Talk:Child harness: Difference between revisions

 

Line 108: Line 108:

:::I fully agree that linking to an article on elopement would be a big step forwards. That would be very good to have. That said, one thing that those outside the disability community don’t always understand is that harnesses are not ”only” for elopement issues. For example, harnesses – especially for older children – can be used to help with issues relating to [[Sensory processing disorder|sensory processing disorder]], [[Post-traumatic stress disorder|PTSD]], or [[Anxiety disorder|anxiety disorders]]. Would, therefore, the issue of fully inclusive terminology still persist? At least to some extent? I don’t wish to be pedantic here at all, to the contrary only to have the highest quality article possible on an item which is understudied in the medical and disability communities. Thanks. [[User:Heron5110|Heron5110]] [[User:Heron5110|Heron5110]] ([[User talk:Heron5110|talk]]) 20:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

:::I fully agree that linking to an article on elopement would be a big step forwards. That would be very good to have. That said, one thing that those outside the disability community don’t always understand is that harnesses are not ”only” for elopement issues. For example, harnesses – especially for older children – can be used to help with issues relating to [[Sensory processing disorder|sensory processing disorder]], [[Post-traumatic stress disorder|PTSD]], or [[Anxiety disorder|anxiety disorders]]. Would, therefore, the issue of fully inclusive terminology still persist? At least to some extent? I don’t wish to be pedantic here at all, to the contrary only to have the highest quality article possible on an item which is understudied in the medical and disability communities. Thanks. [[User:Heron5110|Heron5110]] [[User:Heron5110|Heron5110]] ([[User talk:Heron5110|talk]]) 20:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

::::How does a harness (as distinct from compression clothing) help someone with non-elopement-related responses to SPD, PTSD, or anxiety? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

::::How does a harness (as distinct from compression clothing) help someone with non-elopement-related responses to SPD, PTSD, or anxiety? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

:::::I think in some ways, you’ve answered the question. Where SPD is concerned, the feeling of wearing a harness has been compared to that of a weighted vest or embrace which can be calming and provide a feeling of safety/security. In that regard, it has links to compression clothing but somewhat adjacent. For example, not compression socks or vests, but rather weighted blankets. Where PTSD and anxiety are concerned, the physical attachment can be an advantage regarding the provision of a sense of security and safety, while also allowing the wearer to feel some sense of independence and ability test the limits – and thereby improve their self-confidence – of that sense. This said, this is very much observed and known among OTs, PTs, etc., but understudied and underexamined in terms of study design and research.

:::::I would also say too, that such discussions of disability shouldn’t be the driver of the sources of the article. Disability is only one aspect of harness use for children of a range of ages, especially in cultures where harnesses have been a staple childcare article for decades. [[User:Heron5110|Heron5110]] ([[User talk:Heron5110|talk]]) 02:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parenting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParentingWikipedia:WikiProject ParentingTemplate:WikiProject ParentingParenting Child harness is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

We have had an email stating that the image on this page is a copyright violation. The source image has now been deleted so I can’t give a link (as I would usually do in this situation). But from the information in the email I’ve removed it as a verified copyright problem. — sannse (talk) 00:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The last paragraph of this article seems to be pretty biased. I don’t see how it’s necessary to claim that increasing acceptance is due to more “rational” thought in Britain. That doesn’t strike me as neutral. Plus, if there is going to be an external link favoring child harnesses, there ought to be one opposing them. Right? I’m new to this.

It looks like a good harness advocacy link got deleted as a result of the carnage left here by the childharness.net (200.78.105.103, 200.53.113.11, 200.78.65.24, 65.2.186.186) spamming attempts here. What we are left here with is only the negative perspective. The manufacturers website (http://smallplanetkids.com/) that was here before was a good presentation of the child harness advocacy position, and was labeled as such per item 4 of the what should be linked to. Of course, we can remove the negative link to balance things out, but the article will be poorer for that. This will also create a drive to put pro- and con- arguments into the article making it a quarrel instead of an encyclopedia article, or even worth – a one-sided exultation with little encyclopedic content as happened on
the Babywearing page.

I can hear someone saying “it is a manufacturer, therefore, it’s commercial.” Granted, every manufacturer exists to sell products or services, but are we to ban all the manufacturers from here then? Can Boeing company be trusted to present benefits of airplanes and passenger aviation? Or what about this page Mirror mount that only has manufacturers’ links? I think a distinction has to be made here between a link to somebody that sells Viagra on eBay and a legitimate manufacturer’s website with good information.

Does anyone except childharness.net visit this article? Somehow I am not too enthusiastic to engage in an editorial discussion with a persistent-spammer-turned-spam-vigilante-after-having-been-banned? Anybody? ReAlly 19:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that legitimate manufacturers’ websites could be used to illustrate a topic and/or provide a NPOV when an issue may be controversial. Zeilermom 02:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe that the external link meets any of the qualities and guidelines Wikipedia outlines for who one should externally link to (blogs). As the author of the external link, it most certainly is NOT an argument against the use of a harness. It would be interesting to know who submitted the link to Wikipedia. Even better would be to have it removed as the revelance is questionable at best.

Good point. I added a non-blog one with arguments against. It looks more appropriate in other ways too. ReAlly 20:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the source of the picture http://www.flickr.com/photos/31152685@N00/57536270/

I’m British, and noticed two things:

1. “Walking reins” is a rather uncommon phrase; most people just call them “reins” – for example, the eBay.co.uk category is called “Safety Harnesses/Reins”. You might see “baby reins”, too.

1. “the use of the child tether has increased, particularly in Great Britain” – does this mean specifically GB, or does it mean the United Kingdom? If the former, then it implies that Northern Ireland is excluded. 86.143.48.55 (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a US contributor–“child leash” is a commonly used synonym. It is not included in this article, is it worthy of mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dad of 9 kids (talk • contribs) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noticed while skimming my referrer statistics in Flickr that a photo of mine is used to illustrate this article. I am tickled to see myself although it takes away a little of my mystique (ha) as a habitual uncategorized-page categorizer. —Oddharmonic (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should leading strings be mentioned here? They appear to be a precursor. —79.65.4.188 (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walking with a small child holding its hand can cause a back pain for the parent. Some types of harness can help with that. Perhaps something that could be added as a benefit point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.125.149 (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a subtle bias in some sections that could be perceived as favoring the use of child harnesses. For example, phrases like “when used short term and in a loving manner as a teaching tool” position harnesses as beneficial without much critical analysis. This framing assumes that harnesses are inherently positive when implemented correctly. Chloeczhou (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chloeczhou, do we have sources saying that they are negative when implemented correctly?

I suspect that this is very much a cultural issue, so if they’re normal in your community, you think they’re normal, but if they’re rare in your community, you think they’re kind of weird.

If I were going to expand this article, I think I’d be less interested in the parenting opinions parts, and more interested in the special needs uses (are these considered “restraints” under various countries’ regulatory systems?) and their use while a baby is learning how to walk. It seems like it should prevent lower back pain in the parents/caregivers, especially for tall men, who have to hunch over quite a bit to hold a baby’s hands. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plasticwonder and Heron5110, it looks like you have been engaged in a slow-motion edit war over whether to describe a child who is not on the autism spectrum as “non autistic” or “neurotypical”.

The sentence is:

• “In certain circumstances, child harnesses are also recommended by professionals specializing in the health of special needs children whose supervisory requirements may be different from those of {neurotypical|nonautistic} children.”

The cited sources (of course, there could be others) are:

Both neurotypical and nonautistic are real words according to dictionaries. Which one is most appropriate for this context? For example, are child harnesses recommended for children who are neither autistic nor neurotypical? Or do we need another word entirely? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings WhatamIdoing,

I am not a expert in this area, and I am not interested in the autism section of the wiki. I support the revision by Heron (though I never knew there was a revert, the page is not on my watchlist).

Be well, Plasticwonder (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we need to re-write the whole thing. The cited sources give examples of kids with ADHD and Down syndrome. Maybe something more direct, like “children at risk of running into traffic”? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the discussion, WhatamIdoing and Plasticwonder. I don’t think there is a need to rewrite anything, except where more detail can be provided accurately with more sources. I use the term “neurotypical” as this most commonplace and also does not imply any binary. My issue with the use of “non-autistic” is that the word is not inclusive of those children who may have disabilities other than autism such as ADHD or ODD. Using “neurotypical” ensures these children are included fairly by the use of language and not by secondary implication assumed to be classified into a system whereby autism is the only reason for the use of a harness beyond typical ages. Heron5110 (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that “more detail” is the goal of an encyclopedia article, which is supposed to provide a high-level summary instead of more details.

Elopement (disambiguation) doesn’t link to an article about running off in children. If we had a good article to link to, I think that this might be inclusive:

• “In certain circumstances, child harnesses are also recommended by healthcare professionals for children at risk for elopement.”

because a child could be considered neurotypical and still at risk for running away (e.g., with PTSD). Also, should this sentence include the use of harnesses for physical problems, like being at risk of tripping or falling? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand what you’re saying. By more detail, I simply meant content that would raise it to a B grade at least – just generally better as wikipedia standards aim for.

I fully agree that linking to an article on elopement would be a big step forwards. That would be very good to have. That said, one thing that those outside the disability community don’t always understand is that harnesses are not only for elopement issues. For example, harnesses – especially for older children – can be used to help with issues relating to sensory processing disorder, PTSD, or anxiety disorders. Would, therefore, the issue of fully inclusive terminology still persist? At least to some extent? I don’t wish to be pedantic here at all, to the contrary only to have the highest quality article possible on an item which is understudied in the medical and disability communities. Thanks. Heron5110 Heron5110 (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How does a harness (as distinct from compression clothing) help someone with non-elopement-related responses to SPD, PTSD, or anxiety? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think in some ways, you’ve answered the question. Where SPD is concerned, the feeling of wearing a harness has been compared to that of a weighted vest or embrace which can be calming and provide a feeling of safety/security. In that regard, it has links to compression clothing but somewhat adjacent. For example, not compression socks or vests, but rather weighted blankets. Where PTSD and anxiety are concerned, the physical attachment can be an advantage regarding the provision of a sense of security and safety, while also allowing the wearer to feel some sense of independence and ability test the limits – and thereby improve their self-confidence – of that sense. This said, this is very much observed and known among OTs, PTs, etc., but understudied and underexamined in terms of study design and research.

I would also say too, that such discussions of disability shouldn’t be the driver of the sources of the article. Disability is only one aspect of harness use for children of a range of ages, especially in cultures where harnesses have been a staple childcare article for decades. Heron5110 (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]