Talk:Diaper/Archive 1

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

removal of Sud-Pol's pictures
I've removed User:Sud-Pol's pictures because the first was already listed at Images and media for deletion, and the second (which s/he just uploaded) follows this user's previous editing patterns mentioned at Images and media for deletion (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)

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.

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

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

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)

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

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

animal diapers
there should be a section on diapers for animals!

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

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.

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)

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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, in comparison to, for example, "nappy baby" (1.36 million hits).

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" 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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Etymology of "Nappy"
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. <B>Haplolology</B></FONT> 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  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Haplolology</B></FONT> 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? <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Haplolology</B></FONT> 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, 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. 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.  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Haplolology</B></FONT> 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. <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Haplolology</B></FONT> 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  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Haplolology</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.. (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. ).  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. .)  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" and "parents...should avoid teasing, shaming, or nagging.".


 * 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. ?  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)