0
\$\begingroup\$

There's a question asking for evidence that flash is (not) harmful to babies. We recently had a very similar question on flash harmfulness on art, which was migrated to Skeptics.

Shouldn't the babies question also be migrated, or is there a significant difference I'm overlooking?

I see how these questions are relevant to both communities. As far as I can guess, the art question was migrated because Skeptics have more experts on finding (counter)evidence for such claims. Unfortunately I couldn't find any relevant discussion on Meta or Chat.

UPDATE:

A discriminating factor seems to be the sub-question about a particular technique to avoid the harm (bouncing).

The question is on topic, no doubt. But current answers don't refer to any studies or resources backing up their claims, being weaker than the question deserves; Skeptics might have a better say here.

\$\endgroup\$

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
7
\$\begingroup\$

I'm surprised that the question relating to works of art was migrated (as an aside, I always understood that the real reason related to issues of copyright / limitation of sales in the gift shop(s)).

How to protect subjects from harm/damage is clearly an on-opic discussion here; similarly "I've heard this could harm, but are they talking rubbish" seems to be on-topic for skeptics.

My feeling is that it should stay, and if someone were to ask about protecting works of art from damage during photography in the future, it could be left open, albeit referencing the older question.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ I did some digging around and provided an answer with some references, so I hope at least some of the value of Skeptics is there. \$\endgroup\$
    – Imre
    Commented Oct 21, 2011 at 23:19
-1
\$\begingroup\$

I must say it struck me as an odd question: I'd vote to migrate too.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .