Talk:Child-resistant packaging

Merger?
It has been proposed to merge this with "childproof". No, they are different topics. Pkgx (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No support for merger - - - note removed. Pkgx (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not Childproof
There have been some edits about whether child resistant may be considered as childproof. No. Child resistance is well defined in the regulations. A package which is sucessful (as specified) by a strict protocol of testing with children, may claim child resistance. The testing protocol does NOT require that no children have or can open the package. This is not a zero-tolerance definition. Children are specified by age, instruction level, teeth or not, time, etc. "Childproof" would require a complete inability of any child to ever open the package: This cannot be proven. This also keeps a requirement that spervision of children is necessary (without telling people how to supervise). To omit this requirement would be irresponsible. Pkgx (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two sentences in the article to consider, so let's do them separately:


 * "No package is childproof"


 * Pkgx's justification for inclusion:


 * "There have been some edits about whether child resistant may be considered as childproof. No.  Child resistance is well defined in the regulations.   A package which is sucessful (as specified) by a strict protocol of testing with children, may claim child resistance.  The testing protocol does NOT require that no children have or can open the package. This is not a zero-tolerance definition.  Children are specified by age, instruction level, teeth or not, time, etc. "Childproof" would require a complete inability of any child to ever open the package: This cannot be proven."


 * What this user seems to be saying is that we have no evidence that packges sold as 'child-resistant' are 'childproof', and that because of this the article should not state that any of these packages are childproof. I agree. Statements should not be made in articles without sufficiently reliable citations to back them up. We should not be calling any 'child-resistant' package 'childproof' in the article. I think we both agree on this.


 * However, we also do not have sufficiently reliable citations to support the statement that "No package is childproof". This is a strictly stronger statement than "packages advertised as 'child-resistant' are not necessarily childproof". We have reasonable citations to support the latter statement. I don't believe that we have sufficient evidence to support the former. As such, I think the only thing we should be debating wrt the inclusion of the former statement is "Do we, in fact, have sufficiently reliable citations to support this statement?" If you believe that we do, Pkgx, please quote the relevant passages and justifications of the reliability of the quoted sources here so that editors can consider them.


 * The other part of the passage in question:


 * "Parents and caregivers need to take precautions to keep potentially dangerous items away from children."'


 * WP:NOTHOWTO is policy. What needs to be considered here:


 * "Does this content fall under the category of HOWTO?" - If it does not, then perhaps it should be included. If it does, then its inclusion would be in violation of policy, and we should consider the following:


 * "Should we break policy for this particular sentence?" - If the content is HOWTO, and we should not break policy for it, then it should not be included.


 * I submit that this sentence is HOWTO, and is covered by the "advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestions" description in WP:NOTHOWTO. It advises some people ('Parents and caregivers') to take a particular course of action ('take precautions to keep potentially dangerous items away from children'). I think that this is the only reasonable way to read the sentence. I also don't see any good reason to break policy for it.


 * Please do respond to this, so we can come to a consensus on this passage.203.24.97.8 (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Childproof is an absolute term which calls for 100% prevention of all children from ever opening a package. It is not limited in a standard definition to a certain age child: as children get older, they can read and more readily open multi-step packages. But they still are children.  Child-resistance is defined and limited by the regulatory/standards language while child-proof is not defined and is not limited.
 * Please provide an example of a package which has been proven to be childproof: peer reviewed article, international standard certification, etc. I cannot even think of an experimental design which, if completed, could allow a conclusion of a package being "childproof".
 * A correlary of nothing being childproof is the necessity for parents to keep being parents. They cannot count on a package keeping children totally safe.  The two citations indicate this.  Readers of Wikipedia must know this.  The article does not provide a step by step procedure how to do this: that might interfere with WK policy.  Pkgx (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first part:


 * "Childproof is an absolute term which calls for 100% prevention of all children from ever opening a package." - Agree, at least for the purposes of this discussion.
 * "It is not limited in a standard definition to a certain age child" - Agree, at least for the purposes of this discussion.
 * "Child-resistance is defined and limited by the regulatory/standards language while child-proof is not defined and is not limited." - Agree, at least for the purposes of this discussion.
 * "Please provide an example of a package which has been proven to be childproof: peer reviewed article, international standard certification, etc. I cannot even think of an experimental design which, if completed, could allow a conclusion of a package being "childproof"." - I cannot provide an example. I also agree that the article should not state that any package is childproof.


 * Are you implying that the absence of an example of a truly childproof package justifies the claim that "no packages are childproof"? Remember, we don't have a source for "no packages are childproof", only for "some [child-resistant] packages are not childproof". I think that to go from "some packages are not childproof" to "no package is childproof" is unjustified as an inductive step in this context. Do you disagreee?


 * Regarding the second part:
 * "A correlary of nothing being childproof is the necessity for parents to keep being parents." - This is opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but we can't rely on it when determining content of articles.
 * "They cannot count on a package keeping children totally safe." - This may well be true.
 * "The two citations indicate this." - If the two citations indicate this and they are good sources, then feel free to quote them directly. I can't see a problem with that.
 * "Readers of Wikipedia must know this." - More opinion. Fine, but irrelevant.
 * "The article does not provide a step by step procedure how to do this: that might interfere with WK policy." - Here's the crucial bit. From my reading of WP:NOTHOWTO, content does not need to be presented in a step-by-step format to be treated as HOWTO. I maintain that this content falls under the definition of "advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestions", as listed in WP:NOTHOWTO. Do you continue to disagree? If so, can you further explain your reasoning?


 * It seems that if we are able to come to a consensus on the status of the second sentence (HOWTO or not), then we will be able to come to a consensus on its inclusion. WRT the first sentence, the question of the process of arriving at "no package is childproof" from "some packages are not childproof" seems to be the crucial element in the formation of a consensus. As such, I would ask you to please respond, with consideration of these two issues. 203.24.97.8 (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, the US CPSC has said in a press release that "there is no such thing as child-proof packaging . Rlsheehan (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Edited to utilise the source. I hope this satisfies everyone involved? 203.24.97.8 (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Child-resistant packaging. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924175153/http://www.epsrc.ac.uk:80/PressReleases/ChildproofPackagingNewDesignscouldsavelives.htm to http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/PressReleases/ChildproofPackagingNewDesignscouldsavelives.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Child-resistant packaging. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307180213/http://www.cdnmedhall.org/dr-henri-j-breault to http://www.cdnmedhall.org/dr-henri-j-breault
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017001116/http://www.patientcompliancemedia.com/jpc/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Pages-from-JPC-Volume2-Issue2-21.pdf to http://www.patientcompliancemedia.com/jpc/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Pages-from-JPC-Volume2-Issue2-21.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/PressReleases/ChildproofPackagingNewDesignscouldsavelives.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)