Talk:Petticoat Discipline

Merge of Petticoating and Petticoat Punishment, and other changes

207.200.116.6: Presumably you were just trying to remove the merge tag, however you are reverting my other changes too, with no given reason.

Regarding the merge, this is not about which content should be kept, it's about which should redirect to where. Feel free to Be Bold and make the redirection yourself - I haven't done it yet as I was waiting for opinions on whether the article name should be Petticoating or Petticoat Punishment. Mdwh 11:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask is there a reason to keep reverting changes, such as putting URLs inside extra [], putting links in list form, or inserting unnecessary spacing?

Lastly, I have explained my changes many times, both here and in comments, so I do not know what the "unexplained revert" means. Mdwh 16:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge issue is now resolved - Petticoat Punishment is deleted. Mdwh 21:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Since I'm fed up with battling with unexplained reversions and a refusal to discuss matters here, even when it comes to issues not even relating to the content, here's a list of problems with this article:

Claims without sources, such as regarding boys finding it pleasurable, and that women train their sons to prefer girls' clothing.
Various POV/weasel words. That some women think such a boy is "more thoroughly feminized" may be strictly true, but how notable is it? (Some comments on babycenter.com does not constitute notable, in my opinion). Similarly with "According to practitioners of petticoating".
~~Poor formatting/spacing, which is completely inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia.~~ (fixed)
Continual reversion of putting the links in list form, which is completely inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia.
This article could do with more sources, especially for some of the claims being made.
Whilst I don't object to having petticoated.com as an external link, there is no need to list multiple pages from the same sites as links.
I don't see why there's harm in linking to relevant wiki articles such as child discipline, spanking and cross-dressing - why the removal?

Mdwh 01:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to Mdwh's spurious claims

Mdwh regards his, her, or its opinions as facts, but, to an objective and rational mind, they are just rants. The article, for example, is replete with references to sources. In fact, there are so many sources referenced that another "editor," Dr. Zak, seems to think that these citations represent the endorsement of a specific web site. Of course, any scholarly article should document its sources, as this one clearly does, and avoiding plagiarism is not endorsing a web site.

The formatting and spacing of which Mdwh complains are perfectly fine and typical of Wikipedia aticles.

It is one thing to edit an article, but it is quite another to add or delete material according to one's whim or to add spurious claims about the need to merge content with other, less-inclusive articles (as Mdwh was fond of doing) or to "clean up" text that is obviously well written, grammatically correct, scholarly, and in accordance with Wikipedia's standards and specifications. Too often those who don't seem to be able to contribute anything of their own seem to want to "edit" (i. e., butcher) the contributions of others.

Mdwh asks why the links to spanking, crossdressing, and child discipline were removed. The answer is as simple as it is obvious. Linking to subjects that are generally understood is not a sound practice, as, theoretically, any and all words in an article could be linked to other articles. In addition, crossdressing is not relevant to petticoating, because crossdressing is a voluntary activity, usually (but not always) practiced by adults and may be practiced by either males or females, whereas petticoating is an act that is forced upon a male child. Likewise, although spanking may be associated with petticoating, it is not a necessary aspect of it and, of course, spanking is a topic with which the vast majority of the public, if not everyone, is already quite familiar: if readers want to access an article concerning spanking, they can do so easily enough with being provided an unnecessary and intrusive link. It is neither necessary nor desirable to litter articles with links just because the capability of including links is present, and linking should be done on a judicious basis.

If there was a misspelled word or formatting error in the text, Mdwh probably "edited" a correctly spelled word or introduced a "typo" on purpose so that he, she, or it could then later "edit" the added misspelling or formatting error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs) .

---

The "many sources" all come from a single site, and often don't seem to back up the claims being made.
The formatting/styling is not consistent with other articles (e.g., see Cross-dressing - or just about any other article).
None of our edits have been "according to our whim" or "spurious". I suggest you take some time to learn about how editing on Wikipedia works - this is not a place to write an article all by yourself.

"our edits"?

"our edits," you write. So, finally, you admit that you and your sock puppets are working as a team to vandalizw this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gpscholar (talk • contribs) .

Yes, "our", as in "Mine and someone else's" (in this case, the other editor on this article). What has this got to do with sockpuppetry? Sockpuppetry is when one person has several accounts, not when several editors have similar points of view. Mdwh 19:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment you make about merging shows how little you understand about Wikipedia - as I had already stated several times, merging doesn't have to involve using the content, what was required was a REDIRECT, and that has now been done (Petticoat Punishment redirects here). So do you agree with that - yes or no? If yes, you agreed with the merge. If no, are you going to revert it?
Whilst it is true that not any article should be linked to because they use the same word, it is reasonable and useful to link to articles that are relevant and where the reader can find more information on the subject. Topics such as cross-dressing are not fully understood by all readers. Your logic that this extends to all words is absurd - as I state, not all words with articles are related to this topic, but petticoating is clearly one example of cross-dressing (whether people consent or not isn't relevant). Just because a topic (e.g., spanking) isn't always associated with petticoating is irrelevant. And you say a user can read the article if he wishes - well, how does he do that? Yes, by going to that article, which can be done with a link. No one is forcing readers to click on links. To suggest that 2 or 3 relevant links is "littering" suggests you have no experience of what standard Wikipedia articles are like. Right now there are no links, and I'm curious whether you would allow linking to any other article whatsoever?
And you can back that last claim up please.

Mdwh 15:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More spurious claims

Mdwh, maybe you have nothing better to do but to make spurious claims about Wikipedia articles, but I do. Therefore, I will leave it to disinterested, objective, and reasonable parties to determine that you are, to put it politely--well, actually, there is no way to be both accurate and polite, so I will say simply please stop vandalizing this and all other Wikipedia articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs) .

Enough is enough!

I have taken the time to review all the charges and countercharges on this talk page. The result? Mdwh, those of your claims that are not altogether unwarranted--and there are only a couple--are minor to the point of being petty. Maybe you found a typographical error in the article. Big deal. Most of them have such a mistake at one time or another. Stop whining. The article is very well written, and the contents are well documented. This is a worthy addition to Wiki and, as such, your comments and "edits," as you call them, are a nuisance and an annoyance. Please stop. Enough is enough! In fact, in your case, it's way too much. Instead of nitpicking, why not do something actually constructive, such as contributing an article of your own that other people (like you) can then "edit" and write diatribes about? There's a BIG difference between editing and vandalizing articles. Until you learn the distinction, please refrain from changing the contributions of other writers and from boring us with your tedious and self-serving complaints. Sweetpotatopie 17:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Sweetpotatopie[reply]

Oy c'mon! It's nicely written, yet it all seems to hang in the air, with no reliable references except someone's website. Dr Zak 17:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a genuine article (as opposed to this essay) at Transvestic fetishism. Dr Zak 17:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a "genuine article," Mdwh sock puppet, and it refers to several sources, including three well known erotic novels and there or four published non-fiction works that can be checked out at libraries or ordered online. Stop making up stuff and stick to the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs) .

Did YOU happen to create the web page that has the "genuine article" you refer to, Dr Zak Sock Puppet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gpscholar (talk • contribs) .

You want a timeout, mate. Dr Zak 15:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From RfC

This topic fails to meet WP:V. Webster's doesn't have the word in it, hence it was certainly not a 'common' practice. The only evidence you provide is from a cross-dressing related site of questionable scholarship - there needs to be a little better citation here, thanks- as it stands, this article is a good candidate for AfD. Complaints of heavy 'weasel-wording' quite valid. While I do not doubt that this is a practice in certain sectors of the cross-dressing world, you have to provide more than what is here to convince the general readership that this was a 'real' practice; and not either fictional or an abberation. (I mean that in the sense of 'unusual'). Editing to this extent by anon editors also does not bode well for reliability; please get an account if you intend to contiribute extensively here & engage in debate. Bridesmill 17:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reponse. To be fair, I can see some argument for this being a valid article (e.g., "petticoat punishment" has 14,000 Google hits, "petticoating" has 11,700; it seems that this may have been something which happened and should be documented). Also note that Petticoat Punishment (which now redirects here) was proposed for deletion, which failed - although this referred to the version before the merge (e.g., [1]), which appeared to be written independently. But yes, even if there should be an article, there is a problem here with verifiable sources. I also agree that we appear to be arguing against sockpuppets. Mdwh 21:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the long editing history of user:Sweetpotatopie, and the writing style, it makes me wonder if we have a sockpuppet here?Bridesmill 17:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no argument against the article whatsoever; my problem is the spurious provenance & the total lack of citation/reference besides one cd website.Bridesmill 18:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary Entry

If you were to read the article that you are writing about, you would see that petticoating went out of fashion during the first part of the 20th century. That's probably why it isn't in current editions of Webster's. Try the Oxford English Dictionary--a far more complete one--and you will find a large entry as well as references to related topics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs) .

Bridesmill and Dr. Zak are Sock Puppets

Look at the style and agreeing opinions of Bridesmill and Dr Zak with Mdwh, and you will see that Dr Zak are sock puppets of Mdwh (and not very good ones at that). I, on the other hand, am yours truly207.200.116.6 17:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Sweetpotatopie[reply]

Firstly, your signature just proved your suckpuppetness, second, if you check IP you will find that Mdwh, Zak, and myself don't even a similar edit history or any IPs. If it went out of fashion at the start of the 20th century, why does the article state that it was discussed into the 60's? Was using my 1960's Websters, btw. - a dictionary well known for inclusion of archaic terms. Older references to petticoating appear to be about the material, not the practice. Bridesmill 17:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed in the 1960's for the same reason that historical events and practices from ancient, medieval, and early modern times are still discussed today. (Wow, that was a hard one to figure out!)

Brides, it's easy to see that you guys are sockpuppets. You all say the same things and cheer each other on like kindergarten kids. It takes all three (or four or however many of you there really are) to come up with a single thought and, once you have finally managed to conceive an idea, you milk it for all it's worth (which is about nil). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs) .

Bollocks. Dr Zak 00:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite clear that Dr Zak, Mdwh and Bridesmill are not sockpuppets. Their user contributions show a wide divergence of interests. Deepak 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharks

Wow, the sharks are really out on this one! Gpscholar 17:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Gpscholar[reply]

I like the taste of essays in the morning. Dr Zak 15:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Okay, we have Petticoating, Petticoat Punishment, and now the new article Petticoat Discipline has been created, I'm not sure why. Petticoating currently redirects to Petticoating Discipline (where the content from here has been moved). Petticoat Punishment has now been replaced with what appears to be entirely new content by 207.200.116.196 - why do we now need two differently worded articles on the same topic? (And the new article is completely lacking sources!) Mdwh 18:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I'll also paste here what anon deleted from the punishment page: Eek - I wish that hadn't been done until the other issues were sorted.. - the entire OED entry on petticoating, btw, cited by anon as quote large unquote consists of two lines:

"_petticoating vbl. n. {examples:
1850 Browning Christmas Eve xxii, Let us hope That no worse blessing befall the Pope, Turned sick at last of to-day's buffoonery, Of posturings and petticoatings.
1895 J. Winsor Mississ. Basin 175 The Shawnees_were restless in being what was termed _petticoated' by the Iroquois."

The term 'petticoat punishment' does not appear. In regards 'going out of fashion in the early 20th', - this appears, from reading the 'petticoat' article, to refer to petticoats themselves rather than this purportedly historical method of discipline. One item which seems to be forgotten in all this is that the petticoat at one stage was not the same as we know it today, and was an acceptable form of men's wear. Let's not stretch that fact into proof of historical forced feminization.... Would also recommend that our anon(?) read the sockpuppet article - not sure if they know what a sockpuppet is. Bridesmill 19:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Petticoating

See Talk:Petticoating for discussion on this article (the article was recently moved from there to here at Petticoat Discipline - I'm not sure if the talk page content there should be moved here?) Mdwh 21:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I merged them, and merged the page histories. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon/Sweetpotato: You cannot take websites such as petticoated.com and pretend that they are real history: this is made up stuff; just like the Pearl stories. just because there is a story in Pearl about incest (and there are many more than about pinaforing) does not mean that incest was something practiced in every household in england....and quoting obscure 1913 texts on the psych of adolescent Girls cannot be taken as material about the adolescence of Boys....Also do not forget (re Fauntleroy) that Petticoats of sorts were a bona fide male garment at one stage. If you are going to write an article here, do so within the parameters well established - this is not/not a soft core cd fantasy website..Bridesmill 15:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirect

Hello everyone. I oppose redirecting this article to Transvestic fetishism right now, because these two terms mean different things. Petticoating is much narrower and refers to transvestic fetishism in adolescent boys, with the strong implication that it is a sort of punishment or mock-punishment. Common or not in the real world, it is certainly very popular in erotic literature, particulary victorian era publications like the pearl. As such it has it's own peculiar motifs and motivations. I think this topic would benefit from its own article (although the current one would have to improve substantially in terms of its emphasis and organization, I can try to work on that.) Certainly redirecting to a more general topic that's hardly more than a stub right now doesnt help matters. Deepak 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I redirected this to Transvestic fetishism because the article is an unreferenced mess. Reading it I don't even know what petticoating might be. Is it plain old crossdressing, men dressing in womens' clothes, or is it mothers getting off on their sons dressed up as girls or is it maybe men dressing up as boys that are dressed as girls? Or maybe it is the theme mentioned in Victorian erotic fiction? The article doesn't say. It even has difficulties distinguishing fact and fiction. At least Transvestic fetishism is well-defined. The redirect shouldn't prevent anyone from writing a proper article on "petticoating", provided whoever rewrites is has an idea what it is and can provide references that back up that it is what the author says it is. Dr Zak 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough. I can give it a shot. Deepak 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a warning - Petticoat Punishment has now been recreated (by Gpscholar) - I've redirected it to Transvestic fetishism (and I agree - if someone can rewrite this properly, they should do so and that would be a good thing, but until then it's better off redirected). Mdwh 02:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an explanation - These redirects go to "Transvestic fetishism" not to anything on anything having to do with petticoating. The two articles cover two completely different topics. The "Petticoat Punishment" article reads fine as written, and there is no reason not to include it among Wikipedia's many other articles, many of which are much less well written and much less well documented. Sometimes, these debates take on a life of their own and continue long after their usefulness has been exhausted, rational argument giving way to cliques and unnecessary and unforunate bickering and egoistic attempts at self-gratification. Hopefully, the issues raised on this talk page can be decided not by warring users but by senior Wikipedian directors. I recreated this article because I believe that it deserves a fair hearing on its own merits rather than being deleted because a few people don't like its contents. Of course, I am willing to abide by the majority decision of Wikipedian brass, but let's settle these issues rationally rather than emotionally and professionally rather than personally. 207.200.116.136 02:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Gpscholar[reply]

Have you considered the legitimate concerns that people have about this article? Have you read the policy on reliable sources? Or perhaps, do you just not care and you prefer to complain? Dr Zak 14:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon; you are the author, so that is hardly an unbiased opinion on how well written (or not) the article is. Please do not take our criticism as a total diss - it is in effort to make a reasonable, accurate, credible article - this has nothing to do about 'liking the contents', and everything to do about being scholarly. Bridesmill 16:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional "talk"

Additional talk about the "Petticoat Punishment" article appears on the discussion page for the "Petticoat Punishment" article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Petticoat_Punishment

Petticoating and Petticoat

I think that mediation may be required, though I know there's a huge backlog of requests. Please see User_talk:Gpscholar#Petticoating_and_Petticoat. I know nothing about this, but I do know when an article has been warped beyond common usage. Shenme 23:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. sorry if I mess this up a bit I'm not really into editing etc, just reading the stuff. All I want to say is there is that petticoat punishment is a more specific element of s&m involving a partner, hence the punishment factor. also, why on earth the Eric Stanton page doesn't link to a page dedicated to petticoat punishment I don't know. Ok, I put the time right? Sorry, like I said this is probably the only time I'll be doing this so forgive me if it's not totally correct, I suppose you can remove it though eh? It's 00:22 in the Uk 22nd May 06. Cheers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.141.128 (talk • contribs)

You can use 4 tildes (~~~~) to sign your comments. Mdwh 00:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinafore eroticism

I don't know if anyone's still watching this, but we now have the new article Pinafore eroticism, as well as someone trying to insert the content into Pinafore. Mdwh 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just mention that I stumbled upon the other page by chance and came to pretty much the same conclusions as Mdwh, before reading any of this (I left my notes in the discussion section over there). Xarmy of meX (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]