This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anatomy: Gross High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

I’d say “bum” belongs in the polite section, not the vulgar one. Mazz0 (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If butt is to be included as an alternative name, then bum should be too. For me, and other people speaking European/Commonwealth English, butt is the end of a cigarette (well, ok, or fag end I suppose). I don't mind removing the slang, but if the US term is there, the European/Commonwealth one should be too. - Francis Tyers · 10:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I think it is better that no slang terms are included. This is an encyclopaedia after all. - Francis Tyers · 10:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arse is the original Anglo-Saxon word. Ass is an Americanisation, possibly because its ambiguity (ass, the animal) conveys a slightly more polite / less embarrassing impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.143.50 (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So much dramatic use of specific names and words Qasimbookwala (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is pratfall a notable subject? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Emotioness Expression (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone remove this irrelevant nonsense? I was actually curious about the sociocultural perceptions of this body part throughout various times and places, but this single instance from the US in the 2010s felt very much non-apropos and almost calculating in its cynical appropriation of space in an article that's otherwise about a universal human feature, possibly for this individual's personal gain. --84.213.45.97 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I have removed it. -- Alarics (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the Lead; scrutiny is invited. If you disagree please revert one edit at a time with an explanation. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But remember your editing restrictions? [1][2] You said you would not make more than 10 edits per day to any article. You made 12 here. [3] You also said you wouldn't edit any article that Flyer22 Reborn was at. She's now named Flyer22 Frozen, but she was here in the recent page of edit history. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as made clear by EdJohnston and I on IiKkEe's talk page, it doesn't seem that IiKkEe can follow his own restrictions (at least not all of them), which, again, are not optional. He is going to consistently (though not always) go over ten edits to an article per day. And because of that, he recently tried to work out a deal of sorts with EdJohnston. Two deals. He told EdJohnston, "I will be glad to revert 4 of these most recent edits, and resubmit them in 24 hours so there is no question about my compliance." He also told EdJohnston, "And in the future, to avoid any confusion, if I submit 10 edits in a row, I will pause for a full 24 hours before resuming." But we can see from this article that he did not pause for a full 24 hours after ten edits before resuming. He could be forgiven for not knowing I'm in the edit history of this article, given my name change (although I don't think that there are many editors with "Flyer22" in their username), but that is why he is supposed to check. If not visually checking the first two pages, he should check via the "Find edits by user" feature in the edit history. But even in that case, he can be forgiven if he typed in my older username since I won't show up in the feature under that name. Regardless, it doesn't look like the restrictions will be adhered to strictly. So I don't know if we should allow for the occasional, or rather often, fudging of them in cases where he goes over ten edits (but not in cases where he shows up to an article I've edited since he's now been informed of my new username and how to check for me in the edit history) or what. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that he also violated an aspect of the restrictions here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add to synonyms the phrase thicc^[1][2][3] after the line "Six; in military terminology, particularly in the United States Navy, it refers to the term "six o'clock", i.e., a point directly behind the referenced person." since this is another phrase used. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The sources provided don't support this addition. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buttocks are usually round. They are on the back of a human 2601:282:402:C8E0:F00F:4234:2E41:8832 (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the words "polite" and "vulgar." These are personal assessments and are not rooted in fact:

The English language is replete with many popular synonyms that range from polite colloquialisms ("posterior", "backside" or "bottom") to vulgar slang ("arse," "ass," "bum," "butt," "booty," "prat").

Sezana9213 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened this request: the language seems like a direct break from the NPOV fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Matthyis (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I am a new editor on Wikipedia, so the convention is unclear to me: hopefully, you can clarify. Why open a new section about the same topic instead of having the discussion in this section? Matthyis (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As requested above, in the preceding section with the identical title. The adjectives polite and particularly vulgar in the text

The English language is replete with many popular synonyms that range from polite colloquialisms ("posterior", "backside" or "bottom") to vulgar slang ("arse," "ass," "bum," "butt," "booty," "prat").

seem like a deviation from Wikipedia's principle of a NPOV fundamental principle of Wikipedia. I request for the adjectives to be removed. Matthyis (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone told me that depending on the nationality of the person that they may have less defined buttocks than those of another ethnicity. Any good leads on this? 2601:642:4400:9F00:D95F:7543:B057:6718 (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they there? XXl0sermanXX (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not censored, and there is an encyclopedic value to the images. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]