Jump to content

Talk:Bindeez

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recall site down

[edit]

Added link to CPSC recall notice. According to the CPSC announcement, there's a web site for the recall at [1]. But it's currently not working properly, so I didn't link to it. Should be added to the article when it comes up. --John Nagle 16:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll lay you odds that is not an official site in any capacity for the recall. Just look at the WHOIS (domain name registration) for it, namely the "Spin Direct". - Ageekgal 16:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"aquadotsrecall.com" is from the CPSC recall notice. "Spin Master" is the Canadian distributor for the toy. The site is up, but overloaded right now. --John Nagle 17:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Seizure" is an drug hysteria exageration for this class of drugs (BD, GHB GBL). "Tremor" would be more appropiate as this particular side effect is not that serious in of itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.142.78 (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same for "left in near-comatose state", which appears to be scary wording for "fell asleep". A coma implies permanence, but GHB only causes temporary unconsciousness. Jpatokal 06:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we attribute who says it, we don't have to be playing doctor. --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. See CNN coverage [2] for more details. Five children known to have been hospitalized; 3 in AU, 2 in US. --John Nagle 08:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where produced?

[edit]

In which country are these produced? Badagnani 07:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China --Stephen 08:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we determine if the substitution of the cheaper (and more dangerous) chemical for the more expensive (and safer one) was a similar process as that which caused the Chinese toothpaste manufacturers to select diethylene glycol for their products? Or is that obvious? Badagnani 17:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty obvious, but we should attribute any speculation or findings. --Dhartung | Talk 02:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) said the toys, products of Australia-based Moose Enterprises, were manufactured by the Wangqi Product Factory in China's southern city of Shenzhen. China froze exports of the "Aqua Dots" on Friday and the AQSIQ said on Saturday it had also suspended the toy maker's export licence."[3] --John Nagle 20:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relative costs of the two chemicals have been given in reputable news sources, but I don't know if the connection to the toothpaste substitution case was made in any of them. Badagnani 02:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive press coverage

[edit]

Heavy press coverage. CNN, Reuters, Sidney Morning Herald, The Age, Washington Post. Government bans on the product in Victoria and New South Wales. At least six children hospitalized in Australia. Unofficial recall in Canada. [4] Recall in Spain. [5] Safety alert in Ireland [6]

Spin control for the manufacturer is being managed by Royce Communication.[7] --John Nagle 08:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even heavier press coverage today. Google News counts 1550 stories. Stories in the New York Daily News, The Wall Street Journal[8], The Guardian [9], Bloomberg [10], and just about every outlet that prints wire service stories. --John Nagle 17:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still more press coverage. Over 2000 stories in Google News. On front page of Wikipedia and Google News. More recalls (Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Spain). --John Nagle 01:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquabeads

[edit]

I've added a note about 'aquabeads' - a similar product. However I've read in at least one news story that aquabeads is just another name for the same product. For the time being I'm assuming the reference I've given is correct. Nick Connolly 21:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Present tense

[edit]

I reverted a change to past tense. At this time I am unaware of any formal discontinuation of the product. Being recalled is not the same thing. If the company does announce that it will no longer be manufactured we can go back to past tense, but personally I prefer "is a discontinued product" to "was a product". --Dhartung | Talk 03:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been suspended only. The Australian producer is offering replacement beads in 3 months. --Stephen 05:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Was a product" is premature. Give it a few days. --John Nagle 05:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been reformulated with a bitter chemical coating to discourage consumption (this is stated in the article now). Badagnani 05:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon to say if it's gone, too soon to say it will be back. Since there's no way to visually distinguish good beads from bad beads, just replacing the beads may not be sufficient to satisfy regulatory authorities, retailers, or consumers. Suggest the article not commit either way. --John Nagle 06:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Does the name have anything to do with Bindi (decoration)? It seems likely. Badagnani 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not impossible but given that this is an Australian name its probably related to the Australian girls name 'Bindi' (eg Bindi Irwin ) and a mix of 'bind' & 'easy' Nick Connolly 05:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Very good thinking. By the way, any idea of the derivation/etymology of the Australian name? Badagnani 05:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Bindi Irwin article it's an Australian Aboriginal word that means little girl, according to her father; although it's an unreferenced claim. I'd go with Bindis after the Indian dots, but of course it's all original research! --Stephen 06:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Living in Australia, the only Bindi I've ever heard of besides Irwin is Soliva sessilis. FiggyBee 05:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page, In the News

[edit]

Expect to see some increased action as I put this on the main page, given it's international scope --Stephen 01:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is all a big mess of sinophobic sentiments quick to resurface after the Chinese lead toys case. And which is all very stupid, considering the fact that if the toys are played properly there would be completely no adverse effect. You can't blame the toy manufacturer for being poisoned by some sort of chemical in it as much as you can't blame the toy manufacturer if you choke on the beads. This is not protecting the children, this is idiocy. Read what happened: "... a two-year-old boy and a 10-year-old girl became seriously ill after they swallowed large numbers of the beads". The toy is labelled 4 or above, so the 2 year old kid shouldn't have been allowed to play at all; and the girl deserve to die if she's still swallowing toys at the age of 10. And most of all: The reason the case received such coverage and attention is because it's supposedly "made in China" - the problem is, the toy wasn't even manufactured by a Chinese company, but rather by an Australian company. It's simply manufactured in China, like every other toy in the world. Aran|heru|nar 04:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm appalled that you would say a child of any age, or anyone, "deserved to die". And any edits to that effect, or statements of their "stupidity", are in violation of NPOV, not to mention patently offensive. If sinophobic edits show up, of course, by all means remove those, as they are also against NPOV. But please, let's stick to the facts and have a little compassion and sense in our editing? Flewellyn 04:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid conscience has nothing to do with NPOV. NPOV is the representation of all points of view, not no point of view, so I don't see how adding a description in ANY way could be a violation of NPOV. That said, this still has nothing to do with NPOV as it is a fact. When a person is stupid, he IS stupid, and this is not a violation of NPOV, but it MAY be false.
Let's leave compassion and sense aside for the moment. Again, let's examine the case of the Australian kids: Out of the few million parents who possess the toys, one particular couple out of all of them decided to let their child play the toy when the toy is clearly labelled "4 or above", and thus not suitable, and thus risking their own dear child's life. Clever decision? I don't think so. And out of the few million children who possess the toys, one particular girl, nearly in her teens, decided to eat it. Clever? I don't think so.
It should be made clear that it's not the manufacturers' fault that these kids out of the so many million simply decided to eat their toys. The toys are not for eating. They ate it. And they're stupid. That's a fact. It's not POV, as much as calling a monkey less intelligent than a man is not POV. Aran|heru|nar 04:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Community consensus would not side with you on this one. I've seen it before. Generally, using pejorative words such as "stupid" and "foolish" in an article is deemed a violation of NPOV. That you feel it should be made clear that the manufacturers are not to blame is a POV, and again, one that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Flewellyn 05:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"NPOV is the representation of all points of view"? Er, no, it really isn't. NPOV is the representation of a NEUTRAL point of view, which means editors must NOT put their own value judgements into articles. By all means, if <significant figure> said in <notable publication> that 10-year-olds who get poisoned by toys deserve to die, then that can be put in the article. But keep your own opinions to yourself. FiggyBee 05:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral point of view is the representation of all points of view as a rule. Of course, that excludes non-notable views, which I did not mention in my last comment and thus I apologize for the misunderstanding. Still, this is irrelevant to the discussion in question. I merely cited the definition to bring out that this discussion has nothing to do with POV or NPOV, and I do not intend to put my own point of view or judgement into the article. Aran|heru|nar 07:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<> ingested the beads

[edit]

Discuss. Aran|heru|nar 04:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your dedication to editing Wikipedia articles, but calling children who ingested beads "foolish" does not conform to a neutral point of view. Timhoooey 04:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we have more than just User:Aranherunar inserting such POV edits. I'm tempted to ask an admin to semi-protect.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flewellyn (talk • contribs)
If such edits persist then I agree, but let's give him a few minutes to respond to the talk comments before doing so. Timhoooey 04:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection are for IP vandals and vandals only when the article is on the main page. And I'm not a vandal. Drop it. Aran|heru|nar 04:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:3RR. Thanks. Aran|heru|nar 04:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this page out. It states that reverting edits that are "clearly libelous material" is not a violation of the 3 revert rule. Timhoooey 05:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Clearly libelous material" refers to vandalism or personal attacks against a particular user or person (or more serious edits like revealing personal information). Calling some children "foolish" is not either, it's a dispute. As I have stated my rationale in the talk page, discussion should always be made before a revert, as there is no reason for another user to revert you again once provoked. Anyway, you did not violate the 3RR yet, I'm just reminding you. Aran|heru|nar 05:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale does not hold up, however. I say again, using pejorative words as you have done is a clear violation of NPOV. Continue to do so in your edits, and we may be forced to involve an admin. Flewellyn 05:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what the word adds, other than an odd commentary that IMHO is out of place in the article. We're talking about children, not teenagers who are ingesting it on a dare or to try to get a high. I've not seen the product in person but it seems to me it looks vaguely enough like some candies that it's not wholly unreasonable to assume a child would ingest a handful or whatnot. "Foolish" is out of place here. - Ageekgal 05:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the kids, foolish or otherwise, have been eating the beads for some time I would imagine. It's only when the manufacturer substituted a cheaper, toxic chemical that there's been a problem --Stephen 06:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. True, if the manufacturers did not substitute a cheaper, toxic chemical, they would not have been poisoned. But then you can use the same argument any other way: if the children did not eat the beads, they would not have been poisoned either. Aran|heru|nar 07:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let it go. Community consensus disagrees with your (rather volatile) viewpoint on the issue. By and large, a toy that children will play with should be safe to be gnawed upon, licked, chewed, spat out, swallowed, etc. C'mon, you must have eaten dirt like the rest of us at some point when you were a child. Or were you carefully setting aside potentially harmful items at the age of 4? Some common sense is called for, here. You sound like you're a stockholder angry that the company's having to address this issue. Not all product recalls involve proper use of the product, but rather likely potential uses that are deemed to be harmful. But again, a kid toy that kids might eat? Gawsh, that's not a big mental leap. If it fits in their mouth, some are going to eat it. Play Doh, Silly Putty, craft paste, white glue, etc. none are particularly appetizing (so I hear...lol) but none are going TO KILL YOU, like this product in its present, pre-recall formulation, will. - Ageekgal 07:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had put a comment on your talk page before I saw this; anyway, I'm afraid a lot of toys do kill people every year - they're listed at the article linked at the bottom, and as far as I'm concerned, this toy has not killed anyone yet. If four million toys are sold in U.S. alone and only two isolated incidents are reported, I don't really think it's such a big problem with the manufacturers, but rather with the two people who are, frankly, foolish enough to eat it. True, if it fits in their mouth, some are going to put it in their mouth - but most of them aren't probably going to "[swallow] large numbers of the beads", which could probably choke them even if it doesn't kill them. The fault really lies in the children, and that's the point I'm trying to make.Aran|heru|nar 08:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, fault lies with parents at the ages of kids we're talking about. I have a toddler. I have nieces and nephews under 10. Kids do things, it doesn't make them foolish... it's how our species learns. Accidentally is the world I would go for....kids accidentally ingest these and become ill, or more specifically, parents accidentally permit their kids to injest these. I still don't think "foolish" fits here. A child that runs after a ball into the street and gets hit isn't "foolish", they're a child and they acted on impulse. "Foolish" would be a child sitting in the street, where certain danger awaits. These beads didn't use to be dangerous (new formulation), there was no way to know they were now dangerous, so the implied threat/danger that these kids are supposed to be aware of is non-existent. Like the kid dashing out in the road, they're just acting on impulse--"Hmm, I wonder what these taste like." rather than, like the kid sitting in the middle of the road, foolishly waiting for harm to befall them. - Ageekgal 08:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify your statement "These beads didn't use to be dangerous (new formulation)"? What you claim is not made clear in the article. Badagnani 08:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am misreading the text, but my statement's taken direct from the second-to-last paragraph in the article: "The toy was supposed to contain the non-toxic chemical 1,5-pentanediol (a viscous oily liquid used as plasticiser), but instead contained 1,4-butanediol, which is metabolised into the drug gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid (GHB, an anesthetic that has been associated with date rape). At the time the substitution was discovered, the non-toxic ingredient was three to seven times more expensive than the chemical used. The fact they say "substitution was discovered" led me to believe (wrongly?) that originally the product was produced with non-toxic chemical and that formulation was switched to save money. - Ageekgal 08:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought this toy was just introduced a few months ago, which would make your theory unlikely. Badagnani 08:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cited news states that "ingredients were switched at the point of manufacture without Moose's knowledge." Aran|heru|nar 08:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We know that; the question is, was the product manufactured with the non-toxic chemical for any period before the substitution took place? Badagnani 08:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) What I heard in New Zealand was that the substition was made, without the parent Australian company being aware and they are still investing how/why it occured. It may very well be cost, it may be something else. Since we have a source mentioning the price difference in connection with this it's probably acceptable to mention it in the article (it would be OR to mention a price difference if it wasn't linked in the reference. What is clear is that this substance is considered inappropriate for toys for kids in a number of countries and even the manufacturer agrees. Whether or not the kids and parents are foolish is somewhat irrelevant and in any case definitely shouldn't be mentioned without a source. (Somewhat ironically everyone is making a fuss about it being sythesised to GBH but from reading the 1,4-b article, the pro-drug it self is much more of a worry then the fact it's synthesised to GBH) Nil Einne 08:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wtf kind of idiot kids eat stuff that's supposd to adhere together when you get it wet? Surely even without the toxic chemical they'd bind together in your stomach and block it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adults put far worse things into their bodies intentionally. Good luck when you have children! - Ageekgal 03:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When introduced?

[edit]

What month and year was this product introduced? Badagnani 08:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bindeez is/are?

[edit]

It seems like Bindeez is probably a plural (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm from UK), but two mentions of the product follow it with the singular "is", including the first line. Then further down it is given the plural "are - which is right? Thanks 129.67.125.194 12:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a packet "Moose's Bindeez are magic beads that you use to create colourful and fun designs." The problem is that "Bindeez" sounds plural but for fun it has a 'z' on the end instead of a regular plural 's'. Moose's literature doesn't ever seem to use a singular of Bindeez (eg Bindee) but refers to an individual "bead". To further complicate matters "Bindeez" refers to the range of products as well as the beads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Connolly (talk • contribs) 18:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Treat as cattle. No singular of that either. Bindeez is clearly a plural term, the absence of a singular does not qualify use of "is"--ZayZayEM 01:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Cattle don't stick together when you spray them with water ;) --Stephen 03:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you ingest large amounts of cattle do you go into a coma or just get fat?Nick Connolly 04:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I Explain Something?

[edit]

The key phrase in the article -- and entire discussion -- is "spin control." Now I'm talking about how we, as editors at Wikipedia, understand and use material put out by regulatory agencies, company officials, newscasters, journalists, and TV stations.

It is far easier as a technique of spin control for regulators and company officials to say or imply that the criminal Chinese put poisons in children's toys than to say "We, at Company X or Regulatory Agency Y, never checked the toxicology of these toys." It is far easier, as a matter of spin control, to make it easy for consumers to remember (dimly) that the criminal Chinese poisoners put other poisons in other products rather than to say "Well, we never asked the factory what they were using."

If someone gets on my case about NPOV, I am NOT talking about what this Wiki articie says. I am discussing how WE as editors understand what we hear and read on the media. And that understanding is, so far, naive. Spin control means distracting the public from blaming you. It is OUR responsibility, as editors and readers, to ask additional questions, which, I admit, the spin doctors do NOT want us to ask, but that we must ask. Like, how come the company never did any toxicology on the product?

Some of you may say "Good grief, doing toxicology on toys is like SO stupid!" But it isn't. The manufacturer is responsible, morally and probably legally, for doing toxicological tests on their products, even if someone out here thinks that it's stupid and unnecessary. And these Bindeez toys are a perfect example of why.

If you don't believe me, let's say my company manufactures and sells chocolate cookies. Well, turns out that some kids ate our cookies and got horribly sick, convulsions, coma, near death, whatever = horribly sick. And I, as company president, explain, "We are deeply regretful that these children were made sick -- we think cookies should be enjoyed! But when we investigated, it turned out that OUR SUPPLIER used POISONOUS flavors! This disgraceful indifference to children must never be repeated!! We are now using a different supplier of flavors!!!"

That is called "finger-pointing" and "spin control." It means blaming the other guy when it's actually your own fault.

And it is our responsibility on Wiki to know how to report facts objectively and to ask the right questions. In this case, how come the company didn't check? If you don't, then you have bought the company's spin control hook, line, and sinker. That's what they want you to do. So, now, everybody knows that Wikipedia, the great encyclopedia of the Internet, has blamed the Chinese for putting poisons in our toys -- and the manufacturer has been taken out of the lime-light. That is spin control, and it worked very well on the editors who wrote this article.

I should add another point, to forestall someone saying "I don't understand your point. Are you telling us that we have to be muckrakers? That's NPOV! That's -- " Enough. I'm telling you to THINK before you believe spin doctors and spin control techniques. THINK.

Timothy Perper 16:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all the details of this story, but did the Austrailian company order the product with the cheaper toxic chemical, or with the non-toxic one? Whoeever made the decision to use that chemical is the one to blame. Was it irresponsible to distribute the product without testing it? Yes, but the fact is the Chinese company put poison in the toys, instead of a perfectly safe chemical in order to save money. Why didn't the Chinese company test it? You make it sound like they aren't culpable at all, when at best they are equally as responsible.
To use your cookies example, lets say you ordered almond flavoring and I send you cyanide. We've never had any problems in our dealings before so you send some cookies out without testing them. Who is more responsible, you for shipping them, or me for giving you a dangerous chemical disguised as safe?Mad031683 17:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-contractor didn't test it because it wasn't part of the contract. I agree with Timothy Perper to the extent that any focus on the Chinese sub-contractor is a huge red-herring. The children do not care where the toy was assembled. The parents do not care about the contractual details between the retailer, the wholesaler, the distributor, the designers and the manufacturers or any other third party. Why, then, should anyone else care ... unless you are looking to shift the blame?
I will disagree with Perper though, in that wikipedia editors are bound by incomplete restrictions on citation and analysis: none of us are allowed to conduct the so-called 'original research', 'ask questions' and such. As with many top-of-the-news items, the only sources are going to be spin-doctors and the obsequious toadies called journalists. It will take some time before real analysis appears on this subject, and until then, a huge number of mistakes will be made before our eyes. Does Wikipedia need to reflect media clusterfucks like this?
So in addition to just "THINK", I strongly suggest a vast amount of skepticism on the part of any mainstream citations, especially citations to online documents. (The last part is particularly important, as I have seen with my own eyes cited web-pages change, contradicting the content of Wikipedia.) Always remember that because it appears in the NYT or CNN simply makes it verifiable, not reliable. mdf 18:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the point of that discussion is. If/when more details emerge about the dealings between the Chinese company and the Aus one then the article should report them. In the meantime it can only report what has been asserted.Nick Connolly 18:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, mdf -- and I see I wasn't clear about something. I'm not saying that we should become investigative reporters, make phone calls, conduct interviews, and so on. Instead, I'm saying that we, as editors, need to be proactive about finding sources. For example, I'm sure that there are already a number of Australian websites that already have said what you and I said about red herrings and spin doctoring. Some of them won't be adequate for Wiki, but others will be acceptable as Wiki sources. That's the kind of work we need to do.
A related point. Here's part of the last sentence in the opening paragraph.
"...it was found that the Chinese manufacturer had substituted a toxic chemical for the correct one in some shipped toys, resulting in the illness and hospitalisation of some children who ingested the beads."
There is no citation given for this. It is the crucial part of the whole thing -- and it is not sourced. (I will put a citation needed tag on it when I've posted this.) This is the sentence that shifts the blame to the (implicitly criminal) Chinese, thereby exculpating the manufacturer. I have some very bad suspicions about this sentence, e.g., that it came from the company itself (note the British/Australian spelling for hospitaliation with an 's'). Note the weasel wording: "it was found." Note the emphasis on the Chinese manufacturer. And so on. This is spin doctoring.
We need to be very suspicious of material like this -- which lets me reply to Nick Connolly. Yes, we need to rely on what has been put on various Wiki-verifiable and Wiki-reliable sites and sources. But that does not excuse us from asking questions and seeking their answers through Google and other sources. You ask what the point is. It is that we, as editors, have a positive responsibility to seek answers to questions about every topic we write about, especially when the opportunities for spin doctoring are as clear as they are here. We should NOT, in my opinion, be the passive and lazy transmitters of only the easiest-to-find stuff that's out there. We need to be critical and careful readers -- like noticing the absence of a citation at the crucial point in the argument, like noticing the possibility that the sentence I cited came from the company itself -- rather than simply accepting everything we're told like good little robots.
So I'm going to put a citation needed tag on the sentence, and then, as time permits, do some Googling. It'll take me some time, and I think other people should help out also. There's something smelly about this.
Timothy Perper 20:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of verbiage, but I do agree with the above editor that we do need to know "did the Austrailian company order the product with the cheaper toxic chemical, or with the non-toxic one?" Badagnani 20:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I meant when I said THINK. Do you really and seriously believe that the Australian company deliberately asked the Chinese to use 1,4-butanediol instead of 1,5-pentanediol when it is known that 1,4-butanediol is toxic? Do you really really think so?
I don't.
What probably happened is that somebody didn't specify the purity grade of 1,5-pentanediol they needed, and the factory used a mixture of 1,4-butanediol and 1,5-pentanediol plus God only knows what else. And nobody ever checked. That's a guess. Now, THINK. Do you really really really think they're going to tell us?
Timothy Perper 21:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your reasoning. How is the Chinese company not culpable if they changed the formula without notifying the Austrailians. How do you know what "probably happened" do you have some inside source? I'll agree that the Austrailian company should have tested them, but that could be chaulked up to complacency or trusting their supplier. Now if they didn't specify the purity (which is complete speculation) then they would be to blame, but until a source says that, we can't put it in. I've been taking your condescending suggestion and THINKing about it and no, I don't think they would tell us, but what does your hypothetical situation have to do with the article content? Mad031683 23:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the company officials are placed under oath in a trial or other type of official inquest, they must disclose documents and tell exactly what happened, and how. Badagnani 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nagle, for putting the citation into the article. It is truly helpful!

Next, to Mad031683's comment. I do NOT know what happened. I know, from a good deal of experience, what MIGHT have happened -- and the point is that we must THINK, not sneer, nor condescend, but THINK. It is the responsibility of an editor/writer of Wikipedia entries to seek a variety of viewpoints, and that means to think out, before writing anything, to explore what may have happened in any given situation. The content of the article must then reflect what we have thought, analyzed, and found when we have looked for sufficient data, as Nagle did, to identify what may have happened.

The answer to Badagnani is "in your dreams." No one has to tell the truth -- that's a TV fantasy coming from too much watching "Law and Order" or whatever you think mandates or requires people to admit bad stuff. Have you ever been on a jury? I have. People lie, not deliberately, but because they need to shade and shape the truth in ways that favor themselves. This is the issue that Mdf brought up -- and that I agree with. We, as editors on Wiki, must understand that people do not explain everything. They spin the truth, they shade it, they modify it -- call it what you will. but what we hear is not The Truth.

Truth comes out only slowly, when enough untrusting people -- like me and others -- ask enough difficult questions, and people like Nagle come up with enough citations to make the issue more complex than the black and white we started with.

To both Badagagni and to Mad031683, I suggest that you genuinely think about this situation. What would YOU do if your company is accused of poisoning children? THAT is the situation the manufacturer is in, both in Australia and in China. This is NOT hypothetical, but all too real. THAT is what you need to think about.

This is, quite literally, a life and death situation, not a chance for Wiki lawyering. 1,4-butanediol is toxic. How did it happen that people let it into toys? Now THINK and stop the sneering.

Timothy Perper 00:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinions. We'll try to start thinking more. Similarly, can you try to use fewer all caps? Badagnani 00:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. But I will continue to point out that this is a life and death situation. Badagnani, let me explain again: you can sneer all you want. As long as children get sick or die, we on Wikipedia need more than sneering about all caps. We need responsibility and thought. Is that beginning to make sense to you? Timothy Perper 01:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? What we need is actual sourced information. Badagnani 01:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Specific about what? Wikipedia articles always need sourced information, as I pointed out before when I put the citation needed tags on a sentence in the opening paragraph. Nagle found the information and off came the tags. That's how it should be. Timothy Perper 14:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you're going a little thick on the melodrama aren't you? Could you explain to me how this wikipedia article will do anything to affect the lives of sick or dying children?
It doesn't matter what any of us think anyway. All we can do is insert information gained from other sources, anything else would be original research. In answer to your question, "What would YOU do if your company is accused of poisoning children?" I'd probably lie and try to pass the blame. I have a question for you. What does that have to do with anything? Mad031683 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really tell you what it has to do with anything, because I have no idea what your point is. It's not OK, in my book, to lie about such things, though people and corporations do lie.

I'm not sure why you're asking if a Wiki article, like this one, can help save lives. It depends, for example, if someone reads the article and warns other people about the toys they've already bought for their kids. That might help. It's worth a try.

Timothy Perper 14:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

About this revert of my edit, it totally doesn't matter to me what the actual wording is, but I do think we shouldn't leave it as [[date rape drug|associated]] with [[date rape]] per WP:EGG. Also, I think we should decide whether the toy's name is plural or singular and stick with that throughout the article. 4.21.209.231 07:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know about that guideline. bear in mind it is only a guideline. I think the alternative wording is too clumsy (and innacurate, GHB is not "the" date rape drug). How about [[date rape]] [[date rape drug|drug]]). I love Egg links.--~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 11:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great suggestion, I think we should go for it. 4.21.209.231 11:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate names

[edit]

Are Aqua Dots and Aqua Beads names under which Bindeez are marketed?[11] Badagnani 23:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Beads are unrelated. The beads are marketed as Bindeez in Australia and Aqua Dots in North America. I'm not sure about Europe? I think Moose invented them, got a Chinese manufacturer to make them, and perhaps sold the licence to distribute them in the US to Spin Maker, who renamed them for that market. But that's all a guess. --Stephen 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How did so many prominent newspapers get this wrong, stating that "Aqua Beads" is one of the names? Badagnani 02:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because they didn't read our article that provides all the information, including details about Aquabeads being safe! --Stephen 03:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a joke? We are not a reporting organization. Badagnani 03:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how they got it wrong. I read in the Sydney Morning Herald that Bindeez were also marketed as Aqua Dots and Aquabeads. I'd heard the 'Aqua dots' name but not Aquabeads and so I googled that name to see were in the world they were called Aquabeads. The hits indicated that they were not the same product. Presumably there is a line somewhere between original research and simply getting your facts right :) Nick Connolly 18:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's called attributing your source. that way it's their fault, not ours. Wikipedia - verifiable, not true.--ZayZayEM 02:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well either way I'm impressed with the way Wikipedia has handled this article. Its the first time I've been involved in a high-traffic page on a current issue and I think the article is better than many accounts I've seen in reputable newspapers.Nick Connolly 07:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question,I know that Aqua Dots is used in North America,(That's what I call them)but I don't know about Aqua Beads. Does that help? 99.230.152.143 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of long term effect stats

[edit]

The Australian distributor has claimed that that the medical emergencies did not "did not result in any long-term effects," (17) though medical studies of GHB overdoses encountered by recreational users has shown serious injury is common.[18]

Can someone explain the relevance of the latter to GHB-Bindeez ingestion.

It has already been pointed out that this figure predominantly refers to long-term addict users, so really isn't relevant to one-off consumption as has been the Bindeez incidents. Nor is it likely children-cases as the Bindeez incidents.

It's presence only seems to suggest that somehow a) the distributor is wrong in its assertion, or b) that the assertion is somehow a startling relevation. B) doesn't seem true, and A) would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. Please suggest C) for discussion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this statement makes 0 logic "representative sample population is addicts as they encounter most overdoses)"- John Nevard (user). This is not a representative sample, addicts are usually long term users and already have serious physiological changes regarding their response to the drug (as well as other stimuli), this does not make them a representative sample of overdoses amongst naive users. It does make the information very helpful and relevant to doctors dealing with overdoses, as most overdoses presented to them will be addicts,--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right... they'll have physiological changes to be more tolerant of the drug. John Nevard (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit more complex than that, but that alone dismisses them from being a "representative sample" when comparing them to cases in primary school kids.--ZayZayEM (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bindeez are back

[edit]

I've seen a new Bindeez advert, they have put a new 'bitter anti swallowing formula' in them, where should this go into the article? This is quoted in the new advert.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, those crazy aussies.

[edit]

So desperate to feel like they contribute that they'll name GHB the toy of the year! AHAHAH! Seriously though, I'm not "vandalizing", because this is the discussion page (I'm specifically talking to certain mods who like deleting fucking everything). I am discussing the irony of giving out such an award. It's like giving Ben Bernanke "man of the year" or Obama the "Noble Peace Prize". Face it, this world is fucked. People are reached their evolutionary apex a century ago and we are now in decline. Half the population is Neanderthals and given another decade, I estimate that percentage to have increased to 75%.

Basis of Mock Trial Case

[edit]

This product is the basis for the 2010-2011 American Mock Trial Association case. Would it relevant to mention this on in the article? Captainbowtie (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bindeez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bindeez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bindeez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bindeez&oldid=1200040361"