Talk:Feces

Shall there be photos of feces?

Why is there no picture of fresh feces? I understand there are problems with obtaining legal pictures on other Wikipedia pages but obtaining a picture of fresh feces is probably one of the easiest things.

The old photo before was small, petrified, and not characteristic of human feces. I have added a new photo which is more representative of a typical stool. Eyeon 05:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigh... Is this really necessary? Is there any reason that you have taken a picture of your dung other than for shock value? I'm going to shrink this so it's a little less visually putrid. --Barfooz (talk) 05:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an article on feces. There is no shock value when one looks up 'feces' and finds... gasp... feces. I have also included pigeon and rabbit feces. Eyeon 06:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to step back, take a look at yourself, and realize that you are arguing about posting a picture of a turd. Fine, have your turd. I'm off to better-smelling areas of Wikipedia. --Barfooz (talk) 06:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What does the photo of human poop illustrate?

Let's not make this a poll. Given that there are some negatives in inlining the picture of human feces, what is it supposed to illustrate? We can be comfortable in the assumption that once the matter is described, every reader of Wikipedia can consult some of the thousands of examples they produce in their lifetime. So what is the point (besides proving a point) being served by including the image inline? Demi ^T/_C 00:22, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

The point, obviously, is to troll Wikipedia by inserting offensive images into articles. Just as we don't have any pornographic photos on pornography, we need not have any fecal photos on feces. The argument that if you're searching for something you should expect photos of it is pure rhetorical nonsense. If you're searching for something in an encyclopedia, you should expect an encyclopedia article about the topic you sought, not photos of the topic you sought: Wikipedia is not a photo album. Including photos in articles is a nice bonus, where the photos are relevant and illustrative. Including photos, however, is neither a necessity nor an excuse. Most reasonable people do not expect to find offensive and repulsive photographs in encyclopedia articles, even if the photos are related to the topic. Nohat 07:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The picture is supposed to illustrate a normal human turd, and it does so quite well. I would challenge anyone to find a photo that better illustrates human feces. Eyeon 06:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The argument is a tautology. I'm asking what editorial purpose is served, in light of the above. Demi ^T/_C 06:28, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

If someone defecated and feared that their poop was abnormal because the distal end had small round harder bits, or freak out because it was glistening with mucus, then referencing this image would reassure them that their poop is normal. A doctor's visit is avoided, money is saved. Photographs illustrate and add information, they are not just a 'nice bonus'. But what if the photo should suggest a real problem needing urgent medical attention? The illustration should be inline, and not linked, because to banish the image from the main page stigmatizes the subject matter. People are less likely to seek medical attention for taboo problems. Eyeon 06:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this doesn't even make sense. Human feces vary enormously in appearance--indeed, showing this picture as "normal" is a disservice from this perspective (if we are to take it seriously). Demi ^T/_C 05:56, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Humans themselves vary enormously in appearance. Dogs vary, cheeseburgers vary. If we eliminate photographs from Wikipedia because of "enormous variation", then Wikipedia would be quite bare. The proper response is to add MORE information - not to purge it. Eyeon 06:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You're all over the place. I asked you, in light of the above, what purpose the photograph served. You said it was emblematic of normal feces and someone wanting to identify abnormal feces could use it for that purpose. But it is useless for that purpose, as you apparently agree since you have stopped talking about that and started talking about cheeseburgers, for no apparent reason. Demi ^T/_C 07:58, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

• • • Do not mischaracterize my argument; 'normal' does not mean 'emblematic'. To illustrate: If you had a four inch erection, it would still be considered 'normal', and a photo of it at penis would not be inappropriate. But to refer to it as 'emblematic' would be wrong, when most other penises are significantly larger. It would be appropriate in the article to add information about larger penises, or, to find a more representative example. It would NOT be appropriate to summarily delete the photo. In reference to cheeseburgers, I was illustrating how inappropriate it would be to remove all pictures where variation is at issue. I am not 'talking about cheeseburgers'. I am still on topic, and I am making an analogy to illustrate how weak your argument is. Eyeon 08:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images are a 'nice bonus' on real life 'printed' encyclopedias, where they have limited space. This is the internets, the cost of carrying an image is considerably less. We can have it, and it further illustrates the article.24.232.58.144 11:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Risible puffery

Don't tell me, let me guess. We are having a picture of faeces in case anyone doesn't know what it looks like? This is the argument used on other pages where in the name of "anti-censorship" other trolls have placed images they know will offend some readers. The argument is, to coin a phrase, shit. So is the one about "if you put faeces in the search box, you'll expect to see a picture of a turd". No, you would not. Unless you were acquainted with the kind of childish prick who delights in trying to create Pornopedia. Ultimately, any article that has the slightest possibility of carrying prurient material will do so, and WP will be entirely unuseable by much of its target readership. Is that really what we want?Grace Note 06:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grace note, you have presented a straw man argument and then knocked it down. Not a useful contribution. Instead of 'letting you guess', how about you actually read the discussion and respond to the honest arguments actually presented? Eyeon 06:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, did you think you actually did present an argument? I answered the risible puffery you thought passed as one. I was guessing your next one and answered that one too. I also correctly characterised what kind of editor you are and posed a question that should bring a flush of shame to your face. Jeez, man, I call that a truly useful contribution. What more could you ask? Grace Note 04:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since you asked, I would ask that you respect Wikipedia convention and refrain from ad hominem attacks that do not advance the discussion, and only serve to distract readers from the valid arguments presented. Eyeon 04:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You present a valid argument and I'll do what you ask. Deal? Grace Note 08:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I won't cater to your vanity by restating arguments. Scroll up and read them. Eyeon 08:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Questioning a Wikipedian's motives

Since we haven't really got a substantive reason to include this photo, I am reinstating the following diffs: [1] [2] [3] [4]. They were removed from this talk page by Eyeon: [5]. I think it's relevant to this discussion whether this photograph is a legitimate attempt to improve the article or not. Demi ^T/_C 08:05, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

I concede that I have made many contributions on Wikipedia, many on controversial topics. None of those edits are relevant to the valid arguments presented here (by me, and by others) in favor of including the poop pic. If you scroll down to the poll, you will see that so far, sixteen eighteen people agree that the article should include the photo (either linked or inline) and only one still only one person shares your view that it should be removed. No wonder you would try to distract the discussion with an ad hominem attack. Eyeon 09:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shall the human feces photo be linked or inline?

Wikipedia policy supports not including shocking images in articles. Images of feces evoke a universal disgust response and these images are only being included here for their shock value. The images will be available on a separate page. Nohat

I agree that the image should be linked, not included in the article itself as an inline image. Samboy 20:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are three images. Should all be censored? Eyeon 20:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If they were censored they would have been removed from Wikipedia. They were not. They were just moved to a different page. That is not censorship. Nohat 20:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Banishing the image from the main page stigmatizes the subject matter. People are less likely to seek medical attention for taboo problems. Eyeon 09:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Editors should remember the 3rr

I see some 3rr violations:

User:Eyeon: 1 2 3 4

User:Nohat: 1 2 3 4

I'm asking both parties to not revert this page again; otherwise I'll have to ask for both of you to have a mandated 24-hour cooling-off period. Samboy 00:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism does not count toward the 3RR. Modifying the article against current consensus constitutes vandalism. Nohat 00:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nohat has a special rule for himself, apparently. I count 6 now. Eyeon 00:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was no consensus then, or now - the poll is dead even. Eyeon 05:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you read the policy: Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. It says This doesn't apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism. Nohat 00:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Funny, what you were reverting is in no way vandalism. --SPUI (talk) 00:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which, of course, depends on the definition of simple vandalism. I do not know if adding an offensive image counts as simple vandalism. Next time, let other editors do the reverting too. (And since 3RR is a maximum 24hr block, I can choose to not block you...) --cesarb 00:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, sorry about the {{vprotected}}. I had forgotten the name of the correct template. --cesarb 00:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In many places, images of human waste are treated the same as pornography, and including pornography in Wikipedia articles is simple vandalism. Nohat 07:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not always; see for instance Penis, Clitoris and (of course) Autofellatio. When it's relevant to the article, including pornography might be a legitimate edit (but will always be controversial). Pictures of feces in an article about feces aren't obvious simple vandalism. --cesarb 12:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. This is why I set up a poll which people didn't even take seriously. When linking instead of inlining images in Wikipedia, stools in Feces should be treated the same as genetalia in Penis, Clitoris, and Autofellatio. I think this is an issue where we should best use procedure correctly to show consensus. And, yes, I feel the human stool picture doesn't belong here. Samboy 20:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Samboy decides that people aren't taking his poll seriously once the voting is against him. Eyeon 05:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that; I only said it's not simple vandalism to add that kind of picture to that kind of article, since it's debatable whether or not they are allowed. I avoided even going near the subject of whether or not they are allowed, and whether or not they should be inline. --cesarb 21:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't make myself clear enough. I feel that the image of a human stool should be treated the same as images of genetalia in the sense that we should come up with some kind of consensus when deciding whether to keep or remove the image. In the initial stages of an edit conflict, having multiple editors revert to version A of a page while one editor (and sockpuppets) reverts to version B of the page pretty strongly shows consensus. I still think it is a good idea to come up with consensus via a poll, though. It this still isn't clear, send me a private email and I'll explain further. Samboy 21:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UT

You should agree with yourself on what constitutes a consensus before deciding if the criteria have been met. And perhaps state your definition. Otherwise, it will look like you are fudging your interpretaion of the poll's results to support your own edits. Eyeon 05:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nohat, while I share your frustration, this is a case of borderline vandalism, not simple vandalism, and therefore you cannot invoke that exception to the policy. Please stick to your three reverts. If more are necessary, just send me a message and I'll do it. — Chameleon 12:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VOTE HERE

Let's make this a poll.

In general, anonymous votes do not count in Wikipedia polls. Nohat 00:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you believe:

Animal and human poop are OK on main page

1. The log of poo is A-OK. Eyeon 22:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Thank you for voting in the poll; hopefully more people will contribute to the poll Samboy 23:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2. Fine, have your turd. --Barfooz (talk) 06:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Polls are evil. --SPUI (talk) 00:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. One vote for inline images. --Niglet 00:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
5. If it has to be down to a vote... Dan100 21:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
6. Okay with me. What's the big deal about that piece of shit? To me, a Human is just another animal, as User:Jong has said on his User page. I do not understand why is there fanaticism going on for a piece of human shit, probably due to religious barriers. But religion, again, is created by man's own ideas! Mr Tan 15:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
7. We can have it, and it further illustrates the article. 24.232.58.144 11:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
8. Sean Curtin 03:50, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
9. Wikipedia:Articles should not censored for the sake of taboos (if it isn't a page yet, it should be (although probably a redirect somewhere)) JesseW 10:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
10. The analysis of scat is an important part of field biology. BlankVerse ∅ 14:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Animal poop is OK on main page, but human poop should be linked

1. Reasonable compromise; the rabbit and pigeon feces do not gross me out Samboy 20:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Should the pix on anus be deleted too, just because they might gross someone out? Eyeon 00:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   This isn't about anus—it's about feces. The same criteria do not apply. Nohat 00:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Applying criteria inconsistently reveals your position is weak. Eyeon 05:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2. This is fine for now. However, images of fresh feces from other large mammals, like dogs, horses, or elephants, should probably also be put on a separate page. The criteria should be if it looks like it's very smelly, then it probably will invoke a disgust response in most people and should be on a separate page. The image page should remain prominently linked in the article so that those who are interested in such images will be able to easily find them. Nohat 20:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Are you proposing a new rule? If it looks stink-ridden, it should be well hidden? Eyeon 22:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3. This verson seems fine to me. Are we going to illustrate Everybody Poops? RickK 23:34, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
4. I say this in part because the picture of human feces is a particularly vile example. RJC 22:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. Having graduated from a Spanish High School (run by Jesuits no less) I am no stranger to scatology. However, this picture seems absurdly uninformative. Certainly an anthropolgist may need to know something about ranges of composition, shapes and color of feces, but this isn't the place for it. I suggest you start a Wikibook on shit instead--CSTAR 23:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6. I agree, this is probably more acceptable. If people want to know what feces looks like they can; if they don't, they don't have to. --Psyk0 10:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
7. I voted below, but this would be my second option, as it is very similar. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:41, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

   This isn't West Palm Beach. Eyeon 04:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Nor is it a presidential election. I fail to see your point. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

   More observant readers can see the point. Eyeon 05:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

8. On the grounds that animal poo is somewhat informative. Amerika 06:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
9. I'm just waiting for pictures on Coprophilia with the argument "We don't censor anything!! People have the constitutional right to see this!!" or some idiotic crap... --Conti|✉ 11:52, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Animal poop OK on main page, human poop not on any page

1. (Weirdest. Heading. Ever.) I think we can assume that most all readers of Wikipedia will be familiar with human poop, so the photo is unnecessary, and doesn't even need its own linked page. OTOH, not everyone knows what animal poop looks like, so those pictures serve some use. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:33, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Animal and human poop should be on linked page

(vote here to take all poo pix off the main page, and put them on a linked page.)

No poop pictures of any kind on any page

(vote here to remove all poo pix)

Votes against the poll itself

1. This poll smells bad. --cesarb 21:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shall we expand upon the photos?

Where's the steaming pile of horse manure picture? BlankVerse ∅ 11:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's now posted under manure. Eyeon 15:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's good to see the large pile of steaming horse manure added to the manure article, but I was thinking more on the lines of the individual horse plops that I remembered maneuvering around (and occasionally stepping in) during parades when I was in the school marching band. It would be nice to find a good picture of that, plus an appropriate picture to add to the cow pie article. (and now if I could only remember where I saw the picture of the dolphin pooping in a dolphinarium...) BlankVerse ∅ 10:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Such a contribution would be welcome. Don't forget to vote in the poll above. 70.177.90.39 10:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is the human poop "normal", and discussion on taboos

But isn't there a chance someone worried about the appearance of their feces would come here to find a picture of "normal" human feces? I think ideally we should have the full gamut of types of human feces available, at the very least behind disclaimers. This is going to require a lot of work, but I think that we should see this as a work in progress, and that having that information available should at least be our long-term goal. Jarvik 02:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should hope someone worried about the appearance of their feces would a) have had a normal-looking BM sometime in their lives to make a comparison to; and b) speak with a medical professional rather than consult an online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool for medical diagnosis. Besides, as you alluded to yourself, what constitutes a "normal" poop? Certainly not the image in question – that thing is huge. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:11, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I should hope that everyone brush their teeth and not beat their children, but what we hope is not what is. Sometimes the taboo against poop is so great that people rarely look at their own feces. The argument that the poop may not be normal is a pointless one. Shall we remove all photographs from Wikipedia, on the grounds that the subjects are not normal? No. We should add information about diversity. If you truly wish to discuss what is considered normal, then let's do so. The image is quite representative: it shows the normal mucus coating, the typical small pieces of dessicated and impacted feces on the distal end, the normal cylindrical shape from a non-strained defecation, normal medium brown color from a typical balanced diet, typical water content and a healthy bulk from good fiber intake. Size indeed varies, but this example is within norms. If you have a photo that you believe is better representative, you are encouraged to submit it. Eyeon 04:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't a feces taboo mean that one wouldn't even look up articles on feces, much less want to look at pictures of it? I would think a descriptive textual description would more benefit people who have some sort of poop-phobia. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

You're would/could/shoulding again. How much poop could a poop-phobe scope if the poop-phobe hoped no scoop? But on your suggestion, I am adding a textual description to the article. Eyeon 05:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's no more "would/could/shoulding" than the original objection to my reasoning. I'll rephrase, since you seem to be objecting to semantics rather than the actual argument: Someone who comes from a culture that views feces as taboo is unlikely to intentionally search for an article on feces, and is likely to be repulsed by a photo of feces, making the article less useful to such a person. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:36, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Someone who comes from such a repressive culture is MORE likely to turn to the Internet when searching for this kind of information, NOT less, because it is unavailable elsewhere. You would deny them Wikipedia as a resource for this, why? Eyeon 05:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to imagine the guy who has a taboo on looking at his own shit but none on looking at other people's. Nah. Another spurious argument hits the pan. Grace Note 08:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you have mischaracterized and dismissed a valid argument. The Internet adds a feeling of anonymity that depersonalizes many inquiries. Therefore, people feel more free to search out information on taboo subjects. Eyeon 09:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Coprophagia: Eating Poop Not Always Bad

"re: Coprophagia is the extremely hazardous practice of eating feces." If the person who wrote that had read the Coprophagia article, they would have found out that, for example, "Rabbits, cavies and related species have a digestive system adapted for coprophagia." The line needs to be qualified, or deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 12:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When the page is unprotected, that line could be qualified as follows: Coprophagia is the practice of eating feces; however, some animals with a high-fiber/low-protein diet (such as rabbits) eat their own feces as a normal part of metabolism. Plant matter the animal consumes is digested in two passes, with the product of the first pass re-ingested directly from the anus. After the material is re-digested, the actual waste that remains is excreted and left alone. Jeeves 21:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have unprotected it, go on with that edit. --cesarb 22:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)