Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Human feces

Spelling

How come the American spelling was chosen for 'faeces' ?? Last time I checked, the language was still called ENGLISH, not American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.105.149.125 (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is hosted in California, hence, American spellings are used over their British (or even Canadian) counterparts. 142.161.68.24 (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with where the servers are hosted and more to do with the nationality of the original article author. If the article had been first written in UK English then that's what would have been the language/spelling of the article. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just faeces, they use the baby simplified-for-dumb-yanks spelling of diarrhoea, too.182.240.9.44 (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i'd like to offer

I'd like to offer a pre-emptive Strong Keep for this page. Probably the simplest answer to the heated discussions on the Feces page; those who need to learn about human feces can do so, those who don't want to see it don't have to. Good job, mikka. --Psyk0 21:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not me who started it. mikka (t) 02:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake. That was the impression you gave over at the main article. Still, good job on moving the picture anyway. --Psyk0 22:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. Now that the feces debate is done with, any attempts to remove or shrink Image:Human feces.jpg over here ought to be resisted by all of us. It's time to concede that any reader browsing a Wikipedia article entitled "human feces" should not be shocked by what they see. But the image is still vandal-bait; it always was and it always will be. --Ardonik.talk()* 04:46, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
All that is true, but I also feel the image needs to be below the fold, for people who hit "random page" and what not. Samboy 02:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I also think we should go to the library and put post-it notes over any objectionable material we might find, for people who randomly pull books off the shelf. And whatnot. We should all carry pooper scoopers to deal with people who randomly take a shit. And whatnot. In construction, drywall should be replaced with foam rubber for people who randomly walk into walls. And whatnot. All power outlets should be GFCI for people who randomly stick paperclips in little holes. And whatnot. Pornography shops should have everything hidden out of sight for people who randomly walk into buildings. And whatnot. 68.97.208.123 09:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The examples you provide are purposefully ridiculous fallacies, whereas browsing Wikipedia via the Random Article link is a perfectly normal behaviour. You have a point, though; censorship of The Picture(tm) isn't done because people might accidentally come across it. There are other reasons, and the main Feces talk page is full of them. --Psyk0 10:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a commant about logic: Randomly pulling books from shelves is what I see people do in non-academic libraries all the time, which basically macthes hitting the "random" button. mikka (t) 17:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very clear to everyone that Samboy and Psyk0 are just trying to stir up trouble. Classic troll behavior. They tried it on the main article page, and now they are trying it here. I am preparing an RfC on their behavior. 68.97.208.123 11:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? --Psyk0 19:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs a picture that more effectively demonstrates the quintessence of poop.
I would like to point out that the human feces picture is free and could be useful and necessary for future post-human generations and/or future alien species reading Wikipedia to see what human feces looks like. (I mean it, though I can hardly type that with a straight face)KWH 18:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just arrived at the page from a link in an anime to see a full color picture of shit, it has been argued that why should anyone be disturbed by seeing something they see everyday, simply for that reason, everyone knows what human feces looks like, they don't need to see a picture of it here any more than they need to see pictures of vomit, urine, ejaculate, dismembered bodies, or hard core pornography. Allowing imagery of this nature discredits Wikipedia as well as drastically lowers the perceived quality of this site.Max Vitor (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So people on a daily basis we all see dismembered bodies? Spacebar265 (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for removing that god awful image. Duesel 00:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring that god blessed image. 68.66.98.168 08:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please tell me why they have problems with an image on the internet of something they see several times per week? (unless of course they have severe psychological troubles associated with looking into a toilet bowl - go see a shrink) Joffeloff 16:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally cannot poo and the sight of it would help me bring the article into context. It is not often that I am able to view human feces, do to my condition. I would appreciate the inclusion of images. thanks --Billwsu 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I find that really hard to believe. In fact, I'm pretty sure you'd be dead if you could never poo. Bufftractor53 23:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me why in Heavens name there even is a page in Wikipedia devoted to human excrement let alone a disgusting picture?Max Vitor (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Poo especially human poo is extremely important. You may want to live in the dark ages, but dont drag the knowedge of poo back their with you--203.192.91.4 (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

We have had these problems in many other articles before, starting form vagina. The image stays, because:

  1. It is directly relevant to the article
  2. It is neutral (i.e., it does not carry any additional (offensive or humorous) message: it is not made in form of a man, it is not smeared over the wall, it is not an artistic design with a rose in the middle, etc.)
  3. Its depiction is not forbidden in any Holy scriptures.

mikka (t) 19:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image goes because of the discussion we already had on Feces. Samboy 20:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new aricle. In Feces article the image was of questionable relevance. Not to say that this old discussion was hardly conslusive. mikka (t) 21:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is your third reversal, not second. You are not answering my objections, nor presenting them here. I have all reasons to treat this removal of relevant information as trolling or vandalism. mikka (t) 21:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your position from User:Samboy/Offensive, but I fail to see that this particular image is offensive to a prohibitive degree, see above. Your argument about absence of pornography at pornography page is irrelevant here: the "pornography" subject is offensive and prohibited by itself, but not feces, unlike, say, shit. You are well aware that offensiveness of various topics vary, and in this article your tolerance threshold is too low, IMO. mikka (t) 22:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been personally attacked last time I tried to discuss the issue. I have had any attempt to compromise on this issue spurned. I no longer have time to engage in discussions on talk pages where the result is personal attacks and hard-line refusals to compromise. Samboy 23:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for accepting the compromise I tried to put here before. Samboy 23:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't accept it. 68.229.240.103 14:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, if someone tried to remove the image, I would revert to the compromise Mikkalai and I worked out; I think it's a reasonable compromise. Nothing gets censored, and Wikipedia stays work-safe for people who hit "random page". Could you please explain why you don't like the compromise? Samboy 17:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is just to point out that contrary to the edit summary made by 68.229.240.103 earlier today, it was NOT Reverting to last version by Mikkalai. The diff is here. Misleading edit summaries are frowned on at Wikipedia, so I hope it was an accident. Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ann, I admit it. I was deceptive. I was trying to sneak in something nefarious. I hope nobody checks that diff, or they will learn my true intentions. And Sam, just because you (one person) stopped your petty little bickering with Mikky (one person) doesn't mean I should respect your settlement. 68.229.240.103 04:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Before I start talking with you, I would like you to answer one question: Are you, or are you not the same person as User:68.97.208.123?
Would it be easier for you to justify your position if I had disagreed with you in the past? Either way, your behavior is arrogant and your contribution unwanted. Before I answer your question, Samboy, are you, or are you not a complete hypocrite for not signing that post? 68.229.240.103 13:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody removed the image, and put in a link to it instead. My understanding was that the image stayed in that location, due to a compromise between mikka and Samboy. It seems like a good solution to me. I'm reverting. Kiaparowits 16:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the compromise we worked out. I prefer linking myself, but accept it being "under the fold", since this seems to reasonably satisfy all parties involved. Samboy 19:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Must it stay? Everyone is fairly similar with what human turd looks like. There is no need for a graphic image. --Kilo-Lima 22:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "graphic" image. Everyone is also familiar with how nose looks like, and some think it is a very ugly part of the body. mikka (t) 22:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lets have a public vote on the matter. That image is graphic and very disgusting, and it made me feel a bit sick seeing it. There are various reasons for linking to an image rather than displayng it: offensiveness and nastyness (as here); (and to avoid an excessive clutter of images on one page) Anthony Appleyard 07:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a poo. It is not a violent, sexual, or otherwise image it is just a picture of what each and everyone of us does every day. It's just human waste product. No one will be harmed by seeing this picture, there are many other pictures on wikipedia that are controversial but they remain because they share a common ground with this one. They illustrate the article. There's no point stuffing it all the way at the bottom of the page. AntonioBu 09:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio, no need to bring back an old argument. (sigh)QuizQuick 01:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poo is not "graphic," just gross. In fact, it's angelic to have a picture of human feces in the human feces article compared to the picture of the naked man I saw as soon as I went to the man article. --Gray Porpoise 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more images please, and/or the original

Besides more variety for this page, I could use some shit for a toilet-training game. :-)

Make a new account on the Commons if you are shy.

Public domain shit is best. GFDL shit is no good. GPL shit, LGPL shit, MIT shit, 2-clause BSD shit would be OK too. Basically it needs to fit the Open Source Initiative and Debian guidelines.

I prefer to add the alpha channel (variable transparancy mask) myself, starting from an unmodified image. I'm more skilled at making alpha channels than most people are. A shit on brown paper is probably best, though there needs to be enough contrast so that I can make out the edge.

A top-down view, without shadow, might be best. I'm also interested in straight side-on views. I don't want to deal with funny angles.

Related stuff I could use: toilet (front/side/vertical, open and shut), plunger, toilet brush, urinal, mens room sign, ladies room sign, and any other bathroom or restroom object.

24.170.177.130 04:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some more pics? The one here i especially yellow and loglike. What about brownish/reddish, liquid-type and piles? How about the kind in a baby's diaper?

If you want more pictures, go to [[1]]. They've got lots there for you to look at. Wikipedia's not the place for pictures purely for the sake of disgust. --Nathan 02:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about disgust? Also, I don't see any indication that the www.ratemypoo.com images are under a free license. I'm not prepared to wait 95 years plus the lifetime of an unknown author (who, being unknown, must be assumed to be the oldest living person) before I can freely use an image. I'm quite certain to be dead by then. 24.110.60.225 02:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T feed trolls. mikka (t) 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know Image:Human feces.jpg is encyclopedic, but why do you deserve to stay it on the article? Adnghiem501 03:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because is the article is about them. mikka (t) 04:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone removed it from the article for some reason, and the same image that was deleted here before was once used as a lot of vandalism. They said it's proper to be used on the article. It has no effect for removal. That tells me I was wrong. Adnghiem501 05:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a troll, I am an ordinary member of the 95% or 99% of the population who does not like suddenly coming across human faeces either as the real thing or as a realistic image. Atleast, if it was the real thing, the smell would warn me before I saw it, and I could know to keep away. Anthony Appleyard 14:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 99% of the population who don't like human feces probably wouldnt Wiki it now would they? If they want to look up things that offend them, then they should prepare to be offended. 63.195.61.102 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (Oops forgot to sign) Copysan 00:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (LMAO, forgot to login as well.)[reply]

I came here because my son had a very, very, green stool, and here I see you all getting up in arms about a picture? How sad. I seen somewhere on this page about using a live link to enable people to view the image if they want to. Everything else is moot. Oh, and if this isn't good enough for you, go view some other page and leave this one to people who have more to worry about. Thanks.

Different pictures needed

I think we need more pictures, not less. One picture after eating pizza all day, then maybe a picture after eating corn and peanuts.

^person didn't sign


Personally, I think we are looking at the shit picture the wrong way.

Someone needs to take a less offensive picture of human feces, preferably brown and drier, and replace the yellow slimy one with that. The current picture of fecal matter is certainly not the norm (see ratemypoo, etc), and prompts the gag response quicker than a more normal, aryan style piece of poop would. I'd like to reopen this discussion, because I freaked out almost as much as I did when I saw Vagina while in a school-run computer center when I scrolled down. -WAZAAAA 23:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"aryan style"...seriously? Are you some sort of poop racist? Rpm2005 (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

missing

can someone add something about average quantities of feces, e.g. kg per week?

I did not see a reference to stools that float versus stools that sink. any signicance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.239.128 (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture

If you're going to put a picture on this page, maybe you should have one that is representative of normal human feces. The example on the page doesn't look like it came from a particularly healthy individual .. --68.146.186.92 06:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have a picture? Everyone not born blind knows what faeces looks like.--Mongreilf 16:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cause it's funny

wikipedia is a resource that should be open to all walks of life, if other intelligent life want to learn about us (and i'm not saying aliens), a picture can be considered informative — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.189.104.122 (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the picture of Feces look like it went through a Dairy Queen soft serve machine? FancyPants 01:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because some European toilets are designed with the well in the front of the fixture with a nearly-flat bottom in the rear. The supposedly allows one to inspect one's output for signs of disease, etc. This stool was particularly large and somehow coiled itself up as it landed, which resulted in what you see in the image. Cacetudo 12:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I guess this guy likes to take pictures of his/her poop!

I'm pretty sure human poop doesn't look like that, but that does look a lot like fake human poop from a gag store, so I guess it's good enough. 2601:448:4300:3FF0:7111:F96A:3F9:CF85 (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

As suggested, let's vote:

Against because nobody needs the picture, even if it could be relevant. Seriously, would you imagine that on encyclopedia britannica or universalis ? be serious, guys.

wikipedia isn't britannica. wikipedia isn't trying to be britannica.

It isn't indeed. It is also quite uncommon for votes initiated by anonymous users to be taken very seriously. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement

I'll get my toddler to provide an alternative image of a more normal-looking bog, but in the interim I'm removing the picture of the yellow log. - brenneman{T}{L} 13:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm cooking up a good one right now. I had tacos and a meatball sub, it'll be a great one, assuming I can get it out my ass

The turd is a fraud

If you look closely at Image:Human feces.jpg, you will notice that the middle part of the turd appears to have been cloned and stretched to make the turd longer. There is a peanut which can be seen, and an identical peanut about 1 inch away. Can we get a real picture of a big turd rather than this photoshop gimmickry?

You've gotta be shitting me. Klosterdev 23:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the wit. --Scix 01:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holy shit, I think you're right. 65.68.145.113 03:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How're these for variety? I personally think this article needs a make-over. How do I go about nominating these puppies up for selection?Fresh is better!

Next stop; Poopville Corny! WaddlingTimy (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect the Page

Tell the Wikitruth! Unprotect the page and put the turd at the top!

Feces image

I think the feces image is unnecessary in this article. Anyone reading this knows what feces looks like; we don't need to be reminded by a gross image. 209.236.231.253 06:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit above was made by me while I wasn't logged in. Reading above, I see there has been a little controversy on this image—like some of the others, I urge for a vote on this matter. Although I understand it is the subject of the article, the current image is both abhorrent and paranormal. If we must include an image, why not something a little less disturbing? Rmfitzgerald50 09:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)#[reply]

LOL. I believe the above user meant 'abnormal', unless by 'paranormal' he was referring to a ghostly poo, or perhaps the loch ness monster. Saccerzd 14:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too believe the image is unnecessary. To the extent of my understanding, a very small number of humans, if any, do not produce feces like the one depicted in the image. With that it mind, it seems the image serves no purpose as it depicts something which is common place and does not require any visual impetus to remind the reader of what it looks like. In its current form this article stinks.--Lord of the Ping 02:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have images of nipples in the Nipple article, even though everyone has at least one. Powers 12:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but nipples don't make me lose my appetite. Also, "the existance of one thing does not warrant the existance of another" or something like that. Anyways, if you don't know what it looks like, or want to see it, go here http://www.ratemypoo.com/ Zombieninja101

Listen here, ZOMBIENINJAONEOHONE. If you don't want to look at the picture you don't have to! For the rest of us though, the image stays. user:nateabel —Preceding comment was added at 05:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal  : Should we remove the image to the right from the Human Feces article?
Rationale :   This image depicts Human Feces and could be placed at the top of the article. But from looking at the talk page, many people believe it doesn't need to be on the page because everyone knows what feces looks like.
Proposer : Sonic3KMaster

Survey and discussion

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "--~~~~".

  • Comment The proposal offers a list of alternatives. It is impossible to support all of the alternatives. The proposal should be re-worded so that "Support" and "Oppose" can be used properly. Powers 12:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, reluctantly. We need an image on this article, but it should ideally be one that isn't Photoshopped. Powers 01:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current image serves no educational purpose as it neither enhances nor broadens the reader's understanding of human feces. Images on the "nipple" page enhance the reader's understanding by displaying the differences between male and female nipples, and erect and unerect. I'm open to images that display feces which are "special" for displaying, for example, feces rich in a certain chemical or that display the feces of an individual suffering a particular ailment. At current its just an image for the sake of having an image.--Lord of the Ping 01:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Proposal is ambguous. I support the prescence of an image of feces. SuperTycoon 16:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result of discussion

Accepted No Objections, survey closed. --Sonic3KMaster (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


{{linkimage|Human feces.jpg|An example of human feces}}

As I'm late I'm unable to participate in the vote, however I would like to have the image associated with the article. Human feces is a "gross" subject in itself to many if not most people and I do see how this particular image can upset someone, even make them turn away froma reading the article, which is bad. Could we not use the {{Linkimage}} template for this making it look like this in the article. __meco 20:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is the image itself. If we're going to associate an image with this article, it needs to be a more authentic image. Powers 02:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That survey did not last long enough. only two people voted. silly! do another, let it last a month or two, and then we'll see! I say get a new image, because that one definitely IS PARAnormal.Loki at6 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Please do not protect pages without putting a protection notice up. It causes confusion when people go to edit the page and they find that the page is protected. Scott Gall 22:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Why was Image:Human feces.jpg replaced by Image:Human Feces.jpg. Is the new image "better" than the old one? (IMHO, the latter seems more representative of human feces than the first.) SCHZMO ✍ 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first one was removed because it was considered nonrepresentative of healthy stool, and was Photoshopped. The second one is there because no one else has found a better image yet. Powers 20:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I will admit to a slight bias in my opinion, because I created the image and added it to the article, I do believe that this image is a perfect illustration of healthy, normal human feces. As mentioned earlier, the previous image was a fake. This one is hi-res as well, and shows several aspects of the subject quite well (the mucus coating, for example), although I think the placement and sizing within the article are reasonably subdued. I firmly believe that this article deserves an such an illustration. Cacetudo 12:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If your feces look like that, you have to change your diet... I propose myself to post a picture of my feces in a few months, when I'll get a digital camera.
Perphaps you could change the image summary to make it more educational. Right now it reads: "Yes, this is real. It is what it is - If you have a problem with the subject matter, then please find something else to read about on Wikipedia." I think it would be better if the summary noted, amongst other things, "the mucus coating".--Lord of the Ping 16:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may be healthy, but does normal human feces get excreted to form the shape similar to the shape that soft serve ice cream takes atop of an ice cream cone?--Benhealy 04:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Cacetudo's response to FancyPants in section "The picture" (on this talk page). I guess it was coincidental. SCHZMO ✍ 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that.--Benhealy 00:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed an "accident." Have a look at this page. Cacetudo 11:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. I've done just that, added some other stuff to the image description as well, and reorganized that page. Cacetudo 11:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can we know the image is indeed a real human turd? It might just be fake poo, like you can get from joke shops etc. I think we need a verified image of a turd, with a reference. We shouldn't just accept any old turd produced by a wikipedian and put on the page. Remember, a lot of people around the world are reading this shit and we have to show them authentic feces.

Colour and size

Isn't human feces larger and darker than the feces shown on the picture?

Yes, it should darker from proper bile metabolism by the bacterias. It should be larger and diameter and quite less long. Producing that much wastes mean a lot of things are unabsorbed. I suspect a diet high in refined carbohydrates and deficient in proper fats. There is probably some inflammation too, given the small diameter of the stool.

Colour

I know from experience that the eating of beet may cause one's feces to go reddish and that eating things with a lot of iron can make it green, can someone research more into this and add that to the article? 201.23.64.2 00:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed de-inlining of graphic picture of human excrement

{{linkimage|Human_Feces.jpg|Human feces}} I suggest that the photograph of human excrement be de-inlined, so that it will be displayed on the article page as shown here. We would still preserve access to the photograph for readers who wished to view it, but it would not be obtrusively displayed to readers who do not want to view explicit photographs of human excrement. John254 00:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal. Many people are queasy about seeing such images and would find it hard reading the article with the image in permanent sight. The same line of action has been adherered to at Autofellatio. __meco 00:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This way lies madness. Wikipedia is not censored. Powers 02:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do we go out of our way to offend. The appropiate editorial decision is based upon what adds to the article.
brenneman {L} 03:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles benefit from having an image directly illustrating the subject. The only articles I can think of that wouldn't benefit would be those about an abstract topic -- and even those might have an image if we can find something releated. I really don't see why this one is any different. We have a picture of rabbit feces on the Feces page. Are human feces more offensive than rabbit feces? I suppose, realistically, this article would never make it to the main page, even if we did ever get to Featured Article status, but anyone going to the Human feces article ought not be surprised if he/she sees some human feces there. Powers 12:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
De-inlining the photograph is not "removing" or "censoring" it -- it merely avoids accidental exposure. Thus, we would continue to have "an image directly illustrating the subject". Furthermore, since this photograph doesn't appear to be the sort of image that most people would expect to find in an encyclopedia, readers might reasonably "be surprised if... [they]... [see] some human feces" here. Based on the existence of clear supermajority support for this action, I am re-de-inlining the photograph. John254 14:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is evil. We go off of consensus here, not "supermajority". I maintain that four comments is not enough to determine consensus, especially since my concerns have not really been addressed. Are you saying that if three people find an image offensive, we should hide it? There are a lot of potentially offensive images on Wikipedia. I really don't see why this one is worthy of hiding. Also, for the record, de-inlining the photograph is indeed censoring it, just as much as a brown paper wrapper over the cover of Playboy in a magazine store is. Powers 20:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the issue here is not whether the editors who have commented about this matter personally find the photograph to be offensive. The issue is whether this photograph is likely to be offensive to a significant portion of readers, based on a factual judgment. I wouldn't support de-inlining photographs based on uncommon, idiosyncratic beliefs about what is offensive. However, the question of whether any particular photograph "is likely to be offensive to a significant portion of readers" necessarily involves making a subjective judgment. Therefore, it appears that the only way to resolve such an issue is on a case-by-case basis, considering the judgments of established users about each particular photograph. Without a consensus, application of a supermajority rule would appear to be the reasonable way to resolve the issue, because the consensus cannot prevail if there isn't one -- unless we are to favor the previous version of the article by default, allowing changes only after a consensus has developed, which is a rule that is presently only applicable to policy pages. See Wikipedia:Voting is not evil
If "a brown paper wrapper over the cover of Playboy in a magazine store" is "censorship", then by that definition, de-inlining photographs that are likely to be offensive to a significant portion of readers is "censorship" as well. I would suspect, however, that most people, even most consumers of "adult entertainment", would support this sort of "censorship". Very few people want to see hard-core pornographic images obtrusively displayed on billboards over freeways, or on magazine covers in grocery stores. However, I would define censorship as efforts to deliberately restrict access to information. By this definition, de-inlining photographs that are likely to be offensive to a significant portion of readers does not constitute censorship, but rather a reasonable precaution to avoid exposure to the large numbers of readers that are likely to be offended by them. Readers who wished to view, say, explicit photographs of human excrement, would retain the ability to do so, with very little extra effort. John254 22:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia, though, is not a retail store. What would be unacceptable there is not necessarily unacceptable here. What I primarily object to, however, is that you removed the inlined image after only two people (one of them, yourself) had weighed in on the subject, and then, when I restored it because of lack of input, you removed it again after only four people had commented, one of them against the move. While 3/4 is indeed a supermajority, the sample size is absurdly low to justify re-making a controversial change so quickly. I encourage you to put the image back, and wait for a real consensus to develop, or, barring that, a formal vote with more than a handful of participants. Powers 23:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of any policy, guideline, or other principle that indicates a need to solicit input from a large number of editors before making significant edits to an article. Therefore, I believe that I have acted properly, and I respectfully decline to re-inline the image myself. If you want a larger number of editors to comment on whether the photograph of human excrement should be de-inlined, you are welcome to file an article RfC about this issue. John254 01:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "need", per se. WP policies and guidelines don't get into that much detail, and for good reason. Editors are indeed free to make changes whenever they like. What I take issue with is that when I reverted your change, requesting that we form a greater consensus, you ignored my request and remade your change. That's not disallowed or grounds for a block or anything like that; it's just not best editing practice. That's how edit wars start (which is why I haven't reverted you back, and came here to appeal to you directly). I probably will file an RfC, although be aware that RfCs in general have not been getting much response lately; I caution you not to assume that lack of comment constitutes support for your version. Powers 11:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
right|100px While I will admit to a slight bias in my opinion, because I created the image and added it to the article, I do believe that this image is a perfect illustration of healthy, normal human feces. As mentioned earlier, the previous image was a fake. This one is hi-res as well, and shows several aspects of the subject quite well (the mucus coating, coloring, and partially undigested food, for example), although I think the placement and sizing within the article are reasonably subdued. I firmly believe that this article deserves an such an illustration. There has been plenty of debate on the issue of whether or not to include pictures like these in relevant articles, and the consensus I found was that it was acceptable to have them as long as they were not overly large (after all, one can see the large high-res version on the image page) and were placed "below the fold." The latter ensures that a user who clicks on the "random page" link while at work etc. is not surprised with an image that they may not want to see. I do believe, however, that the (paraphrased) argument "everyone knows what feces looks like, so there's no need for a picture" is specious. This is not a paper encyclopedia and therefore there are no space constraints. In my view, any article deserves an appropriate visual illustration such as the one we are debating. Should that image be potentially offensive, I believe it should be subject to the placement guidelines I mentioned above. Have a look at the articles on the Bristol Stool Scale, meconium, penis, erection, vagina, vulva, anus, breast, and nipple, for example. I also take issue with the way you went about your edits. You proposed something, received comments from only 3 users, and barely 14 hours later decreed that the debate was over. I see now that an RfC has been submitted for this article. Perhaps that will allow more people to share their views. In the meantime, I have reverted the article to the version prior to the opening of this debate. Cacetudo 12:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came here from requests for comment. I think the image should be inlined BUT it should be not too invasive to the article, as in not too big. If it's small it would probably offend less users. Pictures are very important and valuable to wikipedia. It's not censored either. If the image is small, the user can always click it for a closer look if they are interested.

The image shouldn't be right down the bottom of the page, maybe halfway down or even at the top.

The above comment has taken into consideration vandals redirecting articles here.--Andeh 11:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

Filed an RfC here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. For folks coming from the RfC, I thank you. The discussion is immediately above this section. To restate, the issue is whether an image of human feces should be displayed in the article (note that even in this case, the image has been "below the fold", so to speak -- far enough down the page that a user must scroll down to see it) or linked to as a warning to readers who might find the image offensive. Any comments are appreciated. Powers 11:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Why not put a real picture of human feces instead? Should we put pictures of roadkilled skunk under the skunk page? I mean come on, no healthy human being will have feces like these shown on the page. I'm offended by the picture, just like I would be offended by the picture of a smashed human brain in the brain page, or by sexual organs cut in half lenghtwise...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.183.151 (talk • contribs)
That is a picture of real human feces, produced by a healthy human being (in the interest of full disclosure, yes, that is me). Why don't you take a minute and read the description on the image page? Perhaps that will enlighten you. Notwithstanding your inaccurate and misleading comparisons (i.e., skunk = roadkill; human brain = gore; genitals = mutilation), the consensus was that this image was reasonably placed in this article (see this RfC section, for example). People reading an article on feces should not be surprised or offended to see a picture illustrating the topic. Cacetudo 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to tell us about how bad your diet is. It looks too soft, there is too much mucus, the diameter is too small, it is way too long. Tell us how much rolls of toilet paper you went through to wipe yourself... You must have had a lot of trouble to flush this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.183.151 (talk • contribs)
Comment
I'd say keep it in, for two reasons. First, if it's removed, the page will likely become the target of some strange combination of edit-war and consistent vandalism. Second, "the kids" will get a kick out of it, and the article is well-written enough to provide a good example to go with the guffaws. SB Johnny 14:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't censored, so I say keep. Jefffire 14:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

if we could get a less offensive looking picture of feces it'd be better I think.--Andeh 14:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the previous image that was here. Not only was it altered in Photoshop, it was atypical. I must ask, however, what do you think makes certain pictures of feces more "offensive" than others? Cacetudo 14:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I believe the image should remain inline, since wikipedia should not be censored, and anyone opening a page about human feces should expect such an image. I strongly believe that only a minority of people would be offended by such an image, and a greater majority would benefit from being able to link the articles points to the inline image. SuperTycoon 16:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I beleive that there should be an image, and that as a compromise to those who find it offensive it should be "below the fold"- i.e., not visible at the top of the article on most browsers (recognizing that this is a very malleable boundary). Kiaparowits 15:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Keep Per Jefffire. QuizQuick 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep. A few months ago a similar RfC happened at smegma and the result was also keep. In response to some suggestions the editors cropped the image to emphasize its purpose as an example of smegma rather than a photograph of a human penis (the current image is an extreme close-up). I view the current feces image as more a depiction of a toilet bowl than of its contents, thus missing the details that would indicate a person's diet and intestinal health. What I suppose I am suggesting is that someone deposit a bowel movement onto a flat surface, then photograph with better lighting and zoom in on the subject. Durova 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

interpretations of the word 'coprolites'

Can this effort be an allusion to the diet of police officers, and resulting injury near seaports? 17:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC) beadtot

Wikipedia isn't censored? Bah!

If I vented my true feelings on how unnecessary the poop on a plate is, I guarantee I'd be censored. Mr Spunky Toffee 05:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you have a look at the Request for Comment section just above [2] before you declare content to be unnecessary? Your edit history [3] shows you to be a new user who has contributed nothing of value to Wikipedia other than proposing articles for some manner of deletion. I have no problem with deletionists; however, when you go against a clear consensus [4] that emerged long before you began contributing, you are creating problems. Let me assure you that this issue has been debated, redebated, and resolved (for now, anyway). Furthermore, please look at the description on the image page before perpetuating your claim that the feces is on a plate. Cacetudo 09:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more poop pictures!

I think it would be hilarious to have a great long line of poop pictures running down the right edge of the page. Six or seven. Just to illustrate the great variety of human poop. And come on, half the people who come here are probably just doing so to see if Wikipedia is brave enough to host poop pictures. That said, there's good-looking poop, then there's disgusting poop. No need for the latter. -- Chris 17:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Why is the one image one where feces is shown on a dinner plate? Chris
It's not. Powers T 16:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's either in one of those American toilets that have the water halfway up the bowl so that the contents are "presented" to oneself or those copntinental ones that have flat bottom at the rear of the well. Such a picture would not be possible in most British systems as the water level is lower and directly below the origin from where it came. Dainamo 09:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh it is in a toilet! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theavatar3 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
PS it seems someone has been at the red pepper! Nice! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theavatar3 (talk • contribs).
Please sign your posts on talk pages. Powers T 14:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I be so bold as to suggest that we come up with something better than "A TURD" for the picture caption? After all, all caps is screaming on the Internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.67.178 (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
It was fixed within four minutes. Powers T 13:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Pics unnecisary! I don't need the loss of appatite (especially since my ovens broken and I kind of need to be willing to eat almost anything in my fridge right now.) Buddy, if you want poo pics, go here http://www.ratemypoo.com Schizel

I thought it was a plate as well... Rorrenig 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have a digital camera. I could take pictures of my own feces and license it public domain for all to see so it wouldn't have a licensing issue. It can go in this article or better yet on a userbox for people to express their believe that a picture of feces should go in the article. SakotGrimshine 02:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, another guy already tried to do this. As someone already put it, this is Wikipedia not Rotten.com--Kamikaze 17:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Dookies

Bold textSHOULDN'T THERE BE A SECTION ON FAMOUS DOOKS? LIKE THE STEAMY LOAVES OF HISTORY? PERHAPS A WHOLE NEW ARTICLE: HISTORY OF DOOKIES? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brydav (talk • contribs) 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

no.

YES!

That was one shitty image.

I deleted it. For shit's sake don't restore it. Indiawilliams 04:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shit image

I think it would be best to delete that shit image and replace it with a schematic or smth. In no medical articles, magazines or books, or other encyclopedias can one find such disgusting images. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.165.146.90 (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is highly offensive, delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.146.90 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 March 2007

I strongly support removing those pictures. They are offensive indeed. I too have uploaded images on wikipedia that were deleted due to various reasons so keeping this .... crap here is beyond my comprehension. This is not about censorship, it is about common sense. Freedom of speech has its limits too.--Biotudor 18:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Why would anyone read an article about SHIT and then recoil in shock to see pictures of SHIT???

Good point if one would read an article about human shit, then one would expect to see a picture of it. If it is disgusting then one must not search for it, there is no reason why the image should be deleted. If it is offensive, then don't view the article!. --Vlad788 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

"Wikipedia is not censored" means we don't prejudice between pictures which are offensive/disguisting/gross/etc and pictures which are not.

In other words:

  • we should be treating pictures which may be offensive or disgust people in the same way as we treat all other article pictures
  • and that the policies on the inclusions of pictures which may be offensive/disguisting is the same as the policies on the inclusion of any picture in an article.

What this means is that saying a picture is offensive, or that it is disguisting, or explicit, are not reasons by which we judge whether or not a picture should be included in an article.

Whether or not a picture should be in an article is judged by questions such as "is the picture relevant to the article", "is the picture free and if not, can we use it under fair use", "is the picture representing, or at least not contradicting, a neutral point of view?" and so on.

As far as i can see, the only reasons for the removal of the pictures on this page is that they offend and disguist people. The pictures are otherwise relevant, and previous discussions on this talk page (as well as the vote and request for comment carried out last year) shows that there was a clear consensus by other editors to keep images on this article.

Of course, one can argue that the pictures are unnessasary. However, it's generally understood that all Wikipedia articles should (ideally) be illustrated by images (and more than one unless the article is very short).

Just ask yourself this question - if the pictures where not gross and offensive, would there be such a fuss about there being too many pictures in this article? No, considering the article length (in terms of text), we don't have an excessively large number of pictures here. So at the end, it comes down to the fact that these pictures happen to be disgusting and offensive to some people.

But as i said, "Wikipedia is not censored" means we shouldn't be biased against gross/offensive pictures when deciding whether or not to include them.

--`/aksha 09:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The images are clearly needless and irrelevant despite your opinion. Also, there are enough pictures for this article. Judging by your faulty reasoning, we should add detailed porn pictures on the articles about sexual positions or about sexual intercourse. Wikipedia is not censored, of course, but you seem to forget it is also an encyclopedia, and in no encyclopedia will you find such images. Why do we need those pictures for? To see how shit looks? Seriously. Needless, irrelevant, offensive, that's just enough to keep them out of this article.--Raja Lon Flattery 10:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should. Detailed porn pictures would not be appropriate for our articles because of legality issues. Pictures of people having sex on the sexual intercourse article may be if they're neutral, but it seems like someone has gone to the trouble of creating nice clear drawings to serve the purpose. As for the pictures - yes, to show how shit looks like is exactly the reason why it's appropriate to have pictures of poo on an article about poo. I can't imagine what could be a more appropriate picture for an article about human feces than a picture of human feces, except i suppose if someone can create a drawn picture to replace the photographed one. --`/aksha 05:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth having an illustration. The Type 2 picture, however, is frankly very shitty. It's blurry and doesn't impart any information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not worth it. Everybody knows exactly how shit looks. Unlike having sex, people, all people, shit every day so EVERYBODY knows exactly what it looks like. It's impossible not to. The pictures serve no informative purpose, they are clearly intended as some sort of amusement.--Kamikaze 09:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter a thing. We are an encyclopaedia and should strive to include as much information as possible. Wikipedia is not censored. If you are offended by that picture, too bad for you. It still serves an encyclopaedic purpose. You say "everyone knows what shit looks like, so it serves no purpose"... Well, everyone knows what an arm looks like, and we have a picture of that too. There's no picture more informative on an article on human faeces than a picture on human faeces. Our task as a neutral encyclopaedia is providing as much objective information as possible, and we should not make a decision on whether something is offensive or not. As long as the law permits it and it serves any informative purpose at all, we include it. SalaSkan 10:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples are poorly chosen. I could argue no other encyclopedia has such images on their feces articles. An arm picture is not necessarily offensive while a feces image it is. Furthermore, its image is needless and is intended only for shock value. And no, it serves no informative purpose at all.

The point is this:Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.(WP:PROF). You can't deny a feces image is offensive to the majority of this planet. And the omission of such image doesn't cause the article to be less informative, relevant or accurate.

If you'd like to hear more opiniosn, just ask at WP:VPP. As you can see below, someone with the same view as you did the same thing. The resulting consensus was to remove the image.--Kamikaze 16:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you cannot deny is that it does serve an informative purpose, whether it be "shocking to the majority of the planet" or not, just like an image of an arm serves an informative purpose.

Furthermore, why would it be "intended for shock value"? How could you know that? The article is about faeces, so it is relevant. Also, that "most people" render this image offensive doesn't mean that we should do so too. We are neutral and uncensored. We will not decide what is offensive and what isn't. SalaSkan 19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dude below has made the point. The shock value is greater than the informative value. We are also an encyncopledia, a fact we should not be oblivious of. And your last point is nonsense: we do not decide what is offensive and what isn't, we distinguish between what is offensive and what isn't. And regarding the fact that "although most people consider it offensive, that doesn't mean we should do so too": so you propose we include a certain material, offensive for "the most people" in a encyclopedia meant for "the most people"? Silly wikilawyering.--Kamikaze 08:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Offensive" is a subjective thing. WP:NPOV. Melsaran (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. The shock value outweighs the benefit. How many people don't know what faeces look like and need to find out from Wikipedia? ElinorD (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shock value? What shock value? That you find it shocking doesn't mean that we remove it. Wikipedia is not censored, and this image is informative; it illustrates the article's subject. Melsaran (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That find you find it not shocking doesn't mean we have to keep it either. It was removed on previous consensus. You should try reading Wikipedia:Profanity also to get over this censorship nonsense.--Kamikaze 08:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump

Just a note that i've posted to ask for more opinions at Village Pump (Policy) --`/aksha 06:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was remove.--Kamikaze 14:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what result? I read the discussion at the Pump, and it was mainly that an illustration of fellatio may be better than a picture so we don't get a bunch of people trying to one-up each other. I hardly think that's going to be an issue here; only one person's had the guts to produce a photograph at all. The Pump discussion didn't really address the situation at this article. Powers T 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, it was archived. Seek it in the archives.--Kamikaze 04:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archives only go back 9 days, dude. Should I just take your word for it, then? Powers T 01:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why not, dude? Don't you worry, though. Nothing is lost on Wikipedia. That's why I love this system. After digging through my contributions, I think this is the discussion I was talking about.--Kamikaze 12:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, forgot about page histories. Anyway, I'm not sure much consensus was reached there, certainly not enough to override the consensus found multiple times on this talk page to include the image. Perhaps the problem is the specific image in question? It certainly seems to raise people's ire. A more clinical image of stool may solve this problem in a more satisfactory way. Powers T 13:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One must keep in mind

Shit is universally held to smell bad, because we're naturally disinclined to share space with faeces... because it's bad for us. We're keyed to dislike the smell because it can be harmful, the bacteria.. I think the same can possibly be said for the sight. This is the ONLY legitimate reason not to include an image, because it can be objectively said to be gross.. because ... the image recalls something full of harmful bacteria. Eh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 6 June 2007.

Your point being?--Kamikaze 17:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


We have pictures of old animated women being raped by octupi in the Hentai article, so how on earth is a simple stool any worse. GoatSmoke 20:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need picture of actual fecal matter

Instead of pictures of toilets, we should instead have a picture of a fresh stool. I come into this article looking for pictures of actual stools for my collection and all I get is DNA and toilets. I'm sure others are upset in the same manner as I and should hope you fix this. GoatSmoke 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this sentence, as it suggests that cellulose is a type of bacteria. Cellulose is a fiber.

"The main composition of human feces is not undigested food but dead cells and bacteria including cellulose." 208.32.173.71 22:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh!

This has been my favorite talk page for a while now. I dare you to find a funnier talk page. The reactions and puns and all of it are so delightful! Utils 07:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

poo pix

This article needs some pics of poop. A random toilet room from hundreds of years and a pic of bacteria do not effectively illustrate the subject. I can't believe there are numerous people clamoring at the chance to get a picture of their cock on wiki, while no one at all wants to take a picture of their latest dump. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I could, but it would end up being blocked by toilet paper. William Ortiz 21:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Two Cents

I think we should have one image of poo. I don't see why it was offensive in the first place. Its kinda hypocritical to say we can't have a picture of human poo, but we can of a horses poo in the main feces article. We all poo. We all smell the poo. We all check our poo. (or I hope you do to make sure you're not sick-also its kinda fun to examine what you ate[that was gross never mind]) I think that human poo is not offensive. Its part of the human body and the human body is a fascinating subject. Personally, the yellow slime slug poo shouldn't be shown. Just a regular nice healthy poo would be nice. You know a picture that says this is a healthy poo. Anything that doesn't look like this is unhealthy.(Joking)71.142.214.138 (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

I'm sorry, but someone give this person a barnstar. This whole thing just slayed me :) Sorry, I'm stupid, I know. Back to regular programming... --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re delete/restore of article 28 March 2008

To anyone who noticed; an ip was posting a phone number or similar while vandalising - so I deleted and restored without that info. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous

This is the most ridiculous talk page I have ever seen. I feel like I've gone back to the third grade when kids snickered about poo and turds. If we can have articles with pictures of sex positions, sex organs, horse feces, horse semen, ejaculation, octopus rape, and other potentially offensive photos, whats wrong with a picture of human feces? If we've all seen our own shit, then why would we be offended to see a photo of it on an article about shit? This isn't Conservapedia, there is no agenda here. If you didn't want to see shit, then why would you look at an article about shit? Even if one were to click on "random article," one should be prepared to deal with the consequences. There are many offensive articles (see third sentence) and we're not here to protect people's vauge notions of decency or vulgarity. If you find sex offensive, don't look at sex articles. If you find shit offensive, don't look at shit articles. </soapbox> --ErgoSum88 (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its kind of entertaining really, how everyone is so seriously debating the inclusion of pictures of poo, and how they should take the perfect photograph to make an 'appropriate' entry in an encyclopedia. A great example of reducing the world to pure logic and reasoning, only to recall these moments a few years down the road, and wonder "what was I doing?"128.100.37.8 (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information

All lactose fermenting bacteria turn red on MacConkey agar (not just E. coli) If you want an agar that differentiates E. coli from others, EMB would be the correct choice. E. coli turns metallic green because it ferments lactose so strongly that it precipitates the methylene blue from the agar.

Here's a source in case you don't believe me: http://www.bd.com/ds/technicalCenter/inserts/Eosin_Methylene_Blue_Agar_Modified.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.7.96.94 (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs at least one image.

"Wikipedia is not censored" means we don't prejudice between pictures which are offensive/disguisting/gross/etc and pictures which are not."

As I can see, the only reasons for the removal of the pictures on this page is that they offend and disguist people. That's OK, but the pictures are otherwise relevant. Even if is necessary I could do and post some in SVG format with a GFDL license --Simon Le Bon (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, fuck off. A lot of articles don't have pictures. We all know what shit looks like and we don't need a reminder. How many fucking articles have their main pictures removed for "copyright" reasons and yet people here are "pushing" (pun intended) for a fucking piece of shit picture of a piece of shit. Fuck off.142.176.57.206 (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You take Wikipedia non censored thing extremely serious 142. Its not the fact that we haven't seen poo before its the fact that we do needed to be reminded. As human beings we forget about ourselves. We all like to think that we don't fart and don't shit. Also sometimes it can be helpful if someone was writing a paper on something like this and they couldn't find the right pictures to have at least on credible source for pictures. Don't cha think.71.142.208.226 (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

I completely agree with 142. This has been said before but the shock value outweighs the informative one.--Kamikaze (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; people type "human feces", they get "human feces". The horse feces on Feces does not seem to be much of a problem, why should human feces be so different? The image should be put back, in my opinion, although I would rather go through a discussion before making any changes myself. Zouavman Le Zouave 13:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an image is placed here it MUST be put in a click activated drop down fashion or de-inlined to avoid accidental viewing by people who find it objectionable but want to read the page. Before you tell me "wikipedia is not censored" go to the page on fellatio, cunnilingus, and sexual intercourse and tell me if you whether a photograph instead of a painting or drawing. (non-humans don't count) Also the animal feces picture is much less revolting. I am a regular contributor 2,000+ edits since 2004 but am not logged in because I don't want this discussion in my edit history. I am using a wi-fi connection at a hotel --209.104.244.164 (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... Allow me to ask why the picture should be displayed in any unconventional manner? Well, unless you can find any realistic painting of human feces whose copyright has expired, this is the only picture we've got. Revolting is totally subjective; centuries ago, it would've been revolting to see a woman's ankles. Are we going to prevent viewers from seeing female ankles because some find it revolting? What about the "non-humans don't count"? I find it to be a ridiculous argument. So far, I don't see any good reason to censor the image. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not make this a political issue - the point is, a photograph of feces is an informative description of the topic that illustrates important traits of human feces such as colour, texture, and shape that would be difficult to explain in words. Human feces are not disgusting, and I also believe the pages on fellatio, intercourse, and sexual positions should include photographs. Additionally, those pages at least have illustrative diagrams; we do not have an illustrative diagram of feces, so there is no good alternative to a photo. If you'd like to commission an artist to create one, feel free. Dcoetzee 18:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agreed. Unless anyone has valid objections, I think the image should be put back. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Bristol chart is suitable enough for the article. It certainly has a more informative value than previous ones--Kamikaze (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No way. The Bristol chart is suitable to illustrate the article on the Bristol stool scale. This article is about human faeces, and it should definitely have a photograph. The articles on fellatio, cunnilingus, and sexual intercourse (as cited before) are irrelevant for comparison because photographs illustrating those would show sex acts between at least two adults. This is not pornography, it is simply a waste product of the human body.
Wikipedia policy seems pretty clear here - surely anyone who removes the photograph from this article is in breach of policy, and doing so knowingly is vandalism. Put the photograph in the article, and punish anyone who tries to remove it. The only reasonable argument against this course of action is a clear consensus not to include a photograph, and there obviously is not one. leevclarke (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about human faeces and it already has a suitable photograph of human faeces. What do you think the Bristol chart depicts? Potatoes? After a Village pump discussion where a consensus to remove an image was achieved, there have been sporadical requests for a photograph and now we have one. I must point out that while Wikipedia is not censored that doesn't justify being needlessly offensive. The informational value of the Bristol chart outweighs that of a previous faeces picture (picture which was deemed offensive by many users).--Kamikaze (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Bristol chart image (of which I was not before aware) is a more informative and useful image of human feces than the prior photograph. I would happily accept either including both or including just the chart. Dcoetzee 03:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Pictures should be moved to a separate page as they may offend some readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evansad (talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion above. Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this image is by all means encyclopedic. If you're offended by images of human feces, don't type for human feces on the internet. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its nice how its perfectly shaped as well :) Maybe a more realistic picture is in order? Matt (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any free pictures of equal or superior quality, feel free to upload them on Commons. ;-) Zouavman Le Zouave 21:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: why are there no photographs of feces in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.174.49 (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Mat is right there should be more pictures one to represent each type of poo on the chart!--203.192.91.4 (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy

So people want to come and read about poo, but dont want to see poo. Well if your that desperate to read about poo but dont want to see it, go else where! You will find a hard place to meet your needs so I suggest you make one!--203.192.91.4 (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Medical perspective on the picture

Ideally we should have a better picture that represents a more normal variant of human feces. While the picture appears to be of Bristol type 4, it contains a variety of particles that could be signs of pathology. With it appearing on the page it's an implicit endorsement that the pictured stool is normal. In fact, such coloured particles in the stool can be a legitimate reason to consult a physician. An individual with abnormal stool could be mislead into thinking their stool is normal. I'd suggest we find a better picture. If not, it should probably be removed from the article. This is not censorship, but rather a genuine editorial concern. Katie3329 (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uumm may I refer you to wp:censorship, which explains what censorship is. It has nothing to do with subjects like Lockerbie bombings or anything like that. A Power Point presentation expounding on the meaning of each particle colour would be more fitting. Frankly, you have provided no reliable sources for your particle colour claims. Could have been corn, carrots, harmless bits of plastic, etc. Lumenos (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how much plastic do you eat Lumenos? Rpm2005 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

We should have a picture, but not if it's going to look like soft-serve ice cream. We need a more realistic picture. 99.152.125.66 (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture looks like one of those novelty plastic cat poop decoys. 69.143.121.199 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added it back in because, from someone who looks at poop all day(student nurse), I don't find it offensive and faeces can look like that, I'm tempted to post a pic of C. diff. faeces too as an example of unhealthy faeces. But if you can 'produce' a better picture feel free :) Kungfukats2 (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add picture, I wanna see some doodie. Too bad we can't get some smell 'o vision up in here. Lumenos (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a single person in the history of the world, who is able to read wikipedia, yet, does not know what feces looks like? This picture is not necessary, it is simply someone wanting to post THEIR feces on the internet.

It does seem like the only reason the uploader posted the picture is for some perverse sense of pride. In my mind it's no different than users who upload pictures of their penis to add to articles. Lucidphoole (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the exact reason I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.52.255.70 (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the person who keeps re-adding this image. You can keep adding it at long as you like, I'll keep removing it for just as long. Every time you have done so, you have not even left a comment as to why you think this is needed. I'd like to hear your thought process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.52.255.70 (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored but does support the extensive use of images. Keep removing the image and you will be blocked for vandalism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iron content of liquorice and fecal darkening

I've added a citation request for this assertion. I agree that ingesting liquorice can darken faeces; I'm questioning that the darkening is caused by a high iron content. The only information that I could find on the chemical composition of liquorice gives an iron concentration of <100 ppm, which seems quite low. WP's liquorice confectionery article ascribes the black colour of liquorice to its molasses content, though some liquorice sweets also contain food colourings. Do we have a nutritionist who can point us in the direction of the facts? --Kay Dekker (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found some citations for the colour claims, and removed the more dubious ones per WP:PROVEIT. I don't think there's a need to state why liquorice turns your poop black, just that it does. Of course, if someone can come up with citation saying why, that'd help the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the addition of brown, orange, green, and bloody (red) feces vandalism?

How is this vandalism? Brown, orange, green and bloody (red) feces do exist and thus constitute valid color variations. I am also adding important, true facts, including signs of healthy and unhealthy feces, and signs of potentially serious conditions. For example: "Feces may appear red if there is an abnormally high concentration of blood present. This is often an indicator of potentially dangerous conditions, such as a perforated peptic ulcer, esophageal varices, colorectal cancer, diverticula, inflammatory bowel disease (including Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis). Blood in the feces may additionally be caused by food poisoning, rectal prolapse, colorectal cancer, rectal abscesses, intestinal infections, peptic ulcer or intestinal polyps. Less alarming causes of blood in feces are hemorrhoids, constipation, anal sex, cuts surrounding the anal sphincter caused by significant straining during defecation in attempting to expel logs, or anal fissures. Nonetheless, since any sign of blood signifies a potentially serious condition, it should be reported to a licensed health care provider as soon as possible.[1]" You cannot tell me there is no sourced scientific basis for this. If you want to make this encyclopedia article less thorough and useful, go ahead. However, anyone that sees that the only colors of feces that Wikipedia lists are yellow, black, blue and silver will be more likely to think Wikipedia is a terrible source to get your information from (which it is, for the most part, but I'm doing my best to make improvements).

The vandalism is the referring to faeces as "logs". The rest is unsourced and dubious information at best. If you want to re-add it then I suggest you obtain sources to back up your assertions. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IF THERE IS A FUNNY COLOR SPEAK WITH YOUR DOCTOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.118.204 (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ""Wrong Diagnosis: Causes of Bloody Stool"" (HTML). Retrieved 2010-04-04.

Arguments against the image of faeces are not only a violation of Wikipedia is not censored but are logically fallacious.

The primary argument put forth by opponents of the image is that everyone knows what human feces looks like, therefore there is no need for an image of genuine human feces to illustrate it, as people may deem it to be offensive or shocking. This runs contrary to logic, If everyone has seen their own feces, then it begs the question: are people shocked and/or offended every time they take a dump? If that is the case, such people would be spend much of their life in a state of shock and offence as the average person defecates several times a week! Hmm...67.142.172.26 (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Im thinkin it would be good idea to give this page protected status —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentmanslow (talk • contribs) 03:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no mention of brown feces under "Color variations of feces"?

Brown is the most common color variation of feces. Is there any good reason it's not included there? --82.31.164.172 (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. Rpm2005 (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God that good sense has prevailed

And that there are no longer any distasteful images of poop littering the page. Just wanted to voice my approval. Vranak (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you'd like to propose a tasty image of poop, we're kinda stuck with a distasteful one. Wikipedia is not censored to meet your desires to have everything be "tasteful". - SummerPhD (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Wudumindif has provided us a perfect image of "poo". But it's keep getting reverted. I think it should be kept because Wikipedia is not censored. --121.218.50.113 (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)— 121.218.50.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia is not consensored - that's true, but it doesn't mean we need to add every piece of crap that anyone sees fit to deposit. These random toilet bowl pictures that get added from time to time add nothing to the article other than making it look shitty.--Kubigula (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Witty, but what guidelines/policies do you base your decision on? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that some editors want to exclude the image. However, I am not seeing anyone proposing reasons to exclude the image based on our policies and guidelines... - SummerPhD (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People who would like to keep the image has provided a reason (Wiki policy) why it should be kept. (Wikipedia is not censored) But the few people who don't want to be kept won't provide a Wiki policy why it shouldn't. So I think it should be kept. --124.183.104.89 (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)— 124.183.104.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The article already has an image. The article doesn't need to become a gallery of crap. I'm sure there are other websites for that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 12:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's not a Wiki policy. That's just a personal opinion. Have a look at other pages such as human penis and human vagina where it shows images of the real thing. Not a drawn image. It's only natural. Not everything in our world is filled with pretty things. --Wudumindif (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)— Wudumindif (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
And on both of those pages, image selection is always decided via consensus, not via "hey, I'm going to post a pick of my dick on Wikipedia and it's not censored so no one can stop me." OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The real foundation of WP is consensus, which is based on personal opinions, discussion and editorial judgments. If an edit is controversial, as it clearly is here, the right thing to do is to go to the talk page and seek consensus. These image issues spark up repeatedly on pretty much all the sex and body function articles, and the consensus has generally pretty uniform. It's important to have some images in articles, but it's preferable to have something reasonably academic rather than images that are primarily sensationalistic.--Kubigula (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An academic turd, i know a few of those. I have a problem with this particular image, too. It really is a gut-wrencher. i think because it has been smeared about in such a repulsive way. Bobby Sands revisited. Also, putting it in a dish like that reminds one of pudding. Let's find a nice polished picture of a poo, please. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That "dish" looks like a toilet to me. I don't think it's been "smeared" either. Unless someone decides to poo on a light table, take the shot, "clean up" the rough edges with photoshop and even out some glare, a photo of shit is going to look like shit. Primarily, this is because the subject is shit. If the photo doesn't look like shit, it doesn't belong in an article about shit. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That "someone" happens to be me. And it's straight from my vowels into the toilet. It hasn't been modified in anyway. Just took a quick photo before flushing it down. And yes, like I said before not everything in this world is "pretty" looking. It's like me saying "Please take down that photo of you because your face is far too ugly". --Wudumindif (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)— Wudumindif (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

With all due respect to you and your vowels, there are two questions here. So far, we've begun to address the first one: Should there be a photo of feces in this article? I have yet to hear a solid reason why there should not be.
The second question, which OhNoPeedyPeebles touched on, is: Is this the best photo we have? Unless/until #1 is answered "Yes", it's too early for #2. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think both, Wudumindif and SummerPhD has provided very good reasons, and Wiki policy why it should be kept. But for those who don't won't it to be kept have not. They just say it looks "disgusting". But like what Wudumindif said, "It's like me saying Please take down that photo of you because your face is far too ugly" I think that's a reason to be kept + Wiki policy of that Wikipedia is NOT censored. --60.228.18.172 (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)— 60.228.18.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Your eloquence has moved me, 60.228. I've changed my mind: let's keep the turd, even if it does put me in mind of a dish of profiteroles. Wudumindif, why not put a picture of your face next to the turd, and then we can judge? Faces and faeces. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Break for reconsideration

I have reverted Wudumindif's restoration of the image, pending further consideration. In the above discussion, all of the IPs are sockpuppets of Wudumindif (currently blocked for socking/edit warring). As such, the discussion in, IMO, contaminated. Though my lukewarm endorsement of an image still stands. I would prefer more discussion. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we had no image at all, I'd probably feel more urgency to come up with something to illustrate the article. However, we have the bristol chart image, which is informative and illustrative. I'm not saying we can't have other images that add encyclopedic value, but a casual toilet bowl picture does not do that.--Kubigula (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A poop on a plate? Is someone being ironic? Revatman (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not on a plate. Read the full description when you click on the image: "Summary Produced by myself on 2006-05-28. Photographed by myself, in a toilet, shortly thereafter. Yes, this is real. It is what it is. If you use this image, I would appreciate a credit.Cacetudo 19:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)" - I'll change the caption now to clarify. EMsmile (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This doesnt make sense

"This might be the result from eating liquorice candy, since it is typically made with anise oil rather than liquorice herb. Thus, as the candy is predominantly sugar, it can cause green stools."[1]

If sugar caused green stool, you would have one every time you drank a sugary soda. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source is reliable, but our take was unclear. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.livestrong.com/article/472989-can-licorice-cause-discolored-stools/

Stepping into a mine field? Another attempt at adding a photo

I read through all the previous comments about the images and I am probably stepping into a mine field here. But I have added another image, I hope people will be OK with it. I purposefully didn't put it in the lead but put it next to the information on fertiliser value of faeces. I think one thing you have missed out on in the discussion so far is the moisture content: I have realised that "wet" faeces looks far more disgusting than faeces after it's been dried (and adult feces looks more disgusting than child feces). For reuse in agriculture it is usually dried or composted. - When I get around to it, I will add information to this page about the moisture content (usually 80%) and about the nitrogen and phosphorus content (important for use as fertiliser). EvM-Susana (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Streamlined this article with content from feces

I've just moved quite a bit of text from the article about feces to this article, particular in the section on uses and the part about disgust. There was a mixture of uses of animal and human feces in the other article, and I felt it was neater to keep that information in two different articles. I hope others agree that it is better like this. EMsmile (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the Bible?

I wonder if the quote from the bible is taking up too much importance in this article? Would it be fairer to also mention information from other religions or at least link to other relevant articles? I have added under See Also a link to relevant information in Islam, but more could be done to remove the strong emphasis on the information from the bible?EMsmile (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's OK like this as it's under "society and culture". EMsmile (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page

This Page need archive --Gyan333 (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs speedy excretion. Henry Hannon (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human feces. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plural or singular for human feces?

I see a bit of an edit war going on about the use of singular or plural with human feces (Anne N. Cephaly). One of the editors (Flobbadob cited this well known publication: "Håkan Jönsson, Håkan Jönsson, Anna Richert Stintzing, Björn Vinnerås, Eva Salomon, Guidelines on the Use of Urine and Faeces in Crop Production, page 1, Urine and faeces are complete fertilizers of high quality with low levels of contaminants such as heavy metals. Urine is rich in nitrogen, while faeces are rich in phosphorous, potassium and organic matter." I feel that there are more publications that say "human feces are", rather than "human feces is". Or is this really an American English thing? PlanetCare? Whilst the article is written in American English, maybe we should follow the more global convention in the published literature if indeed the majority of publications would say "human feces are...". EMsmile (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Wikt:feces says Use with plural verbs is more common, especially in Britain, and is the only use recognized by some dictionaries,[Dictionary.com] while others recognize both plural and singular use.[TheFreeDictionary.com]. Although I wasn't here for the bit of an edit war, I would support using feces as plural, and I think MOS:COMMONALITY would too. (A less PAG-based and more opinion-based reason of mine would be that "feces are" sounds more like formal or careful usage to me (especially as faeces is unambiguously plural in the original Latin), and MOS:CONTRACTIONS seems to make clear that Wikipedia is expected to be formal writing.) —2d37 (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 2d37 thanks for that. Then I think we stick with plural which is how the article is currently written - no further changes needed, right? EMsmile (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

24.35.59.183 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Write commonly referred to as poop or stinky.

 Not done: Unnecessary in lead, already in article at Human feces § Terminology and other terms used. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Commonly used"

"In the medical literature, the term "stool" is more commonly used than "feces".

I clicked on the references but could not find anything to verified this claimed. Any comment? CyberTroopers (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

This article contradicts Fecal pH test. Specifically, in the Average chemical characteristics section, it is claimed that the pH of feces from a healthy human is 6.6, whereas Fecal pH test claims it is 7.0-7.5.

Both articles appear to have credible sources. Stowgull (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2022

Grammar, improval of content 115.97.40.226 (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2022 (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. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If "average pH for a healthy person is 6.6", then the statement "The pH of human feces varies but usually alkaline" is a contradiction. 216.106.203.179 (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Average quantities produced

I was looking into the average quantities of faeces produced (for science) and noticed that the figure for how much is produced in the article is wrong. It's referenced to a paper from 2015 (The Characterization of Feces and Urine by Rose et al.), but the quoted figure (128 g) from the paper is specifically for high income countries. In lower income countries, where more fibre is produced, people produce nearly twice as much (250g). The article needs to be updated to reflect more of the human population. Since this has been a contentious article in the past, I'm just putting this suggestion here rather than editing.

The Characterization of Feces and Urine: A Review of the Literature to Inform Advanced Treatment Technology - PMC (nih.gov) Solanum dulcamara (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_feces