Talk:Magnetix

No Contents

There's no Table of Contents on the Article. Ironic, as there is a TOC for this Discussion. Anyone know how to fix it? (Contrast it with the page for "Selective_Mutism" which has. I cannot see any flag for building a TOC. Thanks Pachai (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is now. I think it's automatic once there are 4 sections after the intro. - Rod57 (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Still being sold?

This is what I've been reading in the press "Magnetix is a construction toy imported and sold by RoseArt Industries Inc. from September 2003 through March 2006." But I've also heard that they are still being sold and only certain kits have been recalled. Furthermore, I've seen some knock-off Magnetix showing up at various $1 shops. Evan1975 23:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

See the "Company failing to comply with recall" reference, to the Washington Post, in the article. Feel free to update the article as further news develops. There are already several lawsuits. --John Nagle 02:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is such a bizarre story. I'd welcome info from kids or their parents on what these toys were supposed to do. I've heard that the magnetic balls weren't supposed to come off from some sources; others say they were intended to come off. Evan1975 04:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the picture. See the tiny magnets embedded in the plastic? Apparently those come loose, get swallowed, and cause serious trouble. --John Nagle 04:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I went to Toys R Us and saw a whole aisle of these toys still on shelves (and this is in the state that the fatality happened in!), so it's safe to say that they're still being sold. On inspection of the (boxed) toys, it appears that the metal balls (they looked about marble-sized) are supposed to be loose, although the magnetic pieces shown in your pic probably aren't. However, it's my understanding that the child swallowed the metal balls and not the tiny magnets; therefore I took out my "poorly constructed" line. Evan1975 23:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If you read the litigation press release, you'll see that the reported issue involves the little magnets coming loose from the plastic. The balls themselves are apparently just plain steel, and relatively harmless. The hazard comes from swallowing more than one high-powered magnet, apparently. --John Nagle 01:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just changed the wording from 'all' sets to reflect the truth that not all of the sets are recalled, just the more expensive building sets. That is why you can still find them on toy store shelves. I also live in the state that it happened, and work at a retailer and have seen the recall notice.--Puremicros 18:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The CPSC recall notice says "All Magnetix Magnetic Building Sets", so I changed it to use that language exactly. --John Nagle 18:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My sister just received a set for Christmas. I was immediately suspicious of the set and came here to check up about it. My concerns seem to be justified. Anyway, they're apparently still on sale. 72.202.143.28 (talk) 05:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved comment to discussion page.

(Should this section be moved to magnets or neodymium magnets? --bob.os 02:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)) --John Nagle 06:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Watch for whitewashing by anon

On Dec. 22, an anon made some edits which made the article less critical of the product. I've reverted those. Something like that should be discussed here first, or attempted whitewashing is suspected. Thanks. --John Nagle 06:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe my edits were more representative of the facts regarding the recall. It was in fact a voluntary recall and replacement not a full recall. As you can see from previous discussion (see "Still being sold" above) there was confusion regarding the implementation of the recall. The fact that it was a replacement program not a full recall explains why the product was still on shelves.

Even the link to the Washington Post article ("Company failing to comply with recall (Washington Post story)") is misleading. The actual title of the article is "Toy Remains in Stores After Child's Death". Nowhere does the article say the company is failing to comply with the recall.

My nephew loves this product and I looked into it on behalf of my sister. I found a lot of misinformation on the topic and wanted to contribute to a factual discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.158.206 (talk • contribs)

Most CPSC recalls are listed as "voluntary". That's because 16 CFR 1115.20 provides that if the firm does not agree to a "voluntary" recall, the CPSC shall "reject the plan and issue a complaint (in which case an administrative and/or judicial proceeding will be commenced)". Things then proceed to the "compulsory remedial action" stage, and the recall happens anyway, with injunctions, court-ordered seizures, fines, and really bad publicity. Thus, very few companies resist a CPSC-initiated recall. Also, once a company has agreed to a "voluntary" recall, it's no longer voluntary. There are sanctions if they don't do the recall. --John Nagle 08:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt at whitewashing by an anon today. Someone added a section about improvements to the product and a claim that "only safe product is on the shelves today". No sources. I reverted it, rather than adding a "citation needed", since it's hard to reach anons for discussion. --John Nagle 03:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What Exactly Went Wrong With Magnetix (was "Hmm....")

Firstoff, this article really doesn't give enough information about Magnetix. It has way too much about casualties caused by it than actual information. Since I don't know that much about it either, I am requesting that somebody who knows more can edit it. Secondly, Yes I have an earlier model of Magnetix and the magnets embedded in the plastic are prone to falling out. Several have fallen out already. RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 22:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The way I understood it was this: As the very tiny magnets (not the steel bearings) accidentally come unglued from the ends of the plastic sticks, they could be swallowed. After they have been digested and begin passing through the intestinal tract, two or more magnets passing near each other in different sections of the intestine could attract and snap together across the intestinal walls. Because the magnets are located in different sections of the intestine which are flowing in opposing directions, they stop moving and are not passed through the tract. At this point they can become infected where they are, or may tear the intestinal walls as other matter passes through the intestine and pushes against the magnets, pulling on the intestine where the magnets are locked together. The untreated infection would eventually put the victim into sepsis or even septic shock. Whether the walls tear or the magnets simply settle in place it would require surgery to correct. Armandoban (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Magnetix is Also Fun to Play With

Someone was asking up there what these things are supposed to do. The sticks attract to the bearings or the other sticks and they make shapes. The tinier magnets inside the plastic sticks are not supposed to come out, but some did.

So as far as fun goes? I picked up a big 150+20 "Bonus" piece set and two smaller mini color and chrome Magnetix sets at Target near Potomac Mills over the holidays. For one, these are actually a lot of fun as grown-up desk toys. I give the original mini kits to adults as gifts for the office. Heck I bought the 150 piece set so *I* could play with them. They're not complex.. The bearings and magnetic sticks are just simple fun. They make all sorts of geometric shapes when you snap them together or just wad them up and see what forms. You can bulid a helix or a ball, or make little structures. It's like I have a Doozer city when I pull all the kits out. You just aren't supposed to eat them. (that last dig, by the way, is a reference to doozers. Insert smiley emoticon)

I don't want to be called a whitewasher, so I'll say even before the news hit I would not (and actively did not) leave these in the reach of little kids. Whether or not the magnets in the sticks were accidentally falling out, the parts in my opinion are choke hazards that look like colorful toys and are therefore too dangerous for toddlers to be left alone with. Marketing Magnetix to children as young as 3 was really the primary mistake. Would you give a baby one of those little magnetic chrome-flaky bits sculpture things (I don't know how else to describe that) people were really into a few years back? They were ok as adult toys because they weren't sold to children. Magnetix seems like six and up would be about right to me, at least. Maybe even 8. The toy isn't evil and it has a reason to continue to exist, but the initial marketing was very shortsighted. Not safe for tiny children; defective or not. --Armandoban (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This article tells us nothing about the Magnetix itself!

I agree, I don't know much about the Magnetix, but I would like to know how does it function. It isn't explained in the article at all! The article is only about some controversy I have never heard about. It doesn't even list the manufacturer's site in the External links section! Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Toy mechanics section was removed, so I restored it. Someone who has this toy should explain how it works, this article's title is "Magnetix", not "Deaths due to Magnetix", nor "Magnetix controversy." Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The toy is notable mostly because it killed children. If not for that, it probably wouldn't be notable enough for a standalone article. Most products don't rate a Wikipedia article. --John Nagle (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The toy is notable, period. As long as it is notable, we must follow WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and provide a neutral view of the toy while not giving undue weight to the controversy. If you want the article to show criticism only (which it currently does), feel free to move it to "Magnetix controversy" or whichever title you find appropriate. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture by the Recall Section

The picture of the Extreme Magnetix (the square ones) looks like it was ripped directly from the recall notice. I work in a toy store and to me, that looks like the same picture. Is that considered Fair Use? ReaperRob (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a publication of the United States Government and, as such, is not copyrightable. 17 USC § 105. --John Nagle (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Time for a MagNEXT page!

Since Magnetix technically no longer exists, I think we should move the bulk of the efforts to describe the toy to a Magnext page. This is a good opportunity to let the toy shine, and leave the warning in place for buyers and sellers of the older and possibly unsafe versions of the product. I think it's fair to say original Magnetix will mostly appeal to collectors at this point, and makes a perfectly good grown-up toy. Armandoban (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

RoseArt is gone and Magnetix is Discontinued

RoseArt was purchased by MegaBrands, and after settling with the former RoseArt owners, Magnetix has been silently discontinued. Search for it on the MegaBrands site, it's gone. Look on other sales sites, it is listed as "discontinued by the manufacturer." Magnetix is not owned by RoseArt, because RoseArt is no longer a company. RoseArt is a label for a line of MegaBrand art products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.72.122 (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect link

This link on the page does not point to the correct page (anymore): http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06127.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janvlug (talk • contribs) 13:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Magnetix. 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/20060624223352/http://www.clevelandclinic.org/staff/getstaff.asp?StaffId=677 to http://www.clevelandclinic.org/staff/getstaff.asp?StaffId=677
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070422155224/http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07164.html to http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07164.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626132517/http://www.megabrands.com/en/products/index.php?brand_id=33&cat=2 to http://www.megabrands.com/en/products/index.php?brand_id=33&cat=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417114125/http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09193.html to http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09193.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)