noise Act applies criminal penalties, and is therefore required to be able to be interpreted with reasonable certainty in advance of a judgement. I have explained this point in more detail in a discussion on my talk page and the talkpage of the first poster. Dolive21 (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

==========

Hi Dolive21 (talk),

I now must respectfully disagree with you - sometimes it's not the actual law, but common law (or case law) that matters. In other words, the law may say that something is illegal, but the courts may not necessarily enforce that law, and at some point, there becomes enough precedence in court that the law cannot be enforced (at least that's the way it works in North America). But regardless, it is still against the Wikipedia editing rules to be adding irrelevant sources and information to articles, as in if the source does not talk about the subject of the article, then the source and the information it contains is irrelevant. If you can find credible sources about noise laws that talk about the Mosquito, then that's relevant. Otherwise, this information should be left out.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, we have a concept called parliamentary supremacy, which means parliament can make any law they want. The product of having an organic democracy, as opposed to one produced by a revolution. In the US, the powers of the legislature are defined and restricted by a written constitution. Judges do sometimes try and avoid applying laws, but only where they are ambigious and the laws are controversial because of their effect on fundamental liberties. JP's and judges are not going to threaten the basis of our constitutional settlement over statutory noise nuisance. If we are discussing the original 'Noise laws' section, it just cited the acts and said that the position was dubious. The cited laws support the statements that the position is dubious and that the EPA 1990 is based on the effect of the noise, not the volume. Dolive21 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Dolive21 (talk),

When I said "North America", I didn't just mean the US, but also Canada. But regardless of how legal systems work in different countries, how about we do this: if you think the readers of the Mosquito page might be interested in information about noise laws, why don't you make a contribution to the page about noise laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_regulation) and then we can link from the Mosquito page to the Noise Regulation page. This way, we are not cluttering up the Mosquito page with information and references that don't actually discuss the Mosquito, but giving readers the opportunity to learn more about noise laws if they want. I think this would be a reasonable way to resolve this dispute - what do you think?--Purpleblue1 (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The Mosquito*EXTRA

The musquito is also installed in Belgium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.239.175.26 (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I updated the page again as the mosquitoimporters.com have pulled the shopping cart from the site and are no longer selling the device direct. Mosquitogroup is also no longer the exclusive reseller, so please don't just revert the change. Please look at the site first. It has new information as well as new products the mosquito's manufacturer is bringing to the states, stuff not available from mosquitogroup. I will also update the intro article and do my best to keep it neutral. The new unit doesn't just target the teenagers, but can be set to all ages. This will greatly affect the push by some to ban it. Mosquitogroup is no longer the exclusive distributor. As of last week, exclusivity was taken away by Mr Stapleton. Feel free to contact Compound Security to verify. www.mosquitoimporters.com is now an authorized distributor as well, and they are cutting the cost of the unit by almost half. Because of this I have included the Mosquito Importers website. I will also try and update other sections to gain more accuracy on the new model of the device, released last month or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickthat (talk • contribs) 16:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added the link to www.mosquitogroup.com again to the External Links section. I realize that this section is often spammed with commercial links, but I think this link is important because this site, being the only official North American distributor of the Mosquito, offers useful information that is specific to North America. For example, North American newspaper articles.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone removed the links to Mosquito Group and Online Audibility Test again - so I put them back in. I do not believe these links should be treated as spam because they both offer valuable information about the Mosquito that is not necessarily available anywhere else on the Internet.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The links to Audiocheck are obciously commercial links and should not be allowed. They offer no usable information. I am removing it. The mosquitogroup.com link has the same information available at compound security, the actual inventor of the device, again it should be removed. 76.109.66.71 (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response!

Actually, the Mosquito Group offers lots of information that is not on the inventor's website. In fact, I think the invetor's site has done a poor job about offering information about the Mosquito for North America, which is why I added the Mosquito Group link in the first place. There is a number of videos and articles from the North American media that are not available on the inventor's site you are referring to. There is also feedback from North American users of the Mosquito (including pictures) which is again, not available on the other site. Also frequently asked questions that are not available on the other site. This is just to name a few examples. So to summarize, some information is similar (after all, this is the same product), but lots of information is unique. And because the Mosquito is relevant in North America, I think it's important to have North American sources and external links.

As for the Audiocheck link - what commercial links are you referring to? Are you talking about the Google ads? Well, many sites have Google ads in order to support themselves to stay online, but they still offer interesting and valuable content. If this site offered nothing but Google ads, then I see your point. But the page offers an online test for people to see if they can hear the Mosquito. Personally, I think that's interesting, relevant and educational. Also, the page offers some other information about the Mosquito, although brief.

To summarize, I appreciate your feedback and I thank you for finally responding to my contact attempts, as opposed to continuing to engage in an edit war, however, I am not convinced after reading your comments that the two external links in question are irrelevant and should be removed. Therefore, I intend to continue adding them, should they be removed again.

Please note that I am open to a Wikipedia dispute resolution process on this.

Thank you.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the commercial links per WP:EL. The argument about those sites offering information that is not elsewhere doesn't hold water. Bring the information here if it's so valuable! Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If I bring the information here, and some of it references information from the site, can I reference the site in the site reference to data I get from the site? The Mosquito importers site makes no reference to selling the device and is just designed as an informational site about the device. The Mosquitogroup site has a direct reference to purchasing via the phone number listed. The mosquitoimporters site will only reference dealers and installers in North America where the device can be purchased and a contact form to sign up as a reseller.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickthat (talk • contribs) 01:29, 19 February 2009

The commercial links can be used as references for statements like "the commercial distributor makes the claim of blah blah blah." Otherwise, the distributor can hardly be trusted to present all the facts with a neutral point of view. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just deleted the link again, which was added with the explanation "please see discussion for reasons". Please stop linking this commercial site, Purpleblue - WP:LINKSTOAVOID clearly discourages the external linking of "web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". --McGeddon (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

McGeddon - I was just writing my reasons here for why I added the link again - but my computer crashed before I was able to save my comments! You are too quick for deleting this link without hearing what the arguments in support of it are! I am not trying to push any link, I simply think this link is relevant to North America. I will now post this message - before my computer crashes again - and then re-write what I had to say earlier.

--Purpleblue1 (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So, to re-write what I wrote before my computer crashed, here's what I have to say:

Most web sites these days have a commercial component, be it Google AdWords or solicitation of product sales by posting phone numbers. They do that to support themselves and stay online. However, just because a web site has a commercial component doesn't mean that there is no other unique or useful content that is offered and can be referenced through Wikipedia.

The reason I added the link back to mosquitogroup.com was because this site contains unique information relative to North America that can't be added to this Wikipedia page - specifically, video clips of North American TV coverage. As someone who lives in North America, I think it is interesting and relevant to see North American press coverage of the product. In fact, if a comparison is made between two web sites - the UK compoundsecurity and the North American web site mosquitogroup, then it will become clear that mosquitogroup is actually offering more information, such as video clips, press coverage and other articles, then the UK site! And yet, no one seems to be taking an issue with listing the UK site in the external links, but listing a North American site with more info seems to be a problem.

The UK site is also featuring a shopping cart - so their web site has been clearly set up for one purpose and one purpose only - to promote and sell the product. So any arguments that apply to mosquitogroup.com as far as this web site being commercial, should also equally apply to the manufacturer's site out of UK!

As for the claim that a distributor's site can't be neutral, again the same argument can be made about the UK site.

So, in my opinion, either both mosquitogroup and compoundsecurity web sites need to be deleted from the external links section, or the mosquitogroup link should be added back because it actually offers unique, interesting and relevant content that can't be incorporated into this Wikipedia page due to format or copyright issues.

So again, I propose the reinstatement of the mosquitogroup web site link unless someone has an objection.

--Purpleblue1 (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

compoundsecurity.co.uk are, so far as I'm aware, the actual, original manufacturer of the product - this article is about their main product, so their site is very relevant here. The site links to a large list of their international suppliers - we do not need to repeat all of those URLs in this article, even if they would provide the "unique resource" of Mexican or German TV clips.

In fact, "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers." is actually specifically listed in WP:LINKSTOAVOID, which is all we need to know here. We don't need to link to anything more than the original manufacturer of the subject of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What's important is to link to sites that offer value added to Wikipedia readers, regardless of whether these sites belong to manufacturers, distributors, customers or other parties. Just because a company was the first to make or sell a product some years ago does not guarantee them a spot in the Wikipedia external links. Quality standards must be observed.

If a web site offers unique content with Mexican TV clips, they should be listed in the Mexican Wikipedia.

If a web site offers unique content with German TV clips, they should be listed in the German Wikipedia.

And 2 does not make "lists of links" (as in a link to the manufacturer and distributor, making a total of 2 links). And I have never suggested listing all web sites that distribute the Mosquito in external links - this is a gross misrepresentation of what my position has been as a Wikipedia editor on this issue. I have only suggested one web site for very specific reasons.

--Purpleblue1 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The company has numerous distributors in English-speaking countries; it's inappropriate to only link to your preferred distributor, to avoid this counting as a "list". As Binksternet says, if any of the information on the American retailer site is of encyclopaedic interest, bring it into the article and source it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all information can be brought to Wikipedia due to copyright or format issues. Videos, for example, cannot be incorporated in the article. And including entire transcripts of videos, even if available, is not practical.

I would appreciate it if you could please stop making references to my editing such as "preferred distributor" - I do not have "preferred" distributors. I am merely standing up for my edits, and I don't appreciate any references to COI because I have a different opinion than yours. This kind of goes against the "assume good faith" policy, don't you think? --Purpleblue1 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect comment

I just noticed that somehow my username was added to the comment above:

If I bring the information here, and some of it references information from the site, can I reference the site in the site reference to data I get from the site? The Mosquito importers site makes no reference to selling the device and is just designed as an informational site about the device. The Mosquitogroup site has a direct reference to purchasing via the phone number listed. The mosquitoimporters site will only reference dealers and installers in North America where the device can be purchased and a contact form to sign up as a reseller.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpleblue1 (talk • contribs)

For the record, I did not make this comment. --Purpleblue1 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake; from the tone and context of it I assumed it was you continuing your conversation, but I see now that it was actually from the account of User:Trickthat. I've corrected it. --McGeddon (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

mosquitoimporters.com

Sorry, I'm still learning about editing and may have messed things up. Can you all please look at the MosquitoImporters.com site. It is the only one that does not talk about selling the product directly from the site and has video content that can't be replicated here. It does have links to places to buy the product, but it is just there to give information. They are an importer to the US and not a direct reseller from what I can see. I took information from it to fill out the upper sections of the article, but someone wiped these as well. I would love to add more information to this article, but i am getting sick of people wiping it out. Any suggestions greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickthat (talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I deleted your link to mosquitoimporters because this site appears to be in existence for the only purpose of selling the product and does not offer much helpful or unique information. The reason I am saying that this web site is a commercial site is because this web site is listed on the compound security web site as a reseller and the "about us" page states that the company searches for products world-wide, obviously to sell, and is soliciting resellers of those products. Even if there is no direct selling to consumers going on the web site, there are other clear signs that the site is commercial. Also judging by the URL itself - mosquitoIMPORTERS - suggests that the web site is in a business related to the mosquito product, and not just been set up for reference. And there is very little other unique information available on the site that would provide value-added to Wikipedia readers.

Also, please remember to sign your posts on this discussion page. The easiest way to do so is by clicking a button in the editing bar, 10th from the left.--Purpleblue1 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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?".