Talk:Menstrual pad

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 February 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tamashi2314. Peer reviewers: Tygodin17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
I just finished expanding this stub. What are your opinions?

What did women use before maxi pads and tampons were invented? I think that should be included in the article.

Re Expansion from stub - opinion (as requested above)
One read through is enough to show multiple grammatical and spelling errors. There are also statements in need of verification and with questionable accuracy: one outstanding example being the Asian female physiogamy preference assertion. I'll have a go at it when I've the time (viz. when its not my bedtime); though Someone Else would probably make a better job of it, I think this needs urgent attention if not by an expert, then someone with at least a basic grasp of the Wikipedia requirements and standards. That's my opinion then... Plutonium27 01:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Uses
I think that a lot of the wording under "Uses" is bias and not true for many people. These two lines struck me particularly: It is also usually easier to change a pad than a tampon in public bathrooms., and In general, pads are a perfect fit for most women's menstrual needs., which I both totally disagree with, and would have to say that I'm hardly the only person to feel that way. Those aren't facts, those are some people's opinions.

--I agree that there is a lot bias here. The use of ultra-thin products is on the rise in both Europe and and the US by women of all age groups. They are generally seen as just as effective as traditional maxis. The explainations of why traditional products are still dominant is clumsy and almost seems based on annectdotal information.

new poster (i'm new to this and not really sure how it works)

The cloth /washable ones I think should have a bit more detail about them ( I actually missed it after skimming the article AND reading it properly) considering it's not very well known and they are better for you due to the bleaches and chemicals and un-natural stuff put on "regular" pads that irritate a lot of women (perhaps with them thinking this is normal)

I think it is really important to update with info about this but I don't have the time so maybe someone else can? It can also save you lots of money especially if you have a heavy flow. You can also make them yourself which I never even thought of until I read an article somewhere.

constructive criticism so don't be offended ;-)

I think you should also be more careful with your wording like if you truely believe that this is a popular opinion then say something such as "SOME people find it easier to change..." or A LOT of people choose to use...." because it's not really good to voice opinions like they are facts. (like another person mentioned) You should try and be more neutral. Also a bit about the history of sanitary towels would be nice. I think it is interesting and not something a lot of people know about. I will try to submit a piece myself  if I can. Otherwise good job. =)

I wonder if it can be changed sucessfully to be more..international? It seems like this was written by an American and no offence but it does not match up with British pads (i'm not sure about other english speaking countries) but maybe more specific parts should be changed to general wording.

new poster as well! I agree with the above poster. Especially the brands mentioned are only the leading brands in North America, and the use of certain terms (maxi pad). I am Australian and and a lot of this information is not true in my country. 220.214.143.202 09:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Nicole

new poster #2 What did women use before maxi pads and tampons were invented? I think that it should be included in the article.

Technical specifications
What is that stuff inside the towels that absorbs the blood? I'm interested in the chemical composition and in other materials specs, in order to lift this article (and more: the Dutch version where I'm currently working on) to a higher standard. SietskeEN 18:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Cellulose ist the classical material. Thin towels are made possible by superabsorbent polymers (de:superabsorber), see e.g. . There exists some literature about the pros and cons, see for example . There is nothing specific to blood. --Pjacobi 22:58, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

limited geographic scope


This article seems rather focussed on how feminine hygine is handled in first world countries only.

Write something about other countries yourself? Living in the developed world and not having had a particular interest in ST before now..I do not have a clue. Wouldn't even know if information on that could be found easily. I assume that they would use reusable cloth or go on their own and let it "flow freely" as I've read some cultures do, or have done in the past. If they are malnourished perhaps they don't even have any periods at all. But they are still able to have children..so i'm not really sure. Would be interesting to know.

I'd rather see this article focus on sanitary napkins or towels or items similar rather than general feminine hygiene. Other methods, such as tampons, natural internal absorbents, no product use has little place here than direction to a general feminine hygiene article or to specific articles on those methods. I do agree that this article focuses on products and preferences in the US.

not limited, IMO
In my opinion, this article is not geographically limited. Imagine an article on non-disposable cigarette lighters -- should it be tagged as geographically limited b/c most such lighters are used in industrialzed countries? I do see the legitimacy of the NPOV disagreement over whether tampons or pads are easier to use, and think that should be addressed. I think the geo tag should be removed. I don't know if I am allowed to do so, but I am going to try, right now. Brainhell 00:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree, this article should cover the commercial products as sold in the first world, and a separate article cover all sanitation options, including 'new' alternatives like cups and sponges and the old low-tech options like rags/cloth pads. However, It still lacks geographic scope in that it only says what they're called in the US and UK. We call 'em pads here in Aus, menstrual or sanitary pads if we need to be specific. Towels and napkins are (only) things you'd find in the linen cupboard, so I had trouble finding this article. --Kelly holden 03:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What about reusable cloth pads?
The article touches the subject lightly, but I would love to see more depth about them on this article. Heck or even a page of its own would be great that this article could cross link to! I would do that, but Im kinda new to wikipedia, so Im not sure where to begin.

I also think it would be interesting to add a brief history on the evolution of menstrual products and include what disposable pads are made out of. This would also be an interesting addition to the article. It needs to be presented in a non-bias way.

Update: I just added the "instructions for using cloth re-usable pads" part on it. I think that will help this article out lots! Thanks! (user: moonhut 4/20/06)

Why are washable pads considered feminist ?
 * You got me??? ;)
 * I don't know, but I find it interesting that cloth pads are one of very few places where feminism seems to meet granola mom!

And I just took a picture of a reusable cloth pad.--Sonjaaa 13:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Very nice! That adds a nice touch!  :)

I just tried to add an article "cloth menstrual pads" but now everything is just linking back to the sanitary napkin page...I'm not sure what this means...does the article have to be reviewed before it is posted? It was not lengthy, nor did it have pictures, but it did have all the basics about cloth pads. I wrote it carefully and I think it was in an unbiased manner...keep an eye out for it or discussions about it or whatever, because I'd like to see it (or one like it) get posted here!

Can we get a source for the claim that these cause immune deficiency if not boiled twice after use? I've been doing a great deal of research on these for a school project and everything I have found claims this is not true. (feb 2020) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnassumingObelisk (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Instructions
I think we should remove the instructions. This information is available on the box of the product. Why do we need it here?--Sonjaaa 14:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a good point... maybe a better overview of the products and its features would be better? Including its history, ingredient and/or material list,  and pros and cons of each option.  I also think that cloth -vs- disposable need to be equally highlighted and presented giving all readers something to benifit from.  Are you working on these changes yourself?  Do you need some help? (user: moonhut 4/20/06)


 * I agree. About the instructions.

Yes, we need to show all the available options, in terms of pads. We should also mention non-pad products such as menstrual cup and link to them. We need to broaden the article to non-Western traditions too. What types of menstrual cloths are used in third world countries, I wonder? Surely there are many traditions and methods of putting a cloth in a woman's crotch. :) I'm done working on the article for now, so feel free to work on it if you have inspiration.--Sonjaaa 14:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree! I noticed that menstrual cups are already mentioned and linked to, however I dont see sea sponges or anything else as far as other options noted. We need to add to this article without totally getting off topic at the same time.  I think highlighting what other contries do for their menstrual heigene is a great idea and should be looked into... 3rd worlds probably use a simple piece of cloth, but we need to know for sure before we note that.  Im sure that MUM talks about that on their site.  Ill think about this some more and see if I cant get a creative spurt and come back... I gotta get off the computer now though.  I hope you can get around to adding to this article too - Ill check back and see what you have added! (user: moonhut 4/20/06)

Updated
I've gone through and spruced this article up a little. The main changes I made were:


 * Replaced the words "maxi pad" with "menstrual pad, as this term, while perhaps being commonplace in Northern America, in other counties is used to describe a pad of a higher absorbency to a "regular" absorbency pad. So its use to describe all menstrual pads could be confusing and misleading.


 * Replaced the word "panties" to "undergarment" or "underpants", as I believe this is a more universal term.


 * Removed this sentence "There are two main classifications of maxi pads: ultra-thin and maxi. Maxi pads were traditionally preferred over ultra-thins, but the newer ultra-thin products are gaining in popularity." as not only is it confusing (with the "maxi pad" term), but also an unsubstantiated claim, so while possibly correct, I felt it not necessary.


 * I actually removed some of the references to cloth menstrual pads, as I have created a topic specifically for them and felt it unnecessary to double the information too much. - Obsi 11:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

inconsistancy in spelling
There is an inconsistancy with the spelling panty liner/ pantiliner. Which is more universal? Is there a singular of panties? panty? Or is it an abbreviation? In British English it is usually (as far as I am aware) panty liner. It should be fixed. Nicgeorge 06:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

menstrual pad history
Please note that the factory-made menstrual pad was introduced to America from Britain in 1892 by the Canfield Rubber Co. of 7 Mercer Street, New York, when it began marketing Southall's Celebrated Sanitary Towels. This information is readily available through a ProQuest search. I'd edit the listing, but the last time I made such a correction the page was reverted and my knuckles were rapped for "vandalism."Bentruwe 02:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Absorption
I think it might be useful to add the absorption capacity of pads (or at least a range). I just don't know where this information might be found.

Updated again
I've made some changes to this article. One problem that I tried to correct was the lack of references. There were a lot of unsourced claims, and I found references for many of them on the Cloth menstrual pad article, mostly from MUM. I tried to find additional references from some other sources. I couldn't find any for the "In non-Western cultures" section. Some statements were false, such as "Until disposable sanitary pads were created, all women used some form of cloth or reusable pad to collect menstrual blood." and "Disposable menstrual pads appear to have been first commercially available from around 1895 through Curads and Hartmann's." The poster above, Bentruwe, was right that Southall's disposable pads were earlier.

The paragraph describing the different types of cloth menstrual pads used terms like AOI that I had never heard of before, so I looked them up and tried to describe them in the article.

I also split the "Types of Menstrual Pads" into two subsections to make it clearer. --Ships at a Distance (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "Maxi pad"
I am a little confused by this alternative term in the first sentence.

1) The link following the term (linking "U.S." to the page "United States") seem irrelevant. The usage of the term could be geographical, but it's no point linking to the page about a country. For a linguistic matter, should it be linking to "American English" instead?

2) I don't understand why the word "Maxi" is capitalized. Although it often appears as is, if the term is not referring to any proper noun (e.g. company name or brand name), I think it's best to keep it all in lower case.

Combining both points, my suggestion for the first line would be: generating
 * ... maxi pad (U.S.), ...

Any thoughts? —Tonyngkh (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Pollution Facts Relevant?
I was looking through the article and the section immediately after composition on the history tab detailing the pollutants such as NOx's, SO2 and, CO2 seemed somewhat irrelevant to the overall tone and focus of the article given that they're formed through the majority of human activities. The dioxin reference later on in the same passage seems extremely misleading as it seems to imply that disposable pads contribute dioxin pollutants to the environment which seems highly unlikely given their composition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josdav132 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about pollution as well, more along a general waste line of thought than on specific chemicals, e.g. disposal methods, biodegradability. I've had a look of both the Environment Agency and Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs websites but can't find any figures there relating to how much landfill sanitary towels and tampons take up, or how much is incinerated, etc. Anyone got any ideas? 194.81.199.35 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"The belted sanitary napkin quickly became unavailable after the mid-eighties."
I saw these at CVS last week, so this statement is not true, at least in my corner of the United States. I don't have a source, though.--173.49.90.61 (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cloth Sanitary Napkin Usage Information
I am curious to find out how common cloth sanitary napkin use has become in both Europe and the U.S. I don't know if the claim that the use of cloth sanitary napkins is on the rise can be made as a blanket term, because I'd like to see stats from a neutral source to substantiate the claim. I bring this up because the statement implies that the movement is on the rise in all first-world countries, and, at risk for speaking for too many women in the U.S., I'm not sure that there are that many women who have turned to this movement (at least in this part of the world). SailorAlphaCentauri (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Reusable pads popular among feminists?
They have become a popular alternative among some groups of women, (e.g. feminists, environmentalists and mothers who use cloth nappies/diapers)...

I don't get it. Why would reusable pads be of specific interest to feminists? --DearPrudence (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Choice, comfort, and pad-and-tampon advertising tending to be not-exactly-feminist are probably some of it, but the intersection of the green and feminist groups probably results in at least some of the correlation. My own observations of the communities suggest that generally two types of women use cloth: those with a number of hippy/far-left characteristics, and the very traditionalist. Because of the first group, pagan and queer women also seem to be oddly common in cloth pad comms, even though there's no obvious reason for those either. Kelly holden (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Gejim
I don't know whether this is useful or not for this article. The traditional Korean sanitary napkin (actually a pile of cloth) is called gejim (개짐 in Korean). Komitsuki (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Broadening terms to all whom undergo this cycle.
It now reflects the fact that not all those who menstruate identify as women and not all women menstruate; gender and biology are not synonymous as biological sex does not always match one’s gender identity or expression.Maatjm (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You may be technically correct, but broadening the terms used in the article make it unclear and unnecessarily complicated. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sanitary napkin. 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/20080509155108/http://www.sanitary-product.com/sanitary-napkins/Dry-Weave-Surface-Regular-With-Wings.htm to http://www.sanitary-product.com/sanitary-napkins/Dry-Weave-Surface-Regular-With-Wings.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Gallery
Right now, there are five images of unwrapped commercial disposable sanitary napkins that appear to be almost identical. Why? Which ones are really necessary? Some don't even have captions. Absent a case being made to keep any in particular, I am going to WP:BOLDly delete some of them in a week or so.

In other related news, for some reason, a new user who has never edited any other article has been edit-warring to include the floral cloth pad photo with the lede AND in the body of the article, despite it having been pointed out to them on their talkpage that the photo is already in the article. I am going to continue reverting any such attempts unless a compelling case is made for the same photo to appear twice in the article. I also believe WP:WEIGHT dictates that a disposable napkin be the lead image rather than a cloth pad, because cloth pads are, currently, for the likely majority of Wikipedia's readers, not the preferred or most frequently used variety. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  20:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Should Diaper stay in the 'see also' section?
I added a link to Menstrual cup in the see also section and noticed the link to Diaper. I don't think it's an approiate wikilink, as the only similarity between the two products is its ability to absorb bodily fluids. However, the purposes of each product are very different and a comparison of the two can be considered offensive. I would like to remove it, but I'd appreciate another editor's input before doing so. Clovermoss (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I edited the article and removed the link. Clovermoss (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

External link removed
I removed an external link added here because it's a blog and phrased as a question. I intended to leave a more detailed edit summary but accidently pressed publish before I did. If anyone wants to have this external link included, feel free to reply with your rationale. Clover moss (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert War between Kenner and Franklin
Apparently editor(s) are attempting to change information on the page to something that is not supported by the cited source while leaving the source intact as if it did support this edit. There have been a few reverts back and forth between two names: specifically, changing "Benjamin Franklin" to "Mary Beatrice Davidson Kenner" with no change in meaning or context as the inventor of the *bandage* that is is referring to which inspired the sanitary napkin. This is not supported in the linked source as Mary Beatrice Davidson Kenner is not mentioned anywhere in the source and Benjamin Franklin is, in the exact context of the sentence in this article. What's more is that it makes no sense to credit her in this way since it is not referring to her much later patent in the sentence but to a medical device which predated it by far. In fact, the sentence goes on to say it was first available commercially in 1888 but Beatrice's patent was not granted until 1954. Although she does have a related patent, it is not what the article is referring to in the sentence in question. What she actually patented was a belt designed to grip and hold a pad in place, not the pad itself. This belt is not in common usage, either. To credit her as the sole inventor and to cut out the contribution of Benjamin Franklin seems like ideologically motivated vandalism to me, or at least based on misinformation found on social media. I'm going to revert again with a note. Wayweary (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin
The source for that assertion comes from a dubious source, I couldn't find a reliable one, and it seems aligned with the notion of the genius to whom so many inventions are credited. Like Pythagoras. I doubt there is a continuum between his medical pads and modern menstrual pads --Jbaranao (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Article title
Why is this page not titled "Menstrual pad"? This product is typically referred to as a "pad", and in fact that is what they are called all throughout the article despite the title. Endwise (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Sanitary napkin → Menstrual pad – For the reasons I outlined in the above section: a quick google search confirms that "menstrual pad" is more commonly used than "sanitary napkin", and in fact they are called "pads" all throughout this article, despite the title. Endwise (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support (strongly) per nom. It seems like the WP:COMMONNAME is "(menstrual) pad" (which is also a bit clearer of a title — plus, "sanitary napkin" appears to be a bit of a euphemism, etc.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Definitely the more common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for the same reasons stated above. We don't have a title at Powdering one's nose, either. BD2412  T 06:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support per reasons above. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk&#124;contribs) 07:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, this is an obvious improvement that is less euphemistic and more common. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, WP:COMMONNAME is "pad", with menstrual implied. Assuming it's not the primary topic for pad (I would argue it is primary, but that's another discussion), then Menstrual pad is by far the best choice for an disambiguated title (closest unambiguous term to the common name). Sanitary napkin is incredibly euphemistic, uncommon, controversial (because of the use of "sanitary" in the context of periods), and anyone that hadn't heard the term before could easily assume they're in the wrong place (WP:SURPRISE). --Xurizuri (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wonder if this is a case of WP:ENGVAR. In the UK, "sanitary" is usually seen as the first element, with the second element being "napkin", "towel" or "pad". So claims that it is "euphemistic, uncommon, controversial" are certainly not applicable here. See Britain's biggest supermarket chain, the BBC, and again, and again, and many other sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Google Ngrams seems to show higher usage of "sanitary napkin", and |Menstrual_pad pageviews seem to indicate higher usage as well (although they may both be biased due to various reasons, e.g. Google showing results for sanitary napkin when people search for menstrual pad, etc). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 18:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * When you google "menstrual pad", Google displays this page. I think most people access Wikipedia (particularly for a page like this) via Google first, rather than typing in en.wikipedia.org and then searching "menstrual pad" into Wikipedia's search bar. So I don't think Wikipedia page views really mean anything. Endwise (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.