Talk:Embrace (non-profit)

Edits have been wholly unhelpful, removing the sole reason for the article; to explain the product. It can not be listed purely as a matter of its materials. It must be put in the context in which it is used, or it is meaningless. Anarchangel (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The article is a neutral description of the product, not a complete overview of incubators and third-world problems. This is why wikilinks exist - to bring the reader to related topics without having to explain the entire situation in a tangential article. TN X Man  15:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Explain yourself, don't just contradict. We're going to be here for a while, you might want to familiarize yourself with File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.jpg Anarchangel (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly. How is this paragraph: "Low-cost infant warmers, designed for use in lieu of Neonatal incubators, are an innovative technology that will help families save their children, and governments work towards the UN Millennium Development Goals of reducing of infant mortality by two-thirds by 2015. Warmers work at the lowest rungs of the healthcare infrastructure." relevant to this specific product? Will the Embrace Incubator itself "help families save their children" or this just a vague, unsourced claim?


 * Furthermore, claims like this: "The cost of the Embrace incubator is less than one percent of the traditional designs, and rather than isolate the newborn, its design encourages physical contact." are not independently sourced and amount to advertising. I could go on, but the rest of the article was a coatrack of barely related material and filler. TN X Man  15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your characterization of the content is in error; the only material you left in the article was the most promotional of the material (the makers of the product,. Context, the use of the product as it was intended, in the environment in which it is used, is what you removed, and context is required for the article to make sense and have a purpose.
 * Your edit is much more promotional than mine. It has only selling points and credits and the manufacturer's name.
 * The Embrace incubator was a concept developed by a class called Entrepreneurial Design For Extreme Affordability.[1] It uses Phase Change Material in a sleeping bag design to maintain temperature inside the incubator entirely without electricity, making it well-suited to rural areas. The device can periodically be supplied heat with hot water.[2]
 * At the Echoing Green competition in 2008, the fellowship award was won by the Embrace development team.[3] [4] Embrace won the 2007-2008 Business Association of Stanford Entrepreneurial Students Social E-Challenge competition grand prize.
 * Mine, by contrast, shows the product in its use environment, how it is used and why, and only then discusses the business side of it.
 * Low-cost infant warmers, designed for use in lieu of Neonatal incubators, are an innovative technology that will help families save their children, and governments work towards the UN Millennium Development Goals of reducing of infant mortality by two-thirds by 2015. Warmers work at the lowest rungs of the healthcare infrastructure.
 * The cost of the Embrace incubator is less than one percent of the traditional designs, and rather than isolate the newborn, its design encourages physical contact. It uses Phase Change Material (PCM) in a sleeping bag design to maintain temperature entirely without electricity, making it well-suited to rural areas. The device can periodically be supplied heat with hot water. The concept of the incubator came from the Entrepreneurial Design For Extreme Affordability class at the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University (Stanford Institute for Design). Anarchangel (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * However, I see no reliable sources for the material you have added. I still do not see how it is connected to the incubator itself. Remember, the article is about a specific product, not the product AND its environment AND the situation of third-world countries, and so on. This is called a coatrack. TN X Man  16:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * COATRACK implies POV. See any POV? "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." You can say, "I don't see..." once. Once I explain it, further repetitions of that show me that you are being obtuse. I grant you that there is a citation needed for the 1%. I should also note that the material was not added, it was reworked from the original. The article was kept at AFD on the strength of the changes I made. Your edits after the AFD do not reflect its consensus. Anarchangel (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The very first paragraph you're trying to add is POV! "Low-cost infant warmers, designed for use in lieu of Neonatal incubators, are an innovative technology that will help families save their children". Without a source, that is very POV. You claim to have "explained it", but you have not explained anything. So, very clearly, how is the material you want to add directly related this specific product?
 * Finally, the burden of proof is on you to add reliable sources for the material ("The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it.") TN X Man  16:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Without a source, it would be unsourced. Not POV. However, the material later in the article is sourced, and proves the statements "innovative" and "help families save their children". You are splitting hairs, my friend. It is my style to not put citations on opening statements, because they are an introduction of the basic premises, that are backed by material that will be cited later in the article. I am not the only one who thinks this way. However, if you insist, it can be cited. I think it makes the opening look messy, myself. Anarchangel (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ''"'This product will be distributed in India initially to improve rural infant care as an alternative to more expensive warmers,' Mike Barber, Vice President, GE healthymagination said in a release here today."
 * Unlike traditional incubators that cost up to USD 20,000, the Embrace Infant Warmer costs less than 1 per cent of this price, and works without a constant supply of electricity. GE Health-Embrace to distribute infant warmer in early 2011 PTI, Dec 17, 2010
 * GE Healthcare to distribute infant warmers in rural India "In alignment with the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals, GE is focusing its efforts on MDG 4, reducing by two-thirds the under-five mortality rate by 2015."
 * Anarchangel (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Embrace (non-profit). 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/20080915185523/http://extreme.stanford.edu:80/big_picture/our_class.html to http://extreme.stanford.edu/big_picture/our_class.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905150328/http://news.sky.com:80/story/824845/low-tech-body-warmer-is-a-baby-life-saver to http://news.sky.com/story/824845/low-tech-body-warmer-is-a-baby-life-saver

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) 12:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)