Talk:Open-crotch pants

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Open-crotch pants article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Open-crotch pants appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 August 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that while Chinese parents have begun putting their toddlers in diapers instead of open-crotch pants, Western advocates of elimination communication have been moving toward using them?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Open-crotch pants.

Wikipedia

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'll be back

I will return to add images, expand and better source this article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes

"The partially exposed buttocks of kaidangku-clad children in public places frequently strikes foreign visitors, who often photograph them" Strikes them as what? --Khajidha (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should reword it—that's so first draft. Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in Advantages and Disadvantages section

I tagged parts of the Advantages and Disadvantages section as coming from an unreliable source because much of that section cites Jan Wong's book Red China Blues. This book is a memoir, and though Jan Wong happens to hold a degree in history, that does not make the book a history book. It lacks any references or citations, and the author's body of work, including that particular book, is generally sensationalist in nature. It is not appropriate to include in an encyclopedic article someone's dubious anecdotal claim that there was an epidemic of children in rural China who had sensitive body parts eaten off by wild animals who snuck up on them while they were urinating. This sort of lurid detail, if even relevant, needs to have a reliable citation. (I sincerely apologize if, in fact, this is not the stuff of urban legends but actually a serious issue that I am completely ignorant of. I have read several of Jan Wong's books and remember the part that is referenced in this article, but if I recall correctly, it was described as a single case, while in the Wikipedia article it is made to sound like it was something that commonly occurred on a widespread scale.) Hipvicar (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a single case: "The vast majority of his patients, he said, were maimed as toddlers in open-crotch pants." I have it clearly stated as attributed to Wong. The difference between whether it's a memoir or a history isn't really relevant—her book was subject to editorial oversight and published by a reputable publisher. That's enough to meet the RS standards. Daniel Case (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the "lack of references or citations", Wikipedia editorial policy does not reach the works we use as sources. You may indeed consider her work "sensationalist in nature" and the anecdote "dubious", but the opinion of one reader is not enough to render the source unreliable. Only if enough doubt has been cast on that section specifically could we consider removing it.

Furthermore, you appear to have misunderstood. The boys in question were not attacked by wild animals, but by farm animals. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]