Talk:Adult diaper

Adult-sized body

The article starts off with "An adult diaper is a diaper made to be worn by a person with an adult-sized body."

That sounds like political correctness gone too far. Why not just say, "made to be worn by an adult?" After all, when was the last time you heard of a baby with an adult-sized body?

I changed it to "an adult". Stonemason89 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone changed it to "...body larger than that of an infant or toddler", without explaining why. I reverted it again. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Because teens might need "adult" diapers, too?

Anyone over the age of about 3 years would generally be too big for "standard" infant diapers. Roger (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture/Poorly-written

Is that picture of the male in an adult diaper really necessary? It's esthetically unpleasant. Second of all, the article claims that "Depends" is the most popular brand. I'm unsure as to whether that's true in places outside North America. Overall, this article is poorly written, seemingly set up to cater to a fetish group rather than inform. --Seal (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Depends statement should be removed and I have done so. I don't see what's so "unpleasant" about the image. It's an article about adult diapers so there's a picture of an adult in a diaper. If the diaper was visibly dirty or something, I could see your point, but there's nothing particularly offensive about IMO. Would you like to change the image or would you rather not see adults in diapers at all? Because if it's the latter, I would cite WP:CENSOR. I don't see how the article is fetish-oriented since only one (small) paragraph relates to fetishism. Do you have more specific suggestions as to how to improve it? Coop41 (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The image is not offensive, but something like that is not necessary. Just as its not necessary to have a self-shot picture of a thirty-year old man wearing underwear in an article about underwear. That's partially why I saw the article as fetish-oriented. A proper choice for a picture would something you'd see on a professional website, such as a medical supply site. I'm not too familiar with the copyright policies here, but Google Image search reveals many decent choices. --Seal (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

you can get information adult diaper colerad with bladder cancer on http://adultdiaper101.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.164.102.177 (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 

Adult diaper as energy source

Adult diapers in Japan turned into fuel by Tim Hornyak. I don't know if this is relevant for the article but it addresses diaper wastes. Komitsuki (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Context for WLU's edits

Sorry that this issue has now affected still another article.

This segment of the conflict started between WhatamIdoing and myself at Wikipedia:Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine) 19 February 2011[1]. Here is a play by play of that first round. WLU joined the debate, arguing that the essay (in wiki space) was in user space. The debate ended there when WLU "nuked" that essay's talk page by archiving all discussions (even the active ones), 24 February 2011 [2].

WLU then reraised the issue at User_talk:WhatamIdoing, 24 February 2011[3]where it continued until 28 February 2011[4]

He then turned his attentions to Paraphilic_infantilism, starting by removing an EL to website I maintain, http://understanding.infantilism.org/, 28 February 2011 [5]. Overall, he deleted 27% of the text and reduced the number of references by 35%.

The deleted ELs are being discussed on Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard 28 February 2011[6].

In the debate at EL/N, I caught a puppetlike foible (16:28)[7] by an editor who claimed to be uninvolved, in spite of on-wiki and off-wiki contract with WLU[8]. WLU's removal of http://understanding.infantilism.org/ from Adult_diaper followed in under two hours (17:55, 1 March 2011)[9]. BitterGrey (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Understanding.infantilism.org is not a reliable source, so I removed it. I see no controversy or issue here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How long was it up? Months? Are we to believe that the need to remove it magically coincided - within two hours - of an embarrassment that I suspect WLU blames on the operator of that website, me?

On 21 February, WLU brought up wikihounding[10]. That was back when this was just at Wikipedia:Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine). Wikihounding involves a pattern of edits directed against one editor at a series of otherwise unrelated locations; a pattern much like the list detailed above. Perhaps this is a case of the pot calling kettle black? BitterGrey (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked, it goes back to the initial expansion of the article by Tatterfly. Longevity is never an indication of anything, only reference to the P&G. After it became clear it was an unreliable source, I searched for it so I could remove any instance where it appeared as a source. Since you never added it, in fact your sole edit to the page is totally unrelated to the website, this has nothing to do with your contributions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)