This page reads like advertising
Perticularly the History section, with its unverified a hit with customers and stores didn't know how to stock it straight up PR. I am a parent looking for some non-biased info on this stuff. I was wondering why the UNSCENTED wipes have perfume in them, and what/if any disinfectant is used if not alcohol (only benzyne alcohol!???) Anyways, this article might as well be on the P&G servers because it is nothing put their PR. It is really sad to see wikipedia come to this. If there is a more informative version can someone please revert. There is almost nothing of substance here. The controversy section is an amusing PR attempt to sideline any serious criticism. There is a LOT more problems than that, and I am naive on the subject. I could write a better controversy section off the top of my head. Errhem... Landfill! Sorry too tag and run, but I've got a baby to take care of. Can someone track the IPSHUT UPs of the "editors" who reduced this article to a promotional brouchure? Rusl (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It use to be wikipedia would have some balance of this fanboy stuff with criticism so you could see it all. Now with the, media attention to wiki and new rules of cleaning up things to a standard voice it sure is easier for the corporate voice to overwhelm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusl (talk • contribs) 11:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This Article was created over time with some of the corporate PR stuff being used as a basis. Other sources have been used in an attempt to give it a balanced view. The Controversy section is only related to size 6 diapers. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is now reading like a corporate catalogue. There is no need for in-depth information on every single Pampers product on the market. If no-one objects, I'd like to rewrite the products section to just a summary of Pampers' main products, with a general de-ad sweep of the rest of the article. haz (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The Information is Part of the Article. It is not a catalog, so leave it alone --22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Hopefully the issues have been addressed, the article has been overhauled--126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
hey, i dont know how to edit "Pampers also produces wipes to compliment their diapers" that should be c-o-m-p-l-e-m-e-n-t.
The main paragraph sounds like it was written by AB/DLs or something, because there's no way any baby diaper could fit a 14-16 year old. I suggest that the main paragraph be revised, or at least add citation to varify these claims.Freakpatrol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 ([[User talk:184.108.40.206|talk]]) 16:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Which year did Pampers switch to cloth backing? Someone has put 2000 but is that true? Where is a source for that? I'm pretty sure Pampers still produced plastic diapers in 2000. Sugarplum90 (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Suggested Edits to Controversy Section
It should be noted who is investigating the new Pampers Dry Max diapers. In addition, the changes further detail and clarify the ongoing issue including a recent news article with additional information about the investigation.
Suggest to add/change: In March 2010, Pampers announced a change to their popular Cruisers and Swaddlers diapers with the addition of the new Dry-Max technology. Some parents are reporting rashes and chemical burns as a result of using the new diapers. Several pediatric experts have reviewed the Pampers with DryMax safety data and have seen no correlation between the reported rash and diaper. There is an investigation underway by the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) to review the safety of the new diapers. Pampers is actively working with the CPSC in full cooperation hoping to bring resolution to the allegations. Reference: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100505/BIZ01/5060335/1001/BIZ/US+studying+Pampers+with+Dry+Max —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cw7426 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds a bit biased. "Pampers is actively working with the CPSC in full cooperation hoping to bring resolution to the allegations." That just does not sound very neutral to me and has a bit of an original research tone. In fact, I don't think the sentence is needed at all. Wikipedia is not a news source. Information about the CPSC reviewing the safety of the diapers is perfectly fine, making a public relations statement on this article is not. --132 01:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, you're actually wanting to replace the current paragraph with this. Adding the info about CPSC is perfectly fine (minus the PR bit), like I said above, but the statements about the lack of a correlation can't go in. The particular source you provided says nothing of the sort. There is also no evidence in that article that the study had any pediatric experts come to those conclusions. You also conveniently took out the information in your version about the lawsuit, which is not acceptable. This is just way too promotional with a topping of positive spin all-around. You need to tone this down a ton and source everything with reliable sources that verifies all of the information. Thank you. --132 01:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- The more I look into this, the more I find wrong with it. You removed almost everything negative, put a positive spin on what little negative info you left, removed valid information without any reason (probably because it was negative), added info that can't be verified, and requested the edit under the disguise of adding information that was already there and adding detail that actually took away details. Please better explain why you are suggesting we making these changes. Thank you. --132 02:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback. I didn't mean to take out the line about the lawsuit. I was just inserting this revised paragraph before that last sentence. The lawsuit is fact. Other than leaving out the last sentence, the only other thing I removed is "thousands". Perhaps it should be changed to "several". I think "thousands" is too broad and misleading. I get what you are saying about the CPSC line, but the fact is that pediatricians have reviewed the safety data and that should be mentioned. Perhaps this is a better source: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/company-news-story.aspx?storyid=201005140024rttraderusequity_0014 With that being said, this is what I'm proposing:
In March 2010, Pampers announced a change to their popular Cruisers and Swaddlers diapers with the addition of the new Dry-Max technology. Several parents are reporting rashes and chemical burns as a result of using the new diapers. Pediatric experts have reviewed the Pampers with DryMax safety data and have seen no correlation between the reported rash and diaper. There is an investigation underway by the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) to review the safety of the new diapers. In May 2010, a lawsuit was filed against Procter & Gamble claiming the company should have known about the problems.
Reference: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/company-news-story.aspx?storyid=201005140024rttraderusequity_0014 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the swift reply. I was very uneasy about the nature of your previous edits and really appreciate the response. This version is far more neutral and much better sourced. I'll work on adding the information in this afternoon. Thanks again! --132 13:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Edited! Sorry it took so long! I've been busy in real life and this page doesn't get a lot of activity. When it stopped showing up on my watchlist, I forgot about it. I remembered today though after viewing a commercial for the diapers in question. ;) I did tweak the wording a bit to better conform to sources, but I didn't change much. --132 15:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Update on the Pampers Controversy
Hi again, I just wanted to provide some updated information on the Pampers investigation that was noted in the "Controversy" section of the entry. It was announced on September 2, that both the Consumer Products Safety Commission and Health Canada had found no link between Pampers with Dry Max and diaper rash. Here are a few news sources we can cite that support that information: http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2010/08/30/daily42.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100902/us-pampers-safety-investigation/ http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/09/02/pampers-dry-max-diaper-rash.html http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/Procter-GamblePampers_12070553-ews-ap-wxyz-ntw-201009021283518871958 Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cw7426 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Perfuming of Pampers
I cannot beleieve this aspect is not discussed. I would like to see more written about the history and specifics of perfuming. My experience is throughout the 1980's Pampers had a very appealing scent. very big and enveloping scent. The only information P&G will provide is that after the 90's during which the product was unscented, they returned to a scent that is more reminiscent of baby powder. That at least confirms my memory that the original scent was nothing like powder and was more in league with some sort of aldehyde, probably custom designed. I would like to hear from others who think they have a good nose memory and could define the original notes of the fragrance. The equipment and how it was applied would also be interesting to know. Carlos Richer thought it was actually applied to the inside of the product. I am less certain of that, But he makes the equipment, so he may be right. I think it was applied to the outer plastic in some way. 1958kevin (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Where We go Together?
I removed "Where We go Together" from the slogan field in the infobox. It was added way back in 2008 and seemingly untouched and unquestioned until now. I dont believe it ever was the slogan and if it was, it isnt now. The user ended up getting indefinitely blocked. —— 17:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)