Talk:Diaper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Diaper article.
Article policies
Good article Diaper was a nominee for Natural sciences good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
January 13, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
It is requested that a photograph or photographs of adult diaper be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] More NOPV

The article needs to be cleaned up. It seems to be an ad for cloth diapers. The only mention of disposables tells how bad they are. Also some of the links need to be restored. I have restored to link to the history of the diaper which someone removed. The only links that have been retained by who ever last edited were those to cloth diapering sites. Also is a blog a legitimate reference. This article needs a total rework. user sovietcollector

[edit] Other Issues

The Adult section of this article, particularly the description of why diapers are used in bondage fetishism is TOO EXTENSIVE, in my opinion. Could someone with more knowledge of wikipidea's guidelines for what is and isn't necessary in an article give it a look-through? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.65.24 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


night-time nappy till seven? SEVEN?? I certainly didn't, and I don't think I'm an exception. What nationality / culture was the original writer of this page? -- user:Tarquin

"More recently, society has increasingly realized the need for children to develop at their own pace. The best way of helping the child is by allowing it to remain dry using an appropriate diaper." I cut these remarks from the page. What society sees a need for children to develop at their own pace? Western? I also don't think the last sentence is unbiased, "The best way of helping the child..." What does this imply about diaperless cultures?

I also removed the term "pull-up" from the article and reworked the sentence to: "special diapers which mimic underwear and do not require pinning or adult assistance." Pull-ups are a brand name manufactured by Huggies. Joele Gilbert

"Diapers should be changed on fixed times of the day, as children benefit from a set routine. During the change, baby oil should be applied to the buttocks, especially after the diaper has been soiled with fecal matter." A little bit of opinion here (in my opinion). This is not an undebated statement of fact. Different parenting philosophies have different positions of "children" and "set routines". There are also many different techniques used to avoid diaper rash, not just the use of baby oil. Joele Gilbert

[edit] removal of Sud-Pol's pictures

I've removed User:Sud-Pol's pictures because the first was already listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, and the second (which s/he just uploaded) follows this user's previous editing patterns mentioned at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#January 3 (an aggregate of many images uploaded by this user, towards the bottom of the day's listings). Sud-Pol now claims this newest picture depicts his/her daughter, which is rather unlikely considering all of the other images of diapered girls s/he has attempted to introduce into Wikipedia's articles (including but not limited to Laptop). Sud-Pol has also vandalised my user page. -- Hadal 06:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:218.102.189.228 added it again, and I just removed it. Is Sud-Pol blocked from editing, or where did this anon come from? -- Chris 73 Talk 12:00, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits Re: Cloth/Disposables and NPOV

I am concerned that the recent edits by might run afoul of NPOV and might be shown as an endorsement of one or the other side of the cloth/disposable debate. Please read the NPOV article on WikiPedia.

Mainly, in controversial subjects, avoid:

"Cloth diapers in conjunction with elimination communication seem to be the method of choice when one wants the best of convenience both to the parent and child, while reducing environmental and health impacts to practically nothing."

While I don't doubt the concept proposed, avoid using "peacock" terms like "method of choice".

Please review the edit. Thanks.

[edit] ABDL Content

Please see Talk:ABDL. brenneman(t)(c) 12:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. Dave 12:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from the article

Removed the following quote from the extlink given from the article:

Procter & Gamble (PG ) is a great company ("The P&G Revolution," Cover Story, July 7), but credit for the first disposable diaper goes to my father's employer, Johnson & Johnson (JNJ ) which began developing a product called Chux in the 1930s and introduced it in 1950. My mother told me I made many contributions to the early product tests.
Tom Coates, Baltimore (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/c3845020_mz004.htm)

The information given at the extlk would merit mention, though. Lupo 07:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond

Doesn't the word 'Diaper' actually mean Diamond (a square or rhombus whose longest diagonal is usually aligned vertically)? Presumably because of the shape of the material the napkin was made from rather than the type of cloth as stated in the article DavidFarmbrough 11:13 (BST) 2 Septemer 2005 a diape worn on butt

[edit] Commons gallery

I've been informed of the existence of commons:Adult diapers. You may or may not want to include one of these pictures. David.Monniaux 00:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] animal diapers

there should be a section on diapers for animals!

[edit] image

I thing on the current image is a cloth diaper.--Cute 1 4 u 09:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] adult usage: diapers for thickness?

I was surprised by reading this and my first reaction was "Really?" As in for the thickness alone. Bear Eagleson

I have removed it, as it was unsourced and seemed dubious. TacoDeposit 17:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This is actually quite common. I don't have any specific sources myself, but if you check any AB message board, alot of people will say they enjoy primarily the thickness of diapers.

[edit] Name

The article states that the name "nappy" is used "in many Commonwealth countries". Does anyone know which ones? I'm thinking of proposing a move to "nappy", because "diaper" is only used in North America, and if "nappy" is used in more countries round the world then that should take precedence. However, before I do so I am wondering if anyone from Australia, New Zealand or South Africa can comment. EuroSong talk 14:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm Australian. I use the term nappy for cloth, and disposable/diaper/nappy for the paper product. I don't see a need to move, especialy as nappy is currently a dab page. Josh Parris#: 05:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm Australian too. I've never heard the word Diaper used in Australia. We tend to use only nappy Gillyweed 11:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Likewise. Colinvincent 12:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What exactly are the conventions for naming articles here on Wiki? I note an overwhelming use of the American terms quite often, such as in this case, when the vast majority of the English speaking world uses the other term. 70.189.213.149 08:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For balance, this page should be renamed "Diaper or Nappy", "nappy" should redirect here, and the current nappy dab page should be renamed "nappy (disambiguation)" with the typical link-to-dab at the top of this page. 81.178.67.186 15:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While that would be a fair, egalitarian solution, the problem is that no one would expect to find an article at "Diaper or Nappy". Such titles are generally not allowed on Wikipedia. Soap Talk/Contributions 15:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 500 years?

The reference to diapers taking 500 years to decompose takes us to a site that doesn't explicitly site any report or finding that supports such a claim. The website in reference does list a series of reports and studies, none of which is cited as the source. Simply saying that diapers take 500 years to decompose does not make it fact. I would greatly appreciate any link to a study actually supporting this claim as this statement seems to be quite popular yet unsubstantiated.

When I was young, I was subscribed to a science magazine whose title I don't remember. I do remember the name of the section that also said this: "Factoids". Unfortunately, I don't know what my source's source was either. --Bear Eagleson
The estimate is from the subspeciality of archeology, gabology. There is or was, IIRC, an acadmenic journal for the field.

[edit] Cloth

Removed from the article:

However, this is a potentially smelly option, unless washing daily. An option for those who have enough nappies (I'm English, we have nappies, not diapers) not to need to wash them every day or two is to put dirty nappies in the washing machine and, when a few have accumulated to make it worthwhile, run a rinse-only cycle. This uses a relatively small amount of cold water and is more effective than rinsing by hand (which takes time, is not always pleasant and requires hot water, sometimes a lot of it). Nappies come out damp, in need of a wash to get pooey ones completely clean, but they are not smelly and can be stored damp in a covered bucket for several days until washed. Those that were just wet do not need washing in hot soapy water at all and can be dried for reuse.
In hard water areas terry towelling nappes will eventually become hard, like bath towels. Using a tumble drier is environmentally questionable and runs up eleectricity bills. Put them in a tumble drier on cold for 20 minutes to separate the fabric loops 22:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)86.135.180.152before drying on a clothes line then, if necessary, do the same when they are dry to really fluff them up.

Contribution from 09:49, 8 January 2007, 86.135.180.152

EDIT: I moved the elimination communication refrence from cloth to other and inculded disposibles as a backup option. I moved the cloth diaper service line to the bottom and changed it from "Some cities offer" to "Some cities have". The formor wording made it sound like it was a government offered service when instead it is a private buisness. I also deleted the moss refrence from 'other' since it was mentioned in the history section. --User:tash 18:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Polyester fleece is not an absorbent fiber. Polyester microfleece is used as a wicking inner liner with a dry feel against the skin. Sadacushman 17:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filibuster, cross-country drives?

I'm removing the statement that diapers are worn during filibusters. The article cited makes no mention of anyone actually wearing a diaper, but that it was part of an expression. In addition, the article only mentions someone keeping an aide with a bucket handy just in case, not that a diaper was worn. I'm also removing the section that says that astronauts wear diapers on cross-country drives. This is obviously taken from the recent incident with the astronaut going after that other woman. Astronauts are not known for wearing diapers while driving, just during take-off and re-entry in the shuttle. 24.153.178.198 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History?

Does this make sence to anyone? Should it be removed?

"Thanks to the industrial revolution in the mid 19th century, cheap manufactured cotton fabrics helped mothers diaper their camels and with the invention of the safety gun in the 2100s, the diaper began to take its toll."

66.168.185.44 01:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links stale

Littlefornow link points to a page not found error. Recommend replacement with http://www.weebunzdiapers.com/instructions.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.252.26 (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I have fixed the citation problem and will be taking down the tag. Fsecret 03:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative View

In Western countries having babies pretty much equals diapering, but this is not the general point of view all around the globe, and, thus, I think an alternative view should be presented somewhere in the article. Added link to Elimination Communication in "See Also" section (adds up nicely to Training Pants link). There might be a need for "Controversy and criticism" section or does it seem too hard-core? Jsruok 01:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be too hardcore; but I think the biggest controversy over diapers is their environmental impact, and which is better: cloth or plastic. My understanding is that independent, full life-cycle evaluations end up deciding they have approximately the same impact. Josh Parris 05:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirecting Nappy back from Diaper to Nappy (disambiguation)

In light of the scandal involving the use of the word nappy by Don Imus, we have had readers confused and angered by the fact that Nappy linked directly to Diaper. As it turns out, Diaper is not clearly common usage for Nappy; "nappy hair" gets 1.71 million Google hits,[1] in comparison to, for example, "nappy baby" (1.36 million hits).[2]

Therefore, I have decided to Be Bold and redirect Nappy back to Nappy (disambiguation), even though I realize this may be controversial, given the page was previously redirected to Diaper.

I am available for discussion on my talk page or on the Diaper talk page (this message is cross-posted at Talk:Diaper and Talk:Nappy. Baileypalblue 03:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, however, Googling "nappies" [3] gets 3.36 million hits, all of which regarding the clothing. It is without a doubt the prevailing usage worldwide, and as such I recommend a redirect to Diaper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swakeman (talk • contribs) 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

I dont think your original research looking at US company Google means nmuch but there clearly is a problem in that nappy means one thing in the US (esp with the Imus affair) and quite another in the UK where the word diaper is unknown, as is Don Imus. Not sure what the solution should be but have slightly expanded the opening as it wasnt clear. Perhaps when the Imus affair has clamed down it should be redirected back (as the person who first brought it here), SqueakBox 02:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox, I think your last sentence is a good suggestion, actually I was thinking that myself. Once the Imus scandal recedes into the past, the Afro textured hair use of Nappy will presumably become less popular, and the absorbent garment use of the word will be more clearly dominant. Anyway, it seems like a reasonable compromise. Baileypalblue 03:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC

[edit] environmentally friendly diaper

does any one know if they wre working on a new more evroment frendly daiperSckay 19:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why this photo?

I think there should be at least an additional photograph of a "normal", i.e. common diaper. In an article about pigs there shouldn't be the sole image of a two-headed pig either, as it's kind of rare and not too representative... No nappy pics, someone?

"normal is in the eye of the beholder" that is to say, what is 'normal' to you may not be to another. I belive what you mean is "why is there not an image of a disposible diaper?" is that correct? My guess is that there simply have been no submissions of that kind, possibly due to trademark isses as well. I am not sure. Also a cloth diaper is not comparable to a two headed pig. It is more comparable to a spotted pig, while most people think 'pink' when they think pig, spotted ones are not 'abnormal', 'strange', 'unuseual', or "rare". Neither are cloth diapers. --User:tash 17:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ammonia

Can someone change the Ammonia section? It states that Ammonia is caused by the combination of fecal matter and urine, when it is just the urine that is resposible. This may cause some to belive that a diaper that has only been urinated in will not produce Ammonia. --User: tash 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well fecal matter contains urease which catalyses the conversion of urine to ammonia so it is technically correct but I agree it is slightly misleading, as it makes the diaper rash worse, it is not the sole cause.--Wherethere (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted

somebody reverted my edits without explaining why. i wouldn't mind if you gave a good reason, but my edits were sourced and i thought they were fairly relevant and well-written. 86.142.62.17 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just reverted some of your edits because they were inappropriately sourced. Ford MF 16:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diaper discipline

This section is referenced from comments from an online discussion forum. Most sources on theis subject refer to adult BDSM fantasies and NOT serious parental issues. It is another example of how this entry has been expanded to include numerous examples of dubious and ill-sourced and irrelevant insertions that seem to be for ABDL interest. I'm going to refer this page to Admin as its too far gone for the average user to start on. Especially seeing the NPOV and edit spats, not to mention the photo and Talk Page aggro that the subject has thrown up. Plutonium27 15:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite as bad as that, but it does need some cleanup. It's mostly the edits of a sole anon IP, 86.142.62.17 that look inappropriate to me (Diff). I'm going to go through them now. Ford MF 15:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The theme of diaper discipline exists separately as a parental practice and as an AB/DL fantasy. The two should be better-differentiated if the section is replaced. The parental practice is typically initiated by the parent, and enacted upon his or her child. The AB/DL fantasy is typically initiated by the AB/DL and enacted upon his or her self. (A parental figure would be present, if only as a plot device.) Some AB/DLs claim to have been diaper-disciplined by their parents. No AB/DLs are known to have diaper-disciplined their children.BitterGrey 14:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I've put the info back in the article, but have rewritten it slightly so that it discusses the website sourced and does not make assumptions about whether diaper discipline is real or not. Whether or not it is real or if we condone it (it does sound a bit far-fetched) there is a website which claims to be a community of parents who support it. Therefore, I think we can mention that website in the article. I've asked that editors discuss this controversial subject before removing it again. Coop41 12:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Dumb question maybe but: wouldnt they have trouble getting the diapers to fit? Haplolology Talk/Contributions 21:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are large sizes of diapers for bedwetters, they don't have to use baby diapers. As as been said before, the reality of diaper discipline is questionable, it seems to be a bit of an urban myth, possibly created by the AB/DL community. Nevertheless, there is a website claiming that it is a genuine parenting practice and dismisses any affiliation with AB/DLs... what do other people think? Coop41 22:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It horrible. Members should stop this torture immediately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.73.89 (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but not liking something is not a justifiable reason to remove information about it. I assume you don't approve of murder or rape either but that doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't have article about those topics. This article doesn't condone diaper discipline, it merely states the fact that a website exists which does. What's your reason for deleting it? Coop41 (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

YAY! removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.73.89 (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adult useage

I rewrote this section from list to prose. Anyone have an issue with it, take it up here and I'll try to fix it. Coop41 22:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a big improvement to me, good job. BeckyAnne(talk) 04:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with training pants

Does anyone agree that the article regarding training pants should be merged into this page, presumably into the "Length of use" section? Training pants are essentially just glorified diapers, marketed under a euphemism, as the diaper article has pointed out. I'm not sure that they deserve their own article; after all, many adult diapers are not referred to as such (instead as "incontinence pads", "fitted briefs", or "maximum absorbency garments") so what makes any training pants different? Coop41 07:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think what you mean to suggest is that we merge the training pants article into this one, not the other way around. In this case I think I can definatly cast my vote of

  • Support - Because "training pants" is a term coined by marketers to prevent older children from being embarassed by their diapers. "Adult incontinence undergarments" does not have its own page for this very reason. It has instead be incorperated into a section here on adult usage.

Fsecret 17:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody else has voted, I decided to be bold and simply carry out the merge. I hope I've done it right, I'll come back later and make improvements so the new training pants section fits into the article more smoothly. Coop41 15:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrights

It is sometimes useful to Google some of the text of an article. Enclosing the phrase or sentence in quotation marks will help narrow the search. Sometimes, this will show the article's original source and true copyright holder. (The true copyright holder is not always the first listing on Google.) Please note that per the external linking policy, sites that violate copyrights should not be linked to. BitterGrey 04:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of "Nappy"

Quoted from DisposableDiaper.net:
“

Diaper was originally the term used for an overall pattern of small repeated geometric shapes, and then a white cotton or linen fabric with such a pattern. So the first babies' diapers were made from diaper fabric, meaning fabric with a repetitive pattern. A "nap" is a hairy surface of cloth formed by short fibers; it was the preferred material to make "nappies". The word "diaper" is used in America and most other countries that speak English, while a "nappy" is used in England, New Zealand and Australia.

 ”

Is this really true? I had always assumed it was just a short form of 'napkin'. Didnt people use to refer to diapers as napkins? I know the word for diaper is derived from the word for napkin in a lot of other languages. I'm from America so I dont normally say "nappy" at all. Haplolology Talk/Contributions 17:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well nobody said anything so I'm switching it to favor my theory for the etymology. I still mention and link to the other one though. Haplolology Talk/Contributions 22:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
In your edit, you say "most sources" but fail to provide any. I agree with you that it probably is short for napkin, but we have to prove it. Could you find a source? Coop41 00:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Random House agrees, as does the OED, which is generally considered the most authoritative English dictionary. The OED is login-only, however, so all I can do is show a picture: http://www.3centsoap.com/img/nappy.gif Haplolology Talk/Contributions 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not certain if we can cite those as reliable sources, but they're certainly better than nothing for the time being at least. I've added them to the article. Coop41 00:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, but I have to ask, if an etymological dictionary isn't a reliable source for the etymology of a word, then what would be? Haplolology Talk/Contributions 21:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert at what constitutes a reliable source. If those dictionaries are published (as opposed to edited by viewers, like Wikipedia or Wiktionary) then I think it's reliable. The first link wasn't working when I tried citing it on the article, and I wasn't sure about the second one because it's a picture. Not sure if we can use that as a reliable sources. But don't take my word for it. Coop41 01:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Most sources believe nappy is a diminutive form of the word napkin,[1] but others trace it to Nap, a kind of short fiber which creates a hair-like surface on cloth and is sometimes used to make diapers.[2] Likewise, most sources agree that diaper in the sense of underwear comes from diaper in the heraldry sense, but according to Mrs Charles H. Ashdown, in her book 'British Costume from Earliest Times to 1820', diaper cloth originated from Ipre (now Ypres) in Flanders and was called D'Ipre; however this seems unlikely in light of the history given above, and the fact that the most probable original pronunciation of diaper was with the a distinctly pronounced, as indeed some people still pronounce it today.

The above section should probably be reworded slightly to weed out original research. Bits like "Most sources agree" contain weasel words ("most") and are then following by no sources whatsoever. Also, be wary of using unrelated sources to reach a conclusion. Coop41 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no original research going on .. I just think that a dictionary definition shouldn't really need to be linked, especially since the #1`authoritative dictionary isn't really linkable anyway (the OED). My style of editing tends to be to write a claim in the most readable way, and then if someone objects then I will put up sources. But I don't like to list sources for things that are pretty undebatable like dictionary entries. Haplolology Talk/Contributions 20:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that you were deliberately adding OR, but you need to cite sources. You say dictionary definitions are undebatable, but you still need to properly cite which dictionary you used. "Most sources" is a weasel word because how many sources are "most"? 9/10? 6/10? It's vague. It's best to just state exactly which source is saying this. You don't need to link it (you could use a paper dictionary) but you need to clarify where you're getting your information. Also, this sentence "however this seems unlikely in light of the history given above, and the fact that the most probable original pronunciation of diaper was with the a distinctly pronounced, as indeed some people still pronounce it today." is you drawing conclusions. Unless sources say "this seems unlikely", we're not allowed add our own observations, even if they're obvious. Coop41 (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


I linked to the OED citations for both words and removed the link to the image that was on my website. I imagine most people won't be able to visit the links, because they are login-only, but anyone who does have access can verify that they are real. I figure that this is no different than citing a textbook, so it should be okay. Haplolology Talk/Contributions 19:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Nevertheless, the image is still there, so here's the URL again if anyone wants to see it: http://www.3centsoap.com/img/nappy.gif Haplolology Talk/Contributions 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do we really need that picture?

It seems kinds of risque, as well as unexpected and unnecessary. I think it will probably get deleted one way or another (for what it's worth, Image:Todaler outside.jpg.jpg used to be on the Adult Baby article for a while, but Im not sure why it's not there anymore). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haplolology (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The section is about adult diapers, it's a picture of an adult diaper. Don't really see how that's "unexpected". :P I dunno, I thought we could use an image of an adult diaper since a large portion of the article is about them, and that image already existed. I can see how you might find it "risque" since the man (I assume from the image title) is a fetishist, but at the end of the day, it's just a guy in a diaper. For the record, Wikipedia isn't censored. Perhaps the image isn't necessary, but I don't think the reasons above really hold up. Coop41 (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
More significantly, it shows an adult in public in just a diaper. This involves a measure of exihibitionism that isn't common among adult diaper wearers. We would need to comment about that to preserve NPOV if this picture was up here. In the future, when there are enough ABDL pride events to warrant an article on the pride events, this picture might be perfect for it.BitterGrey (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Which image are we talking about here? I was referring to Image:Windelfetischist.jpg, not Image:Todaler outside.jpg.jpg. I agree that the Todaler one is inappropiate on this article (has it ever even been on this article?), but I don't see anything hugely wrong with the Windel one. Not saying it's irreplacable, I'm sure we could find a better one, but I wouldn't like it to be removed simply on the grounds of being "risque". Coop41 (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Windelfetischist.jpg is still outside, but not as blatantly so. It would be less of a problem than Image:Todaler outside.jpg.jpg would be here. BitterGrey (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diaper discipline

Without taking sides, can I encourage those who would like to remove this section to discuss why they would like it removed, and to encourage those who would like to keep it to proactively make sure it is neutral and as well-referenced as possible?

That said, could we replace the link to diaperdisciplinesite.com? External links that require registration are on the "normally to be avoided" list.[4]. (There is a "resources" link, but it appears to give a 404 error.)BitterGrey (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the editor who continuously removes the info to discuss it, but the only response they've given is that they don't like the practise itself, which is irrelevant. It's not even that I want to keep it, but I haven't yet heard a good reason for it's removal except people finding it obscure and distasteful. I tried to word it neutrally by referring only to the website rather than implying it was indisputable fact... if other references to it can be found, they should definitely be used, but I haven't actually seen any reliable sources. diaperdisciplinesite.com is the only thing I've seen. Does anyone know of any sources discussing diaper discipline as an actual parental practise? Is it even real? Coop41 (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, the use of diapers as a punishment has been argued (e. g. [5] ). I was unable to find websites that were from the parent's perspective and that looked respectable that mentioned the practice on a large scale. Although an argument from silence, this absence might be significant. A number of ABDL, crossdressing, and related sources mention the practice (e.g. [6].) However, this doesn't give any information on prevalence. Sources that parents might admit turning to assert that "discipline should show respect for both child and parent"[7] and "parents...should avoid teasing, shaming, or nagging."[8].
Currently, the section is structured around the assertions of one group. All we know for certain about that group is that their website could use some work. Not the best basket to have all our eggs in.
Perhaps we could refactor the section based on what we know? 1) Diapers might be used as a punishment, to shame children. 2) The prevalence of this is unknown. 3) It is controversial at best. 4) It is an extreme for of shaming, which authorities typically discourage. BitterGrey (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the research you've done, but I don't think we can use a source which has nothing to do with diapers, to comment on a source which does. I think that violates Wikipedia's rule on original research, and more specifically synthesis. Like you say, the absence of information about diaper discipline says something, even if it does occur it's probably not notable enough for it's own paragraph on this article. How about we just trim the information that's there to mention it more in passing; There is an online community who promote the concept of "diaper discipline", managing the behavior of older children and teens by having them wear and use diapers.[3]? Should we have any more or less detail than that? Coop41 (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
You might be right about the links I found. None of them explicitly mention diaper punishments. I think we may need to conclude that if we can't find even one reliable website about the practice, it might not be worth mentioning on Wikipedia. BitterGrey (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I don't mind losing the info if there's no reliable sources backing it up. Coop41 (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This article does not meet the Good article criteria at the present time. Although the lead section appears good, and it is well written, there is a serious lack of citations of key information later in the article (some entire sections are completed uncited, and other key info in other sections needs to be cited).

Inline citations also need more information included than just an external link; it should include full citation information -- author, title, publication, date of publication, date URL was retrieved. This is actually quite important -- if the link ever becomes inaccessible, the additional information can be used to help verify and track down the source offline, if needed.

The article needs to be checked thoroughly for NPOV issues. Sentences like, "Disposable diapers were introduced to the US in 1949 by Johnson & Johnson, and were considered by parents as a great invention." are going to be hard to verify with reliable sources (specifically, the part in bold text), and should be toned down.

Consider moving 'etymology' to immediately before the 'history' section. It's useful to discuss the origin of the name first. Also, the 'taming of the shrew' part could use a reference; while it's mentioned, yes, an inline citation containing a link to an online copy of Shakespeare's play would help readers verify this if they wished.

The entire 'types' section only has two inline citations and a 'citation needed' tag. The bullet points in the disposable subsection seem to written too much like an advertisement for disposable diapers, than an actual encyclopedia article. I would think that it could be rewritten to provide a better, more concise, description of this type of product, and try to write in prose, with citations, rather than listing with bullets.

I would also merge the 'controversy' section into the section on cloth diapers; the text itself could also be greatly reduced. I don't think that disposable diapers are really all that "controversial". Rather, there's certainly an issue with diapers filling up landfills, and several environmental groups do favor the cloth diapers, which is why it should be included in that section. As its own section like this, it's really a violation of WP:NPOV, and of WP:WIAGA.

I'm not sure that 'changing' and 'length of use' are quite as important as the amount of text leads the reader to believe. It seems to me to contain a lot of cruft, and could probably be reduced. Remember, wikipedia is not a 'how to' guide.

I would create a new main section entitled 'uses', with three major subsections: 'children', 'adults', and 'animals'. Some of the stuff under 'changing' and 'length of use' could go under 'uses: children'.

Hopefully, these suggestions will help editors to improve the article. I think once they are fixed, the article will be a lot closer to meeting the GA criteria. Good luck! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work today to clarify the Types:Cloth section and added a section following it called "Care and Ecological Concerns" to separate the discussion of cloth diapers from the green debate over cloth v. disposable. I'm not averse to removing the brief "dry pail method" section in the first par. of the new section, as it now seems out of place and "how-to" to me, but I'd like a second opinion. I also updated links and added access date information to them for the references section. I'd welcome some reliable pro-disposable study references to balance the new section a bit. The studies that I've referenced are not available online for reading that I can find, but do fall within Verifiability requirements. The citation information that I've given should be plenty of information to find the studies in offline research, but please let me know if additional is needed or if there's a formatting change needed.
I've done some revision on the Types:Disposables section according to your recommendations and added citations to it.
I've also checked and/or updated citation links in these sections to include access date information. Only one revision of existing citation was required for a moved article. The information referenced has not changed, so I updated the citation URL and access date. Let me know if you're interested in other revisions to those sections.Heather (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pioneering days

This article contains a line about the situation "in the pioneering days". When on earth was that? Is this a reference to the United States? --KarlFrei (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the general timeline putting the Industrial Revolution after this bit, it most likely it is in reference to the American pioneers of the 19th century, but there's also not a citation for this bit, which makes me suspect lack of verifiability. Heather (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unwilling

Unwilling to use a toilet? What the...?12.26.68.146 (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diapering in History

The reference to Elizabethans only changing soiled diapers every few days is based on a cited web article that lists absolutely no citations for their statements and is not even a historical costume site, but instead a disposable diaper industry page. A much more solid citation is needed for the pre-twentieth century section of the History section than the referenced website. Heather (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Upon discussion elseNet with others who've been searching for the same citation basis and after my own searching and review of my personal knowledge base of the subject, the referenced information about pre-nineteenth century diapering cannot qualify under the Wikipedia standards for verifiability. I have altered the History article to reflect this and removed the inappropriate citation(s) from References as well. In addition, I removed and replaced citations which did not have access dates and were no longer accessible. Heather (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't really understand your issue with the former source. Why did it need to cite sources, it was the source and there doesn't seem to be any reason why it wouldn't be reliable. Yes, it's a diaper industry site, wouldn't that indicate they would have knowledge of diapers throughout history. It just seems like you've deleted a lot of good information from the article without much reason. Coop41 (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the information presented is *not* good. I and other costume historians with interest in childhood have been looking since this was revised and have yet to find a single reliable back up or citation for this misinformation. Book research efforts seems to indicate that the information was from a (possibly privately published) manual about raising children, written by a later Victorian, Edwardian, or an American contemporary, and without any stated research or citation to back up the statement.
Scholarship in costuming indicates that the information given is incorrect, beyond being occasionally physically impossible. A child with four days of feces and urine pressed to the diaper area is a child who develops open and seeping/bleeding wounds. Keep doing it, and you don't just risk a screaming child, but a crippled and/or dead one. This aspect of human infant physiology has not changed in four hundred years, and the removed piece of misinformation blithely stated that Elizabethans changed infants' diapers only every four days. A newborn makes approximately 8-12 soiled diapers every 24 hours. Period lists in letters, pawnbrokers ledgers, and the like, of items made or needed for expected and existing infants include enough diapering material to change soiled diapers quite often for several days, in addition to swaddling linen and bands, linen caps and clothes, and blanketing/sheeting. These are sources ranging from nobility down to lower middle class. I'm trying to get to the library to ILL one such source (facsimile pawnbroker's ledger) to add here.
In short, the information presented on the website is not just outdated, but wrong. Heather (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, if you really believe the information was innaccurate I would rather it wasn't there, it just seemed like you deleted it because you didn't personally agree with it, rather than a genuine problem with the source. But you do seem to know more about this than I do so I suppose I'll just trust your judgement. :) Thank you for looking for a replacement source and I hope you find one because the history section is looking a little sparse now. Coop41 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)