Talk:Elimination communication

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Neutrality discussion[edit]

This article roughly conforms to what I believe, but it's woefully inadequate from the NPOV point of view. I think this article needs a touch from the conventional, opposing side, so that wiki-consensus can be reached.

Right now I'm not willing to touch the article because I'm not an expert, and the foundations of the article are so bad I can't debate them. User:Decoy

The definition sounds somewhat right, but what seems to be in dispute is not the definition but the principle, and that is not for discussion here but on blogs out there.

I am a father of a 1 year old, and we have been doing EC from 18 weeks. The idea of having to clean feces of my baby is archaic.

I removed the NPOV marker because the article is entirely descriptive; there are no statements purporting that EC is a superior method of nurturing, or that conventional diapering is inferior. The fact that EC may make some people squeamish doesn't mean that there is an "opposing side" in any rational sense. I am not aware of any research indicating that EC might be an unhealthy or inappropriate practice. (EC is not potty training and should not be confused with early potty training methods that have been scientifically discredited.)

The widely respected pediatrician Dr. T. Berry Brazelton, who has been an opponent of potty training "too early" now supports the practice of EC by caregivers who have the time and proximity EC requires.

Brazelton does point out that EC would be difficult if not impossible for many parents to practice because of modern social structures such as families in which both parents work outside the home. It wouldn't hurt to include such information in this article, but it isn't necessary to the article's neutrality any more than an article on skydiving should include reasons not to skydive. Some people just don't want to "go there," and thankfully they don't have to.

As far as the "bad foundations" of the article, this writer would appreciate specific, constructive criticism so that references can be included where readers feel it would help. The cited books by Bauer and Boucke are both well researched and include many scientific references. User:KnowWell, 07:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Brazelton's argument about EC'ing being difficult in modern times is flawed because EC is not dependent on mothers doing it with their babies. EC is not like breastfeeding. Anyone can EC a baby. I know many families where both parents work and the caregivers (be it a grandparent or daycare provider) EC the baby during the day.

I've just added some benefits and criticisms to this page. I hope that this makes it neutral, so I'm going to attempt to remove the POV tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amberkhatch (talkcontribs) 22:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense to mention Brazelton's potential conflict of interest, but on the other hand, the proponents of this technique are making money by selling books, so they're hardly neutral either. Questioning the neutrality of only one side of the debate thus comes off to me as a little, well, one-sided and non-neutral. Halfspin (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


what about a 'using diapers as backup' section? Many ECers do this, I feel it should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:16:05, August 19, 2007 (UTC)


The talk page is not an appropriate place for discussion of article content - there are plenty of parenting forums for that. Likewise, the page seems entirely based on books that defined "elimination communication", when in fact the only appropriate sources are neutral to the subject: newspaper and magazine articles, other books, etc. I know nothing about the subject (and am not even a parent) and came to this page to learn about it, and found an article that reads like a promotional pamphlet. Someone who knows more about the topic, please step in and help clean do some elimination on this article! (Sorry for the pun.) --Eeblet (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"The talk page is not an appropriate place for discussion of article content." This is precisely the role the talk page is supposed to take on so that the debates don't spill over into the article.
"[T]he only appropriate sources are neutral to the subject." There is no such thing a neutral article and I wish that people would stop using the term. It has been largely discredited as a realistic stance in the literature on the organization of information (read: libraries). Articles merely need to be either balanced or fair, and not even that if the debate over an issue is being described or a political stance.G8briel (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Support and Opposition sections needed[edit]

Even though the article doesn't explicitly recommend the practice, it does in an implicit sense. Reading the article begs the question, "so why doesn't everyone do this?" and that question is not answered. I've just heard about this today on Yahoo news, and although they don't go into detail, it is described there as controversial. That tells me that there are parents and likely some experts who disagree with the practice and I think this needs to be addressed.

But, as the article currently is neutered of any POV, I think the POV of those who practice/are in favor of it should also be represented. Rather than present an idea with no viewpoints at all, I think the concept of NPOV is to cover the major viewpoints on a subject. It's not always helpful to describe some concept without any context of how people feel about it, just in the name of creating a neutral article. Conical Johnson (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


To be honest, I think that the answer to the question "why doesn't everyone do this?" is that diaper companies have HUGE marketing budgets, and EC proponents don't. Many people haven't even heard of it. Plus, many of the proponents of EC call it "diaper free!" which makes it sound like you have to forego diapers to do it, which is VERY untrue, but makes it sound totally overwhelming and difficult. Many of us "ec'ers" use diapers full time, but give our kid potty-breaks throughout the day at likely times--right after waking, 5-10 min after eating, at each diaper change, whenever baby is fussy for "no reason", or any time we have to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlyle123 (talkcontribs) 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for POV and Sources[edit]

I tagged this article because of POV and reliable source problems. The article is sourced almost exclusively to self-published sources like The large external link section is questionable by WP:EL. It gives undue weight to a fringe topic, and does not present opposing views. In particular, the "components" section is totally unsourced. As a start, here is a good source to present and discuss in the article. Comments? Skinwalker (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, something about this article almost sounds like an advertisement (obviously not an advertisement for a product) more than a factual presentation. (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional Sources[edit]

As a very satisfied practitioner of EC with my toddler, I often refer other interested parents to this page as an introduction to the topic because I would prefer that they get a more neutral opinion to start. However, there is some significant information missing here. I found Christine Gross-Loh's book, The Diaper-Free Baby, to be a good source of information and less pushy than some of the other websites/books. I am not really new to reading Wikipedia, but I am new to editing. I am happy to take a pass at rewriting this article, but one thing that I don't understand is what is the protocol for making a major change to the article. Can I do this? Or is there an "owner" of the article?

LilithLeFay (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can do this. (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Infant_potty_training_method redirects here now[edit]

Redirected "Infant_potty_training_method" to this page as it appears largely coterminous and is probably only a separate page for marketing reasons. Please access that page, check up on my reasoning and plunder the article there for any useful titbits. Pbhj (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over sources[edit]

I've removed every single reference to the Olson book and replaced them with {{cn}}. Wikipedia is not a battleground for authorship disputes - if someone is interested in improving the article I'm sure other sources can be found. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elimination communication. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)