Misplaced Pages

Talk:Feces: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:13, 15 June 2005 edit70.177.90.39 (talk) →INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE PROJECT← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:50, 16 December 2024 edit undoJpgordon (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Administrators82,323 edits →Why no picture of human feces?: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader|search=yes}}
== Shall there be photos of feces?==
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|
{{WikiProject Ecology |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Sanitation|importance=high}}
}}
{{censor}}
{{American English}}
{{archivebox|
*]
*]
*]}}


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


I was about to correct the spelling as a misspelling when I saw that this is a known issue.
:The old photo before was small, petrified, and not characteristic of human feces. I have added a new photo which is more representative of a typical stool. ] 05:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences


The argument seems to be that because feces is spelt that way in US English that is OK.
:: Sigh... Is this really necessary? Is there any reason that you have taken a picture of your dung other than for shock value? I'm going to shrink this so it's a little less visually putrid. --<i>]</i> ] 05:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The etymology is from Latin faeces "sediment, dregs", which, to me, means that feces is a mis-spelling fallen into common US usage.<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:49, December 9, 2014‎</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:::This is an article on feces. There is no shock value when one looks up 'feces' and finds... gasp... feces. I have also included pigeon and rabbit feces. ] 06:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


:It seems that many English readers find the alternate spellings to be jarring. So, Misplaced Pages has found compromises and built policies to avoid edit warring over spelling - see ].--<span style="font-family: Maiandra GD">] ''(])''</span> 14:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
:::: Sometimes you have to step back, take a look at yourself, and realize that you are arguing about posting a picture of a turd. Fine, have your turd. I'm off to better-smelling areas of Misplaced Pages. --<i>]</i> ] 06:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:It would be a misspelling, if we were using Latin. We aren't. We use one national variety of English in each article, as explained in ]. As the subject does not have strong ties to any one country (everybody poops), we go with the variety first established in the article. In this case, that's American English. - ] (]) 15:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


:: And to add to what SummerPhD already explained, the idea of a "misspelling fallen into common US usage" is not correct. It is not a mistake that American English chooses "e" instead of "ae" or "oe" in many words of Latin origin that are now "naturalized citizens" of English. It's an intentional choice. Read more at articles on, for example, ], ], ], and ]. Although ] does not have regular spelling to the extent that Spanish or German have it, ] has effected a few changes over the centuries, such as this one, although they are not all adopted in every region. To sum up, the "it hurts" in the heading of this section reflects discomfort born of misapprehension. Once the misapprehension is cleared up, the pain subsides. ] (]) 13:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
==What does the photo of human poop illustrate?==


== New photos of feces for the lead ==
Let's not make this a poll. Given that there are some negatives in inlining the picture of human feces, what is it supposed to illustrate? We can be comfortable in the assumption that once the matter is described, every reader of Misplaced Pages can consult some of the thousands of examples they produce in their lifetime. So what is the point (besides proving a point) being served by including the image inline? ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:22, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)


Hi ], I quite like your idea of using these two photos for the lead (I have made the background white though, I think that looks better). However, we have had quite a debate about using an image of a "real, fresh human feces" on the page of ] (see talk page). In the end, I found a compromise that seemed to stick: no photo in the lead, and rather a photo of dried human feces later on. When they are dried, they are less repulsive. Personally, I don't have a problem with showing raw human feces (but I work in the sanitation field), but we don't want to shock others too much. So if there are objections to your collage of two photos, I would say we either move them from the lead further down or we replace the human feces photo with one that shows dried human feces. Thoughts anyone? ] (]) 08:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
:The ''point'', obviously, is to troll Misplaced Pages by inserting offensive images into articles. Just as we don't have any pornographic photos on ], we need not have any fecal photos on ]. The argument that if you're searching for something you should expect photos of it is pure rhetorical nonsense. If you're searching for something ''in an encyclopedia'', you should expect ''an encyclopedia article'' about the topic you sought, not photos of the topic you sought: ]. Including photos in articles is a nice bonus, where the photos are relevant and illustrative. Including photos, however, is neither a necessity nor an excuse. Most reasonable people do not expect to find offensive and repulsive photographs in encyclopedia articles, even if the photos are related to the topic. ] 07:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Wow! I checked out that talk page; the debate rages on from 2005 and is still fresh now in 2015. That's half my life. Jesus! Anyway, it seems you're right; the consensus is that ], but there is shock value to wet human feces. I'm all for either one - though I'm curious to know what you think - will people get upset about it as it is now? Does its juxtaposition and comparison to the elephant feces lessen the blow? What should we base the decision on? You definitely have far more experience than I - I will defer to you, my friend. ] (]) 09:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
::The picture is supposed to illustrate a normal human turd, and it does so quite well. I would challenge anyone to find a photo that better illustrates human feces. ] 06:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: Well, I am also undecided. The thing is, I deal with sanitation in my day job so such photos do not shock me at all. But not sure about the average Misplaced Pages reader... Perhaps we wait and see if some more reactions come in? I can also ask ] who always has good advice on such matters. If we decide that the human feces need to be more in a dried state, I have plenty of photo options (like the one I inserted in the page for ]. In any case, how can we make the two images in this collage the same size? It doesn't look so good that the image of the human feces is bigger than the image of the animal feces. ] (]) 09:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
:::The argument is a tautology. I'm asking what editorial purpose is served, in light of the above. ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:28, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
::: Unfortunately, I don't think we can get them the same size because their image proportions are different ratios. Instead, I made them the same height - how does that look to you? Anyway - I hear what you're saying. Something tells me the 10-year old war will come back and blow up on the two of us making innocent additions, lol. However, it sounds like you have the best plan we possibly can in this landmine. Tell me as you need my help at all, my friend. ] (]) 09:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
::::If someone defecated and feared that their poop was abnormal because the distal end had small round harder bits, or freak out because it was glistening with mucus, then referencing this image would reassure them that their poop is normal. A doctor's visit is avoided, money is saved. Photographs illustrate and add information, they are not just a 'nice bonus'. But what if the photo should suggest a real problem needing urgent medical attention? The illustration should be inline, and not linked, because to banish the image from the main page stigmatizes the subject matter. People are less likely to seek medical attention for taboo problems. ] 06:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I like the ] in the lead. ] (] · ] · ]) 09:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
::::*Sorry, but this doesn't even make sense. Human feces vary enormously in appearance--indeed, showing this picture as "normal" is a ''disservice'' from this perspective (if we are to take it seriously). ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:56, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
: I don't think that's a good one for the lead of this article for two reasons: this article is also about animal feces whereas the Bristol stool chart only focussed on human feces. Secondly, it is already used on the page for human feces (where it could be put in the lead if people prefer that). I actually quite like the two images side by side (elephant and human), I think it looks quite good now. ] (]) 10:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
::::**Humans themselves vary enormously in appearance. Dogs vary, cheeseburgers vary. If we eliminate photographs from Misplaced Pages because of "enormous variation", then Misplaced Pages would be quite bare. The proper response is to add MORE information - not to purge it. ] 06:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::***You're all over the place. I asked you, in light of the above, what purpose the photograph served. You said it was emblematic of normal feces and someone wanting to identify abnormal feces could use it for that purpose. But it is useless for that purpose, as you apparently agree since you have stopped talking about that and started talking about cheeseburgers, for no apparent reason. ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:58, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
:::::***Do not mischaracterize my argument; 'normal' does not mean 'emblematic'. To illustrate: If you had a four inch erection, it would still be considered 'normal', and a photo of it at ] would not be inappropriate. But to refer to it as 'emblematic' would be wrong, when most other penises are significantly larger. It would be appropriate in the article to add information about larger penises, or, to find a more representative example. It would NOT be appropriate to summarily delete the photo. In reference to cheeseburgers, I was ] how inappropriate it would be to remove all pictures where variation is at issue. I am not 'talking about cheeseburgers'. I am still on topic, and I am making an ] to ] how weak your argument is. ] 08:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::Images are a 'nice bonus' on real life 'printed' encyclopedias, where they have limited space. This is the internets, the cost of carrying an image is considerably less. We can have it, and it further illustrates the article.] 11:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015 ==
==Risible puffery==


{{edit semi-protected|Feces|answered=yes}}
Don't tell me, let me guess. We are having a picture of faeces in case anyone doesn't know what it looks like? This is the argument used on other pages where in the name of "anti-censorship" other trolls have placed images they know will offend some readers. The argument is, to coin a phrase, shit. So is the one about "if you put faeces in the search box, you'll expect to see a picture of a turd". No, you would not. Unless you were acquainted with the kind of childish prick who delights in trying to create Pornopedia. Ultimately, any article that has the slightest possibility of carrying prurient material will do so, and WP will be entirely unuseable by much of its target readership. Is that really what we want?] 06:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
<!-- Begin request -->
:Grace note, you have presented a straw man argument and then knocked it down. Not a useful contribution. Instead of 'letting you guess', how about you actually read the discussion and respond to the honest arguments actually presented? ] 06:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Feces
::Sorry, did you think you actually did present an argument? I answered the risible puffery you thought passed as one. I was guessing your next one and answered that one too. I also correctly characterised what kind of editor you are and posed a question that should bring a flush of shame to your face. Jeez, man, I call that a ''truly useful'' contribution. What more could you ask? ] 04:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
<!-- End request -->
:::Since you asked, I would ask that you respect Misplaced Pages convention and refrain from ] attacks that do not advance the discussion, and only serve to distract readers from the valid arguments presented. ] 04:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
] (]) 20:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
::::You present a valid argument and I'll do what you ask. Deal? ] 08:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I want to change,,, the picture of horse poop
:::::I won't cater to your vanity by restating arguments. Scroll up and read them. ] 08:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


: True, not a good one, as it's mixed with straw. I will delete it, do you have a better one to replace it (on Wikimedia Commons)?] (]) 20:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
==Eyeon's behavior==


== Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2015 ==
Since we haven't really got a substantive reason to include this photo, I am reinstating the following diffs: . They were removed from this talk page by ]: . I think it's relevant to this discussion whether this photograph is a legitimate attempt to improve the article or not. ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 08:05, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Feces|answered=yes}}
:I concede that I have made many contributions on Misplaced Pages, many on controversial topics. None of those edits are relevant to the valid arguments presented here (by me, and by others) in favor of including the poop pic. If you scroll down to the poll, you will see that so far, <s>sixteen</s> <s>eighteen</s> twenty-five people agree that the article should include the photo (either linked or inline) and <s>only one</s> still only one person shares your view that it should be removed. No wonder you would try to distract the discussion with an ] attack. ] 09:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
<!-- Begin request -->
:*You don't understand what an ] attack is--I suggest you read the article to which you keep linking. Second, I haven't voted in the poll, and likely others haven't either, because ]; it's much better to try to come to a consensus through discussion, which I have been attempting to do. Third, you don't seem to be able to count: there are ten support votes for inlining the image, of which one is an anon whose only contributions are to this talk page and one which was forged by you , there are nine votes opposing inlining the image and one opposing its inclusion at all. Since GraceNote and I oppose inlining the picture, there is more support for that option than the other. ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:30, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
::*Check the numbers again; at the moment, most people support poop on main page, even when you discount newbies, double voters, etc. ] 04:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


<!-- End request -->
In general I ] and hold myself to the ], but since you have repeatedly edited this discussion to make it hard for someone else to follow, to retitle or remove uncomplimentary sections and even to forge votes, I would be a pillock to keep doing so. Assuming good faith isn't the same as ignoring bad faith. ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>
] (]) 01:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
i would like to edit this cause no-one knows what "poop" means.{{#tag:ref||group="nb"|name=""}}
:{{Not done}} You have not requested a change to the article. Please use a "change XXX to YYY" format. ] (]) 02:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


== On a dinner plate. Really! ==
:My edits to this discussion have made the options clearer to new participants, and removed vandalism and personal attacks on me. If you disagree, identify the specific "bad faith edits" rather than slur my name. I have addressed the 'forgery' issue at the bottom of the page. ] 04:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unbelievable. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I believe it's a toilet bowl, actually.--<span style="font-family: Maiandra GD">] ''(])''</span> 01:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


==]==
== Shall the human feces photo be linked or inline?==
With respect, yes, we '''do''' address major spelling distinctions in the {{sc|]}}, usually in the {{sc|]}}. If the rather twee ''faeces'' is becoming deservedly less common in British English, the phrasing should change from <code>~ (US) or ~ (UK)</code> to something along the lines of ] <code>~, also spelled ~,</code>.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] 21:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


: Hi there, as far as I know faeces is British English (and not diminishing!) and feces is American English. I just don't like your use of abbreviations here (US and UK) as people from e.g. developing countries may not be as familiar with these abbreviations as you are. Shouldn't it be U.S. anyhow? I just think it doesn't hurt to spell it out: American English and British English, rather than just US, UK. ] (]) 21:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages policy supports not including shocking images in articles. Images of feces evoke a universal disgust response and these images are only being included here for their shock value. The images will be available on a separate page. ]


Secondly, what's the point in mentioning that there are different names and then interlinking to another section that follows the lead. I just think it's not sufficiently important to mention this in the first sentence. It's also not done for urine where we immediately mention that there are different names in the very first sentence: "Urine (from Latin Urina, ae, f.) is a liquid by-product of the body secreted by the kidneys through a process called urination (or micturition) and excreted through the urethra." We are not saying "and it is known under different names (pee, piss and alike). ] (]) 21:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
:I agree that the image should be linked, not included in the article itself as an inline image. ] 20:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


==Restructuring, moved content to page on human feces==
::There are three images. Should all be censored? ] 20:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have done a bit of a clean up and restructuring here. I moved some content to the page on ] as it fitted better there if this is meant to be an overview page about feces of humans and animals. Am considering moving some more content across that is currently here under "society and culture" but that's specific for human feces like the part about caste in India. Do people agree? ] (]) 10:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:::If they were ''censored'' they would have been ''removed'' from Misplaced Pages. They were not. They were just moved to a different page. That is not censorship. ] 20:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


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


I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
:::::''Misplaced Pages policy supports not including shocking images in articles.'' - that is in fact ]. ] 12:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011200318/http://abc.net.au:80/news/newsitems/200307/s900527.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200307/s900527.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121019175930/http://www.rohmhaas.com:80/history/ourstory/innovation_leatherbreakthrough.htm to http://www.rohmhaas.com/history/ourstory/innovation_leatherbreakthrough.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
::::::There is nothing shocking about feces in an article about feces. In an article about ], well, that would be a shock. And even if a few people are shocked, must we remove all photos of legs because some people find an exposed woman's leg shocking? ] 23:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
==Editors should remember the ]==


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 09:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I see some ] violations:


== Hello All, - a series of edits ==
]:


I am planning on making a series of edits. A series, as if anyone does not agree with one, they can just revert the edit. I have listed the changes I have made below. If you would like to reword any of these, go ahead.
]:
:1. A Japanese sewage treatment facility mines the sewers for metals. This idea was also tested by the US Geological Survey (USGS) which found the sewerage generated by 1 million people contained 13 million dollars worth of precious metals. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gold-sewage-odd-idUSTRE50T56120090130, https://www.rt.com/usa/243377-mining-sewage-precious-metals-studies/.
:2. 200 species of ants farm fungi for food, fertilising it with their dung. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/qi/8049221/QI-Quite-Interesting-facts-about-bugs.html
:3. Llama dung has been added to water treatment lagoons in Bolivia to remove dangerous metals. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/1793381.stm
:4. Kitchen refuse can be reduced by more than 90% in mass by using bacteria extracted from the faeces of giant pandas. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389172301803261
:5. Penguins when pooing to avoid messing up their feathers and nests, point their bottoms out of the nests and shoot it up to 40 centimetres away. This is used by scientists to track them from space. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141210-surprising-use-of-penguin-poo, http://qi.com/infocloud/penguins
:6. In WW2, German soldiers ate horse poo to treat dysentery. http://mentalfloss.com/article/23998/7-creative-uses-poop
:7. Physicians used to taste patient faeces to better judge state and condition. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qsv_Y0DOVUsC&redir_esc=y
:8. In Malaysia, tea is made from the droppings of stick insects fed on guava leaves. http://qi.com/infocloud/dung
:9. Washington DC has unveiled a faeces powered power plant which will save 13 million dollars a year. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/poop-flush-power/2015/10/07/d0c9c6de-6c3a-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html
:10. Adding baby faeces to sausages makes the sausage taste the same, but makes it lower in fat and salt. http://qi.com/infocloud/sausages
:11. A dung-fired power station ahs been operating at Holsworthy in Devon since 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2135431.stm
:12. If harnessed as an energy source, the biogas from faeces could be worth as much as 9.5 billion dollars. http://news.discovery.com/human/will-the-future-be-powered-by-feces-151103.htm
:13. Ambergris is still used for perfume manufacturing. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/magazine/ambergris-treasure-of-the-deep-01122012.html


:: I don't agree with most of your edits here. This seems to be a list of "trivia", some of which is from doubtful sources. Some of them don't belong to this article anyhow but rather to the article on sewage or sewage treatment, for example. ] (]) 05:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm asking both parties to not revert this page again; otherwise I'll have to ask for both of you to have a mandated 24-hour cooling-off period. ] 00:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: I am sorry, but to me this looked like an arbitrary collection of "facts" about feces. The kind of thing you can find all over the internet with usually dubious sources - but not relevant for a Misplaced Pages article on feces. I have moved those sentences that dealt with feces as an energy source to the right section, although even those sentences should be double checked and perhaps deleted. Just referencing a newspaper article is hardly a reliable source. ] (]) 12:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2016 ==
:Reverting vandalism does not count toward the 3RR. Modifying the article against current consensus constitutes vandalism. ] 00:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Feces|answered=yes}}
::Nohat has a special rule for himself, apparently. I count 6 now. ] 00:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. -->
<!-- Begin request -->


The following opinion is presented as a fact and requires a citation:
::There was no consensus then, or now - the poll is dead even. ] 05:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"In all human cultures, feces elicit varying degrees of disgust, a basic human emotion."
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 05:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
:] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> ]<sub>(])</sub> 18:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2016 ==
:::I suggest you read the policy: ]. It says ''This doesn't apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism.'' ] 00:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Feces|answered=yes}}
::::Funny, what you were reverting is in no way vandalism. --] (]) 00:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. -->
<!-- Begin request -->


Many animals can also be trained by using cotton pad squares that they can do their business on.
::::(edit conflict) Which, of course, depends on the definition of ''simple vandalism''. I do not know if adding an offensive image counts as simple vandalism. Next time, let other editors do the reverting too. (And since 3RR is a ''maximum'' 24hr block, I ''can'' choose to ''not'' block you...) --] 00:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 01:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 12:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2016 ==
:::::BTW, sorry about the <nowiki>{{vprotected}}</nowiki>. I had forgotten the name of the correct template. --] 00:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Feces|answered=yes}}
:::::In many places, images of human waste are treated the same as pornography, and including pornography in Misplaced Pages articles is simple vandalism. ] 07:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Will you please change the word "reestablish" to "re-establish"? Thanks
::::::Not always; see for instance ], ] and (of course) ]. When it's relevant to the article, including pornography ''might'' be a legitimate edit (but will ''always'' be controversial). Pictures of feces in an article about feces aren't obvious simple vandalism. --] 12:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


] (]) 00:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I agree with you 100%. This is why I set up a poll which people didn't even take seriously. When linking instead of inlining images in Misplaced Pages, stools in Feces should be treated the same as genetalia in ], ], and ]. I think this is an issue where we should best use procedure correctly to show consensus. And, yes, I feel the human stool picture doesn't belong here. ] 20:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:{{done}} -- ] <sup>]</sup> 00:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


== Requested move 9 February 2017 ==
::::::::::::::Hm. Samboy decides that people aren't taking his poll seriously once the voting is against him. ] 05:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''


The result of the move request was: not moved ] (]) 21:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I did not say that; I only said it's not ''simple vandalism'' to add that kind of picture to that kind of article, since it's debatable whether or not they are allowed. I avoided even going near the subject of whether or not they are allowed, and whether or not they should be inline. --] 21:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
----


] → {{no redirect|crap}} – More common name. Who calls it feces? ] (]) 18:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::I didn't make myself clear enough. I feel that the image of a human stool should be treated the same as images of genetalia in the sense that we should come up with some kind of consensus when deciding whether to keep or remove the image. In the initial stages of an edit conflict, having multiple editors revert to version A of a page while one editor (and sockpuppets) reverts to version B of the page pretty strongly shows consensus. I still think it is a good idea to come up with consensus via a poll, though. It this still isn't clear, send me a private email and I'll explain further. ] 21:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UT
:Well that would certainly be interesting. I think we should stick with Feces though. Crap is a bit ]. ] (]) 19:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' per ]. "crap" can mean anything, including parts of en.Misplaced Pages. "Feces" means solid or semisolid metabolic waste from an animal's digestive tract, discharged through the anus or cloaca during a process called defecation. ] (]) 23:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::You should agree with yourself on what constitutes a consensus before deciding if the criteria have been met. And perhaps state your definition. Otherwise, it will look like you are fudging your interpretaion of the poll's results to support your own edits. ] 05:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ] and ]. This is an encyclopedia and "crap" could just as easily refer to this nomination as to feces. If ] gets moved to ], I'll reconsider. — ] 01:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''; but my spelling for it here in England is "faeces". ] (]) 05:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. There is another "More common name" for feces which has its own Misplaced Pages entry. Its hatnote explains, "This article is about the word "shit". For the bodily waste, see ]. For the egestion of bodily wastes, see ]. For other uses, see ]".] <small>]</small> 06:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
: "shit" is a more common name than "feces", but is profane. "poop" is a more common name than "feces", but is childish sounding. "crap" is the most common name that doesn't have the issue of being profane or childish. ] (]) 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
:NB - Even in medical books published in America the Latin/British/Canadian spelling "faeces"/"faecal" is common. ] (]) 08:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' My Collins dictionary lists 5 definitions for the word crap:<br>1) A losing throw in the game of craps<br>2) Another name for craps<br>3) Nonsense<br>4) Rubbish<br>5) A taboo word for faeces<br>Faeces/feces has one definition: bodily waste matter derived from ingested food and the secretions of the intestines and discharged through the anus. Thats what this article is about. ] (]) 15:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' You're shitting me, right? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Snow Close''' someone snow close this as not moved. ] (]) 20:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->


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


I've just moved quite a bit of text from here to the article on ], particular in the section on uses. There was a mixture of uses of animal and human feces, and I felt it was neater to keep that information in two different articles. So the article is now initially an overview article for feces in general, but when it comes to uses it focuses on animal feces uses; for human feces uses the reader is referred to the other article. I hope others agree that it is better like this. ] (]) 21:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
:I still feel my original series of reverts were justified&mdash;the bulk of Eyeon's edits at that point had merely been adding this photo to lots of articles&mdash;I reverted them everywhere. It seemed to me that adding pictures of shit to Misplaced Pages articles is on its face the most archetypal kind of image vandalism, akin to adding pornographic photos to articles. However, once the admissability of the reverts was called into question by users other than Eyeon, I ceased my reverts. It's quite obvious that Eyeon is a classic ] and should be dealt with accordingly. Unfortunately, we have taken his bait and he is probably sitting at home masturbating to all the furor he has incited. This will be my last comment on the matter. I'll let the rest of the community sort this one out.] 19:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


==Add references for information on content of feces?==
==VOTE HERE==
Thanks, ] for your recent edits to the lead where you clarified aspects of the content of feces. Are there any references that could be cited to substantiate what you wrote? Also, this strikes me as quite interesting so I think we should also explain that more in the article itself not just in the lead (the lead just being a summary of the article). Could you help with that? ] (]) 09:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


:{{done}}. Thank you for the compliment. I have not added anything to the article itself yet (pressed for time!). But any decent physiology textbook would allow any editor to make the relevant contribution. ] (]) 14:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Let's make this a poll.


==Disagree with new content added to lead==
:In general, anonymous votes do not count in Misplaced Pages polls. ] 00:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I disagree with this content which was added to the lead recently by ]. I have already removed it once but it was reinstated:
Do you believe:


''The process requires pressures that may reach 100 mm Hg in humans <ref name="Langley 1958"> cite book|last1=Langley|first1= L.I.|last2=Cheraskin|first2= E.|title= The Physiology of Man|year=1958|publisher= McGraw Hill, N.Y.}}</ref> and 450 mm Hg in penguins as measured by ] and ]. The forces required to expel the feces are generated through muscular contractions and a build-up of gases inside the gut, prompting the sphincter to relieve the pressure on it and to release the feces. <ref name="Meyer-Rochow 2003">{{cite journal|last1=Meyer-Rochow|first1=Victor Benno|last2=Gal|first2=Jozsef|title=Pressures produced when penguinsnpoo - calculations on avian defaecation|journal=Polar Biology|date=2003|volume=27|pages=56-58}}</ref>''
==='''Animal and human poop are OK on main page''' ===


Firstly, it does not belong to the lead. If anything it could go somewhere in the main article. The lead is meant to be a summary of the most important points. Secondly, it is not understandable. A lay person will not know what 100 mg Hg is! It might fit better on the page of ]. Secondly, why these wiki-links?: by ] and ]. Makes no sense. Thirdly the references are not well done - there is no way for someone to check them (using a reference from 1958 - surely something more recent is available. ] (]) 16:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
<!-- Place your vote for three inline images here with # ] 20:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) -->
: Actually the content in question could be moved to the article on ] where it fits much better. ] (]) 00:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
#The log of poo is A-OK. ] 22:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: I've now added a new short section on physiology and added it there. I still don't like the "100 mg Hg" for laypersons - how could this be done better? At least with a wiki link? ] (]) 11:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
#:Thank you for voting in the poll; hopefully more people will contribute to the poll ] 23:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
#Fine, have your turd. --<i>]</i> ] 06:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::I agree with EMsmile that this phrase needs to be restated: "requires pressures that may reach 100 mm Hg in humans and 450 mm Hg in penguins." Interesting, but too scientific for the general reader. Could this be rephrased to "penguins are able to exert 4.5 x more pressure than humans." Also interesting that this enables penguins to excrete outside of their nests without leaving their nests. But are we leaving the topic of feces and getting into anatomy?] (]) 16:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
#Polls are evil. --] (]) 00:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#One vote for inline images. --] 00:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
#If it has to be down to a vote... ] 21:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
#Okay with me. What's the big deal about that piece of shit? To me, a Human is just another animal, as ] has said on his User page. I do not understand why is there fanaticism going on for a piece of human shit, probably due to religious barriers. But religion, again, is created by man's own ideas! ] 15:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#We can have it, and it further illustrates the article. ] 11:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#:This user's only contributions are to this talk page ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:32, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
#] 03:50, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
# ] (if it isn't a page yet, it should be (although probably a redirect somewhere)) ] 10:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#If you come here, you should expect/want to see the picture. Also I don't see anything groce about a picture and will not until they invent smelling pictures. Censorship stinks. --] 16:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
# Oh, come on, this is an article about feces. And this is Misplaced Pages. People searching this source for this topic should hardly be surprised that it comes complete with illustrations. Just try and keep the photo below the fold. --] ] 17:47, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
# I think this is pathetic that this had to come to a damn VOTE, but whatever, just keep the kid swimming at the pool if that's your fancy. ] 19:13, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
#Okay. Link them.--] 20:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#:Just to clarify: We're not talking about ''removing'' the picture. We're talking about linking the picture. ] 21:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
# Seems appropriate to me too. ] 16:31, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
# This seems logical to have on this page. Furthermore, it seems logical to move the picture to the top, since Misplaced Pages is made by and for humans, not birds, rabbits, or any other species. Hence, the human turd's relevance is higher than the animal turds. --] 22:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#:Obvious sockpuppet. --](]) 22:30, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
#::You are welcome to your opinion, but I simply saw the discussion and created an account to take part. It seems any pro-poop vote is discounted in any way possible as a sockpuppet. I have reinstated my vote and will continue to do so.
#:::Thank you for voting. The fecophobes will not prevail. ] 22:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#Okay, I just looked at the history on this thing and for the record, I am all for poop, animal, human, alien, whatever, so I'm voting yes on poop. ''However'', that image by Eyeon is unnecessarily disgusting, and it looks as if he got it from or something. Yes, it is a natural thing to happen, but this isn't the same thing as a flaccid penis -- this is more like an erect penis with ] all over it. Just find a different photo and everyone will be happy. ] 00:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
#I can't see why people get riled up about the human feces image. The other version in which every kind of poo is OK, except for human feces, to ME, very much emits an American right-wing view of the world where everything about the human body is taboo. And the image description was very informative. Thank you, expert of shit. :) ] 20:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2017 ==
==='''Animal poop is OK on main page, but human poop should be linked''' ===


{{edit semi-protected|Feces|answered=yes}}
<!-- Place your vote for two inline images here with # ] 20:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) -->
The link for the Tulane article 'Cars Could Run on Recycled Newspaper, Tulane Scientists Say' should be updated to 'https://news.tulane.edu/pr/cars-could-run-recycled-newspaper-tulane-scientists-say' for easy access. The current link (http://tulane.edu/news/releases/pr_082511.cfm) does not work and you have to search the Tulane website for the one I provide above. Thanks. ] (]) 17:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
# Reasonable compromise; the rabbit and pigeon feces do not gross me out ] 20:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#:Should the pix on ] be deleted too, just because they might gross someone out? ] 00:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :{{done}} - ~Thank you for reporting this. All the best, ] (]) 12:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
#::This isn't about ]&mdash;it's about feces. The same criteria do not apply. ] 00:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#:::Applying criteria inconsistently reveals your position is weak. ] 05:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
# This is fine for now. However, images of fresh feces from other large mammals, like dogs, horses, or elephants, should probably also be put on a separate page. The criteria should be if it ''looks'' like it's very smelly, then it probably will invoke a disgust response in most people and should be on a separate page. The image page should remain prominently linked in the article so that those who are interested in such images will be able to easily find them. ] 20:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#:Are you proposing a new rule? If it looks stink-ridden, it should be well hidden? ] 22:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#This verson seems fine to me. Are we going to illustrate '']''? ]] 23:34, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
#I say this in part because the picture of human feces is a particularly vile example. ] 22:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#Having graduated from a Spanish High School (run by Jesuits no less) I am no stranger to scatology. However, this picture seems absurdly uninformative. Certainly an anthropolgist may need to know something about ranges of composition, shapes and color of feces, but this isn't the place for it. I suggest you start a Wikibook on ] instead--] 23:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#I agree, this is probably more acceptable. If people want to know what feces looks like they can; if they don't, they don't have to. --] 10:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#<s>I voted below, but this would be my second option, as it is very similar.</s> <font color=#00A86B>]</font><font color=#B87333>]</font><font color=#0047AB>]</font> 04:41, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
#:This isn't West Palm Beach. ] 04:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#::Nor is it a presidential election. I fail to see your point. <font color=#00A86B>]</font><font color=#B87333>]</font><font color=#0047AB>]</font> 05:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
#:::You see it. You just don't like it. ] 05:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#::::Considering your forging of votes on this poll and changing of votes over at the VfD discussion, this is looking more and more like West Palm Beach every minute. <font color=#00A86B>]</font><font color=#B87333>]</font><font color=#0047AB>]</font> 17:53, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
#:::::I've addressed this 'forgery' slur at the bottom of the page. ] 22:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#On the grounds that animal poo is somewhat informative. ] 06:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#I'm just waiting for pictures on ] with the argument "We don't censor anything!! People have the constitutional right to see this!!" or some idiotic crap... --]|] 11:52, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
#] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:33, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
#] 21:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) I don't believe that the images are neccessary nor do they make the article any more informative.


===Animal poop OK on main page, human poop not on any page=== == 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:
# (Weirdest. Heading. Ever.) <s>I think we can assume that most all readers of Misplaced Pages will be familiar with human poop, so the photo is unnecessary, and doesn't even need its own linked page. OTOH, not everyone knows what animal poop looks like, so those pictures serve ''some'' use.</s> <font color=#00A86B>]</font><font color=#B87333>]</font><font color=#0047AB>]</font> 02:33, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)</s>
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2018-11-19T06:15:31.872111 | Human Feces.jpg -->
#:I nominate the above heading for the title of the next ]. --] ] 17:49, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 06:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2018 ==
==='''Animal and human poop should be on linked page'''===


{{edit semi-protected|Feces|answered=yes}}
<!-- Place your vote for zero inline images and three linked here with # ] 20:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) -->
Under the 'Feelings of Disgust' subtitle, the word 'flishing' in the sentence, 'Disgust toward feces appears to be strongest in modern Western cultures where ''flishing'' toilets make olfactory contact with it minimal.' should be changed to flushing as I believe it was a typo. ] (]) 22:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
:(vote here to take all poo pix off the main page, and put them on a linked page.)
:] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 23:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019 ==
==='''No poop pictures of any kind on any page'''===
There is a Pile of Poo emoji represented in Unicode as U+1F4A9 💩 PILE OF POO, called unchi or unhci-kun in Japan.


TYPO: "unhci-kun" should be unchi-kun <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:(vote here to remove all poo pix)


== We should move it to Stool. ==
===Votes against the poll itself===


: This poll smells bad. --] 21:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) ] (]) 02:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
== Body Waste listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Please participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 04:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
== Body waste listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Please participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 04:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
== Whopee listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Please participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 04:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


==Remove hatnote?==
::''Note:'' This vote was changed from its original context. See for the real vote. Nowhere I said my vote was against the poll itself, and I object to it being included here. --] 12:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I am just wondering if we really need this hatnote or if it could be done differently. I think it gives too much emphasis to a little-known American band: ""Fecal matter" redirects here. For the American punk rock band, see Fecal Matter (band)." What do you all think? ] (]) 02:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
:::I don't see how my edit changed the meaning of your vote. If you think it did, then what WAS your meaning? ] 14:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Yes, I agree with you. ] (]) 20:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
# It's clear that this poll is becoming meaningless if people are going to tamper with it. <font color=#00A86B>]</font><font color=#B87333>]</font><font color=#0047AB>]</font> 17:54, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
# The poll was restructured after people started voting, and without even informing the ones who already voted. I believe this renders the whole poll '''invalid'''. --] 12:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


== Clarification on the word "Feces" as a plural noun ==
===Uncatorgorised votes===
#What is this poll about again?--] 13:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The word "feces" is a ''plurale tantum'', meaning that it has no singular form. ''Pluralia tantum'' are still plural and must be treated as such. So, one would say "Feces are" and not "Feces is". Perhaps the confusion has to do with singular ] (e.g. the ''family'' is large) or ] (e.g. the ''water'' is cold), both of which are singular (with some exceptions, of course). The is a good tool for this. – ] (]) 17:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
==Shall we expand upon the photos?==


Thank you Vonkworm.
Where's the steaming pile of ] ] picture? ]<font color=#2554C7> </font>] 11:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Incidentally, if you do look up the Google Ngram Viewer and see that there are entries for "feces is" and "faeces is", you need then to look at the sentences they come from: almost always the "is" is agreeing with another word in the sentence, ''not'' the word "feces". For example, "a ''sample'' of feces", where the agreement is with the singular "sample".
:It's now posted under ]. ] 15:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


As this issue has come up multiple more times in edits, here is carefully researched evidence that supports this.
::It's good to see the large pile of steaming horse manure added to the ] article, but I was thinking more on the lines of the individual horse plops that I remembered maneuvering around (and occasionally stepping in) during ]s when I was in the school ]. It would be nice to find a good picture of that, plus an appropriate picture to add to the ] article. (and now if I could only remember where I saw the picture of the ] ]ing in a ]...) ]<font color=#2554C7> </font>] 10:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The word "feces" is a plural noun. "Feces" therefore takes a plural verb inflection ("are", "were", "contain" etc., rather than "is", "was", "contains" ...) and plural pronouns. This is a well researched grammatical edit with strong evidence in multiple varieties of English from reputable publications in multiple English speaking countries and from multiple dictionaries. The article itself as well as the above talk page contribution refers to the fact that the word is plural (indeed a ''plurale tantum'' because there is no singular) and provides a reputable reference. Despite this, some editors have used "feces" as if the word were singular, which is not unknown but is non-standard usage. Please be very thoughtful of maintaining high standards in Misplaced Pages and keep feces as plural. The following examples drawn from reputable sources of high standard English usage may help editors understand how the word is used in good, standard English.
:::Such a contribution would be welcome. Don't forget to vote in the poll above. ] 10:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


{{smalldiv|
==Is the human poop "normal", and discussion on taboos==
* Government of Victoria, Australia: "Faeces are usually firm, moist and easy to pass."
* National Institutes of Health:
* "Feces are composed of water, protein, undigested fats, polysaccharides, bacterial biomass, ash, and undigested food residues."
* "Mite faeces are a major source of house dust allergens."
* "... if the moist faeces were completely burnt out to gas products and ..."
* University of Massachusetts: "Feces are mostly made of water (about 75%)."
* East Devon District Council, UK government: "Dog faeces are unpleasant and can present a serious health hazard, particularly to young children."
* UK Government: "The life cycle of the tapeworm involves an adult stage in canids, eggs in the environment where faeces are present and an immature, ..."
* NHS, UK Government:
* "This occurs because faeces are pushed through the bowel until they reach the affected part."
* "Soft bulky faeces are easier to push out of the body."
* USDA: "Indeed, faeces are common to all detritivores, and a large part of organic matter is transformed into faeces in many ecosystems."
* The Lancet (leading medical journal):
* "... animal faeces should be considered potentially hazardous, just as human faeces are ..."
* " Faeces were processed <6 hours post defecation, ..."
* Nature (leading science journal):
* "giraffe and impala faeces were almost identical with 27 and 30 ..."
* Irish Veterinary Journal: "Faeces were obtained directly from the rectum using swabs ..."
* Veterninary Research communications: "The faeces were examined for the presence of campylobacters, salmonella and Giardia lamblia."
* New England Journal of Medicine: " In this study, donor feces were infused in patients with recurrent C. difficile infection and ..."
* Smithsonian Magazine: "the feces were almost certainly produced by humans."
* Misplaced Pages itself, elsewhere (night soil) uses feces as plural: "Feces were excreted into a container such as a chamber pot"
* CDC: "the raccoon's feces were not tested"
* Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Feces are normally removed from the body one or two times a day."}}
] (]) 09:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


== "Dropping" listed at ] ==
But isn't there a chance someone worried about the appearance of their feces would come here to find a picture of "normal" human feces? I think ideally we should have the full gamut of types of human feces available, at the very least behind disclaimers. This is going to require a lot of work, but I think that we should see this as a work in progress, and that having that information available should at least be our long-term goal. ] 02:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
]
:I should hope someone worried about the appearance of their feces would a) have had a normal-looking BM ''sometime'' in their lives to make a comparison to; and b) speak with a medical professional rather than consult an online encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tool for medical diagnosis. Besides, as you alluded to yourself, what constitutes a "normal" poop? Certainly not the image in question &ndash; that thing is ''huge''. <font color=#00A86B>]</font><font color=#B87333>]</font><font color=#0047AB>]</font> 03:11, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> '''<span style="color:blue;">Seventyfiveyears</span> (])''' 15:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


== Low importance? ==
:::::::NOTE: I have since reduced the length of the poop by about 30%. ] 15:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


How can something that every normally functioning human being produces at least every couple of days be of "low importance"? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I should hope that everyone brush their teeth and not beat their children, but what we hope is not what is. Sometimes the taboo against poop is so great that people rarely look at their own feces. The argument that the poop may not be ''normal'' is a pointless one. Shall we remove all photographs from Misplaced Pages, on the grounds that the subjects are not ''normal''? No. We should add information about diversity. If you truly wish to discuss what is considered normal, then let's do so. The image is quite representative: it shows the normal mucus coating, the typical small pieces of dessicated and impacted feces on the distal end, the normal cylindrical shape from a non-strained defecation, normal medium brown color from a typical balanced diet, typical water content and a healthy bulk from good fiber intake. Size indeed varies, but this example is within norms. If you have a photo that you believe is better representative, you are encouraged to submit it. ] 04:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


:Agree. Poop is very important, even though we don't like to see it often. ] (]) 16:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
:::Wouldn't a feces taboo mean that one wouldn't even ''look up'' articles on feces, much less want to ''look at pictures'' of it? I would think a descriptive textual description would more benefit people who have some sort of poop-phobia. <font color=#00A86B>]</font><font color=#B87333>]</font><font color=#0047AB>]</font> 04:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2021 ==
::::You're would/could/shoulding again. How much poop could a poop-phobe scope if the poop-phobe hoped no scoop? But on your suggestion, I am adding a textual description to the article. ] 05:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Feces|answered=yes}}
:::::It's no more "would/could/shoulding" than the original objection to my reasoning. I'll rephrase, since you seem to be objecting to semantics rather than the actual argument: Someone who comes from a culture that views feces as taboo is unlikely to intentionally search for an article on feces, and is likely to be repulsed by a photo of feces, making the article ''less'' useful to such a person. <font color=#00A86B>]</font><font color=#B87333>]</font><font color=#0047AB>]</font> 05:36, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think "pp small=yes" is supposed to be in the source of the article and might need to be removed ] (]) 16:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


:{{not done}}. Hello {{u|Cool-person27}}. That coding is for the template that creates the small lock icon near the top of the page. The lock icon is a standard practice on Misplaced Pages, and it helps notify editors that the page is under semi-protection.--<span style="font-family: Constantia">] ''(])''</span> 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::Someone who comes from such a repressive culture is MORE likely to turn to the Internet when searching for this kind of information, NOT less, because it is unavailable elsewhere. You would deny them Misplaced Pages as a resource for this, why? ] 05:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


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


I’m not sure if the record has been broken but I do know that once a guy who collects antique dinosaur feces once broke the world record of the biggest dinosaurs fece ] (]) 16:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Once again, you have mischaracterized and dismissed a valid argument. The Internet adds a feeling of anonymity that depersonalizes many inquiries. Therefore, people feel more free to search out information on taboo subjects. ] 09:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022 ==
:::::::::The issue you keep ignoring is that anyone can look at their own stools. The picture provides no information that isn't readily available to any human being. Yes, if aliens from Alpha Centauri were reading the Misplaced Pages, it would be a different story. ] 23:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Feces|answered=yes}}
::::::::::OK, I'll address that argument. The test of a valid argument is: Can it be applied consistently? Let's see: Anyone can look at their own hand, shall we remove the picture of a hand? Anyone can look at the moon, shall we remove the picture of a moon? Since those pictures, too, provide 'no information readily available to any human being'...shall we remove them too? Is this really a valid argument? No. ] 03:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Change line "Birds (individual) droppings" to "Birds (individual) ] ] (]) 22:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> There is already a discussion at ] regarding its status, and such a link would have to depend on that consensus. ] ] 04:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2023 ==
:::::::::::Nice piece of weaselling, dude, but the ''argument'' was yours: that some people who have a taboo on looking at turds might benefit from seeing yours. This is comprehensively defeated by pointing out the absurdity of suggesting that a person has a taboo on looking at their own shit and not on looking at yours. No one is, I think, suggesting that anyone has a taboo on looking at the moon. The photo on that page does not claim to be informative, just illustrative. ] 05:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Feces|answered=yes}}
::::::::::::There are several different arguments on this page. It is not weaselling to address Samboy's argument directly. The taboo argument was raised separately, and it was dealt with separately. ] 14:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am sujaan and i am 22 years old and I would like to be and editor because i am good in English ] (]) 14:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' this is not the right page to ] additional ]. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have ], you can wait until you are ] and edit the page yourself.<!-- Template:ESp --> Remember, you can already edit the vast majority of articles without even registering. Only certain ones will require making an account or achieving a number of edits. ] (]) 15:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2023 ==
:::::::::::Furthermore, the pictures on ] are pictures that look far better than anything I can see with my eyes. And, yes, my vision is better than 20/20. As for taboos, they are hard to deal with since each person has their own set of taboos; it is one of the biggest flame fests here since it is an emotionally charged issue with no objectively correct answer. I think the ultimate solution for taboos is to change the mediawiki software to allow images to have different flags on them, which will allow some users to, for example, turn off pictures of ] or ] if they want to. ] 06:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Feces|answered=yes}}
::::::::::::Please address the 'hand' example. ] 14:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the final paragraph of the “Uses of animal feces” heading, the paragraph pertaining to the Middle Eastern usage under the subheading “other uses,” is unfounded and not cited. The paragraph holds no truth and is likely vandalism. ] (]) 06:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> The claim was added without providing any source, I've reverted it. ] (] • ]) 09:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::] already did. ] 23:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2024 ==
::::::::::::::No, he didn't, but I'm no longer interested in discussing it with you. You asked for a poll, so you got a poll. You didn't like the results so you try to discredit the poll. Now you engage in a revert war with a newbie and call him a sockpuppet. Shame on you. You're not interested in what other people think. ] 23:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Feces|answered=yes}}
:::::::::::::::It is obvious that you are more interested in stirring up trouble than in contributing to the Misplaced Pages. You know and I know that is your ], as is , and I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with your lies. ] 23:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Feces is a plural noun. The opening definition should use “were” instead of “was” and “have” instead of “has”.


::::::::::::::::I have asked admins to investigate whether or not I use sockpuppets. They have my phone number, and I'm trying to contact the others. ] 23:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


"Feces are the solid or semi-solid remains of food that were not digested in the small intestine, and have been broken down by bacteria in the large intestine." ] (]) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::There is a separate effort underway on Misplaced Pages to include exactly this kind of self-censorship feature, and I would encourage the anti-poop crowd to lend their support over there. ] 14:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:{{Not done}}. You're parsing it wrong. "Feces are the...remains of (FOOD that...has been broken down by bacteria)". ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2024 ==
==Coprophagia, or Why Eating Poop Is Not Always Bad==


{{Edit semi-protected|Feces|answered=yes}}
"re: Coprophagia is the extremely hazardous practice of eating feces." If the person who wrote that had read the ] article, they would have found out that, for example, "Rabbits, cavies and related species have a digestive system adapted for coprophagia." The line needs to be qualified, or deleted. ]<font color=#2554C7> </font>] 12:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The word poop is not linked to the Misplaced Pages page on poop (https://en.wikipedia.org/Poop). I can not complete my Misplaced Pages speed run from "anything" to "poop" because of that. Please help change that urgently.


Thank you :) ] (]) 17:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
:When the page is unprotected, that line could be qualified as follows: ''Coprophagia is the practice of eating feces; however, some animals with a high-fiber/low-protein diet (such as rabbits) eat their own feces as a normal part of metabolism. Plant matter the animal consumes is digested in two passes, with the product of the first pass re-ingested directly from the anus. After the material is re-digested, the actual waste that remains is excreted and left alone.'' ] 21:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> DAB pages are almost never directly linked per ]. ] (]) 22:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


== Human feces not actually necessary ==
::I have unprotected it, go on with that edit. --] 22:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I understand that wikipedia is not censored, but given that a photo of human feces is pretty much unnecessary, especially of fresh human feces, why not just use the photo of elephant poop? Some people read Misplaced Pages while eating for example. I am interested in reading more of it but don’t really want to stare at a photo of someone else’s fresh poop. Censorship is bad, but maybe taking into account the experience of readers should matter? I’ve seen a photo of someone’s fresh self harm (a cut-up arm) on the general ] page, and obviously removed it because it was irrelevant and horrible. I say we replace the image of human poop with an image of a cow pat or something similar: still have a comparison, don’t have someone’s human feces on display. ] (]) 23:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
== Eyeon's behavior, and a comment or two ==


:Replaced it with a cow pat, which I think provides equal value. Recognize that e.g. sanitation workers (above) don’t get bothered by human poop but I don’t think I’m removing value here. Maybe lizard poop or something similar could be used if elephants and cows were deemed to similar, or even owl pellets? I think there’s no reason to choose the most disturbing image just because it was there first. Recognize I’m going a little against the not-censored policy but other images provide equal value and I’m not saying it’s inappropriate, just unnecessarily disturbing. ] (]) 23:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I recently voted for keeping on the VFD for ] using the argument below, but I have not made up my mind about how I want to vote on this issue, or even if I am going to vote. For ] to add my vote like this was duplicitous. To be honest, I am very pissed off that Eyeon would forge my vote. If this is consistent with other actions of his on the Misplaced Pages he should be ], and if someone does, I will add this evidence to the RFC.


== Why no picture of human feces? ==
#The analysis of ] is an important part of ]. ]<font color=#2554C7> </font>] 14:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Everyone reading the article is human, and it would make more sense, and be more relatable (and obvious), than pictures of elephant feces. ] (]) 04:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Personal opinion: Although I think that there should be several photo examples of various types of feces in the article, I really don't give a shit whether the photo of human excrement is in the article or not. On the other hand, I do not understand why the No-photo contingent is so worked up about not having the photo. So that explains why I probably will not vote. ]<font color=#2554C7> </font>] 16:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


:Because ever sighted person reading the article knows what human feces look like. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm sorry I misinterpreted your intention. I was overzealous when I saw that the poll was not being taken as a strict vote. Android voted twice, Demi removed a newbie's vote from the tally, others altered the ballot to add new options, and the ballot devolved generally into debate. I went too far with that edit and I apologize. ] 04:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Votes are evil. Much better just to revert Eyeon until he gets bored of trying to insert a picture of an enormous turd into the page. ] 05:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:It was the anti-poop contingent that insisted on a vote, then dismissed the results when it didn't go their way. And now, we hear them actually PROPOSING a revert war, favoring brute force when they realize the force of their arguments is not enough to sway public opinion. ] 13:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::] are ], whereas a ] may be the best way to gauge community ] on an issue. In this case, there is consensus for having several photos of animal feces, but there is no consensus for the photo of the human feces. Instead of the revert war, you should start an ] on Eyeon's behavior, AND ask for another ] for the ] article. ]<font color=#2554C7> </font>] 08:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::RFCs are evil -- serving more as red rags to shitstirrers than as means actually to resolve problems -- and surveys are rarely used to "gauge consensus". They are generally a means for a majority to try to enforce its will on a minority. Reversion is the best way to deal with trolls. Eyeon will tire of it and move on to other pastures with easier targets. Sooner or later he will find someone with nothing better to do than take him to arbitration and have to get himself a new username. ] 00:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:It's not at all clear to me that the turd is "enormous". How can you determine the turd's relative size simply by looking at it on the internet? --] 07:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

::Well, that's true, "Niglet". It's either very thin or very long. I have to confess that I took Eyeon at his word that it was a turd of the usual diameter. ] 00:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::I have digitally reduced the length of the turd by about 30%. But somehow, I don't think this will mollify the censors. ] 13:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Human Feces Photo: Is it necessary? ==

I've noticed there has been quite a bit of debate over whether there should be a picture of human feces on the this article, and I have a simple question: is such a picture really necessary? --] 16:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:No, it is not. Nothing in Misplaced Pages is really necessary. Least of all necessary is your question, which you could have avoided asking, if you had actually read the debate. ] 16:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::I figured I'd get the "if you actually read the debate" response. I was, as you can clearly see, too lazy to read all of it. --] 16:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::Or any of it. Why are you here? ] 16:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::He's here because it's a 💕. --] 17:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::::One point for DanielCD. --] 17:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:It doesn't matter anymore whether it's necessary or not, because you've been had. What has happened here is that well-meaning people who will defend the image by its relevancy (who are absolutely correct) have been deliberately pitted against well-meaning people who will attack the image because it was added in order to cause trouble (who are also absolutely correct). If you check out User:Eyeon's contribs, he's currently busy trying to add fuel to the fire by linking from ] and ], while laughing all the way to the metaphorical bank and firing up a similar scam with a shock image at ]. ] 23:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
::Warning: '''extremely graphic image''' at ] (just in case it weren't obvious). <font color=#00A86B>]</font><font color=#B87333>]</font><font color=#0047AB>]</font> 23:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
:::You know, in terms of the taboo argument, I have not, at any point, advocated the removal of these images entirely from the Misplaced Pages. I have, however, advocated ''not'' inlining the images. And, yes, it is time to bring up a ] against ] for behavior such as deliberately stirring up trouble and using sockpuppets in votes, and denying the existance of his sockpuppets when confronted with the issue. Finally, I have already removed ]'s attempt to stir up more trouble by removing his contributions to ] and ] ] 01:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::Your deleting of Eyeon's contributions at RFC and CS were the wrong thing to do. You should want more reasonable people to enter into this discussion. With more people coming here, it would also make that many more people aware of his recent behavior so that when an RFC is filed on his actions, you will get plenty of support. I won't revert you, but I will suggest you restore those notices at RFC and CS. ]<font color=#2554C7> </font>] 14:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::::I have no sockpuppets, see below for more on that crap. ] 23:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Page protected==
I've blocked Eyeon and his sockpuppet for a 3RR violation, but I've also protected the page in case more sockpuppets arrive. If any regular editor wants to edit, drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll unprotect. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
'''Bold text'''

:I have no sockpuppets. I asked you to run an IP check and investigate but you refused. I expect ] and ] are going to be hugely pissed off that you disabled their accounts. I had to get another admin to look into it and un-block me. Furthermore, it is outrageous that you would abuse your adminship to lock up and control the content of the article. I am an editor in good standing. I would like to edit. I am formally requesting you unprotect the page so I may contribute. ] 23:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE PROJECT==
THE IMAGE APPEARS OUT OF CONTEXT AND WHILE FAIRLY AMMUSING TO REGULARS WILL NOT BE UNDERSTOOD BY ROOKIES WHO MAY MIS-INTERPRET IT. ]

:out of context? where might the proper context be? ] 23:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::I think the image is absolutely disgusting and doesn't deserve to be in the article. However, the caption for it could be incorporated into the article. ] 00:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:50, 16 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feces article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconEcology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconSanitation High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives


I was about to correct the spelling as a misspelling when I saw that this is a known issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences

The argument seems to be that because feces is spelt that way in US English that is OK.

The etymology is from Latin faeces "sediment, dregs", which, to me, means that feces is a mis-spelling fallen into common US usage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timp21337 (talk • contribs) 12:49, December 9, 2014‎

It seems that many English readers find the alternate spellings to be jarring. So, Misplaced Pages has found compromises and built policies to avoid edit warring over spelling - see WP:ENGVAR.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It would be a misspelling, if we were using Latin. We aren't. We use one national variety of English in each article, as explained in WP:ENGVAR. As the subject does not have strong ties to any one country (everybody poops), we go with the variety first established in the article. In this case, that's American English. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
And to add to what SummerPhD already explained, the idea of a "misspelling fallen into common US usage" is not correct. It is not a mistake that American English chooses "e" instead of "ae" or "oe" in many words of Latin origin that are now "naturalized citizens" of English. It's an intentional choice. Read more at articles on, for example, phonemic orthography, spelling reform, æ, and œ. Although English orthography does not have regular spelling to the extent that Spanish or German have it, English-language spelling reform has effected a few changes over the centuries, such as this one, although they are not all adopted in every region. To sum up, the "it hurts" in the heading of this section reflects discomfort born of misapprehension. Once the misapprehension is cleared up, the pain subsides. Quercus solaris (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

New photos of feces for the lead

Hi DawnDusk, I quite like your idea of using these two photos for the lead (I have made the background white though, I think that looks better). However, we have had quite a debate about using an image of a "real, fresh human feces" on the page of human feces (see talk page). In the end, I found a compromise that seemed to stick: no photo in the lead, and rather a photo of dried human feces later on. When they are dried, they are less repulsive. Personally, I don't have a problem with showing raw human feces (but I work in the sanitation field), but we don't want to shock others too much. So if there are objections to your collage of two photos, I would say we either move them from the lead further down or we replace the human feces photo with one that shows dried human feces. Thoughts anyone? EvM-Susana (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! I checked out that talk page; the debate rages on from 2005 and is still fresh now in 2015. That's half my life. Jesus! Anyway, it seems you're right; the consensus is that WP:NOTCENSORED, but there is shock value to wet human feces. I'm all for either one - though I'm curious to know what you think - will people get upset about it as it is now? Does its juxtaposition and comparison to the elephant feces lessen the blow? What should we base the decision on? You definitely have far more experience than I - I will defer to you, my friend. DawnDusk (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I am also undecided. The thing is, I deal with sanitation in my day job so such photos do not shock me at all. But not sure about the average Misplaced Pages reader... Perhaps we wait and see if some more reactions come in? I can also ask Doc_James who always has good advice on such matters. If we decide that the human feces need to be more in a dried state, I have plenty of photo options (like the one I inserted in the page for human feces. In any case, how can we make the two images in this collage the same size? It doesn't look so good that the image of the human feces is bigger than the image of the animal feces. EvM-Susana (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think we can get them the same size because their image proportions are different ratios. Instead, I made them the same height - how does that look to you? Anyway - I hear what you're saying. Something tells me the 10-year old war will come back and blow up on the two of us making innocent additions, lol. However, it sounds like you have the best plan we possibly can in this landmine. Tell me as you need my help at all, my friend. DawnDusk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I like the Bristol stool chart in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good one for the lead of this article for two reasons: this article is also about animal feces whereas the Bristol stool chart only focussed on human feces. Secondly, it is already used on the page for human feces (where it could be put in the lead if people prefer that). I actually quite like the two images side by side (elephant and human), I think it looks quite good now. EvM-Susana (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Feces Lovethelord801 (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC) I want to change,,, the picture of horse poop

True, not a good one, as it's mixed with straw. I will delete it, do you have a better one to replace it (on Wikimedia Commons)?EvM-Susana (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2601:243:A03:46E6:B89C:1542:61AA:69DA (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC) i would like to edit this cause no-one knows what "poop" means.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

 Not done You have not requested a change to the article. Please use a "change XXX to YYY" format. Datbubblegumdoe (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

On a dinner plate. Really!

Unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.23.232 (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's a toilet bowl, actually.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

With respect, yes, we do address major spelling distinctions in the WP:LEAD, usually in the WP:LEADSENTENCE. If the rather twee faeces is becoming deservedly less common in British English, the phrasing should change from ~ (US) or ~ (UK) to something along the lines of fetus ~, also spelled ~,. — LlywelynII 21:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, as far as I know faeces is British English (and not diminishing!) and feces is American English. I just don't like your use of abbreviations here (US and UK) as people from e.g. developing countries may not be as familiar with these abbreviations as you are. Shouldn't it be U.S. anyhow? I just think it doesn't hurt to spell it out: American English and British English, rather than just US, UK. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Secondly, what's the point in mentioning that there are different names and then interlinking to another section that follows the lead. I just think it's not sufficiently important to mention this in the first sentence. It's also not done for urine where we immediately mention that there are different names in the very first sentence: "Urine (from Latin Urina, ae, f.) is a liquid by-product of the body secreted by the kidneys through a process called urination (or micturition) and excreted through the urethra." We are not saying "and it is known under different names (pee, piss and alike). EvM-Susana (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Restructuring, moved content to page on human feces

I have done a bit of a clean up and restructuring here. I moved some content to the page on human feces as it fitted better there if this is meant to be an overview page about feces of humans and animals. Am considering moving some more content across that is currently here under "society and culture" but that's specific for human feces like the part about caste in India. Do people agree? EvM-Susana (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Feces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—Talk to my owner:Online 09:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello All, - a series of edits

I am planning on making a series of edits. A series, as if anyone does not agree with one, they can just revert the edit. I have listed the changes I have made below. If you would like to reword any of these, go ahead.

1. A Japanese sewage treatment facility mines the sewers for metals. This idea was also tested by the US Geological Survey (USGS) which found the sewerage generated by 1 million people contained 13 million dollars worth of precious metals. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gold-sewage-odd-idUSTRE50T56120090130, https://www.rt.com/usa/243377-mining-sewage-precious-metals-studies/.
2. 200 species of ants farm fungi for food, fertilising it with their dung. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/qi/8049221/QI-Quite-Interesting-facts-about-bugs.html
3. Llama dung has been added to water treatment lagoons in Bolivia to remove dangerous metals. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/1793381.stm
4. Kitchen refuse can be reduced by more than 90% in mass by using bacteria extracted from the faeces of giant pandas. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389172301803261
5. Penguins when pooing to avoid messing up their feathers and nests, point their bottoms out of the nests and shoot it up to 40 centimetres away. This is used by scientists to track them from space. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141210-surprising-use-of-penguin-poo, http://qi.com/infocloud/penguins
6. In WW2, German soldiers ate horse poo to treat dysentery. http://mentalfloss.com/article/23998/7-creative-uses-poop
7. Physicians used to taste patient faeces to better judge state and condition. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qsv_Y0DOVUsC&redir_esc=y
8. In Malaysia, tea is made from the droppings of stick insects fed on guava leaves. http://qi.com/infocloud/dung
9. Washington DC has unveiled a faeces powered power plant which will save 13 million dollars a year. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/poop-flush-power/2015/10/07/d0c9c6de-6c3a-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html
10. Adding baby faeces to sausages makes the sausage taste the same, but makes it lower in fat and salt. http://qi.com/infocloud/sausages
11. A dung-fired power station ahs been operating at Holsworthy in Devon since 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2135431.stm
12. If harnessed as an energy source, the biogas from faeces could be worth as much as 9.5 billion dollars. http://news.discovery.com/human/will-the-future-be-powered-by-feces-151103.htm
13. Ambergris is still used for perfume manufacturing. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/magazine/ambergris-treasure-of-the-deep-01122012.html
I don't agree with most of your edits here. This seems to be a list of "trivia", some of which is from doubtful sources. Some of them don't belong to this article anyhow but rather to the article on sewage or sewage treatment, for example. EvMsmile (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry, but to me this looked like an arbitrary collection of "facts" about feces. The kind of thing you can find all over the internet with usually dubious sources - but not relevant for a Misplaced Pages article on feces. I have moved those sentences that dealt with feces as an energy source to the right section, although even those sentences should be double checked and perhaps deleted. Just referencing a newspaper article is hardly a reliable source. EvMsmile (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following opinion is presented as a fact and requires a citation: "In all human cultures, feces elicit varying degrees of disgust, a basic human emotion." Dstrodtman (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Done clpo13(talk) 18:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Many animals can also be trained by using cotton pad squares that they can do their business on. 2607:FCC8:D440:D600:856B:B131:6666:7CB1 (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Will you please change the word "reestablish" to "re-establish"? Thanks

Deathclaw409 (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Dane2007 00:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved DrKay (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Feces → Crap – More common name. Who calls it feces? 99.101.56.68 (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Well that would certainly be interesting. I think we should stick with Feces though. Crap is a bit imprecise. Ajpolino (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
"shit" is a more common name than "feces", but is profane. "poop" is a more common name than "feces", but is childish sounding. "crap" is the most common name that doesn't have the issue of being profane or childish. 99.101.56.68 (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
NB - Even in medical books published in America the Latin/British/Canadian spelling "faeces"/"faecal" is common. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Streamlined this article with human feces

I've just moved quite a bit of text from here to the article on human feces, particular in the section on uses. There was a mixture of uses of animal and human feces, and I felt it was neater to keep that information in two different articles. So the article is now initially an overview article for feces in general, but when it comes to uses it focuses on animal feces uses; for human feces uses the reader is referred to the other article. I hope others agree that it is better like this. EMsmile (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Add references for information on content of feces?

Thanks, User:Cruithne9 for your recent edits to the lead where you clarified aspects of the content of feces. Are there any references that could be cited to substantiate what you wrote? Also, this strikes me as quite interesting so I think we should also explain that more in the article itself not just in the lead (the lead just being a summary of the article). Could you help with that? EMsmile (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for the compliment. I have not added anything to the article itself yet (pressed for time!). But any decent physiology textbook would allow any editor to make the relevant contribution. Cruithne9 (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with new content added to lead

I disagree with this content which was added to the lead recently by User:Morosulo. I have already removed it once but it was reinstated:

The process requires pressures that may reach 100 mm Hg in humans and 450 mm Hg in penguins as measured by Meyer-Rochow and Gal. The forces required to expel the feces are generated through muscular contractions and a build-up of gases inside the gut, prompting the sphincter to relieve the pressure on it and to release the feces.

Firstly, it does not belong to the lead. If anything it could go somewhere in the main article. The lead is meant to be a summary of the most important points. Secondly, it is not understandable. A lay person will not know what 100 mg Hg is! It might fit better on the page of excretion. Secondly, why these wiki-links?: by Meyer-Rochow and Gal. Makes no sense. Thirdly the references are not well done - there is no way for someone to check them (using a reference from 1958 - surely something more recent is available. EMsmile (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually the content in question could be moved to the article on defecation where it fits much better. EMsmile (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I've now added a new short section on physiology and added it there. I still don't like the "100 mg Hg" for laypersons - how could this be done better? At least with a wiki link? EMsmile (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. cite book|last1=Langley|first1= L.I.|last2=Cheraskin|first2= E.|title= The Physiology of Man|year=1958|publisher= McGraw Hill, N.Y.}}
  2. Meyer-Rochow, Victor Benno; Gal, Jozsef (2003). "Pressures produced when penguinsnpoo - calculations on avian defaecation". Polar Biology. 27: 56–58.
I agree with EMsmile that this phrase needs to be restated: "requires pressures that may reach 100 mm Hg in humans and 450 mm Hg in penguins." Interesting, but too scientific for the general reader. Could this be rephrased to "penguins are able to exert 4.5 x more pressure than humans." Also interesting that this enables penguins to excrete outside of their nests without leaving their nests. But are we leaving the topic of feces and getting into anatomy?PlanetCare (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The link for the Tulane article 'Cars Could Run on Recycled Newspaper, Tulane Scientists Say' should be updated to 'https://news.tulane.edu/pr/cars-could-run-recycled-newspaper-tulane-scientists-say' for easy access. The current link (http://tulane.edu/news/releases/pr_082511.cfm) does not work and you have to search the Tulane website for the one I provide above. Thanks. Pwinzer (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done - ~Thank you for reporting this. All the best, Taketa (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the 'Feelings of Disgust' subtitle, the word 'flishing' in the sentence, 'Disgust toward feces appears to be strongest in modern Western cultures where flishing toilets make olfactory contact with it minimal.' should be changed to flushing as I believe it was a typo. FWESC (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

There is a Pile of Poo emoji represented in Unicode as U+1F4A9 💩 PILE OF POO, called unchi or unhci-kun in Japan.

TYPO: "unhci-kun" should be unchi-kun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.242.134.198 (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

We should move it to Stool.

Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Body Waste listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Body Waste. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Body waste listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Body waste. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Whopee listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Whopee. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Remove hatnote?

I am just wondering if we really need this hatnote or if it could be done differently. I think it gives too much emphasis to a little-known American band: ""Fecal matter" redirects here. For the American punk rock band, see Fecal Matter (band)." What do you all think? EMsmile (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Sryforprtyrockin! (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on the word "Feces" as a plural noun

The word "feces" is a plurale tantum, meaning that it has no singular form. Pluralia tantum are still plural and must be treated as such. So, one would say "Feces are" and not "Feces is". Perhaps the confusion has to do with singular collective nouns (e.g. the family is large) or mass nouns (e.g. the water is cold), both of which are singular (with some exceptions, of course). The Google Ngram Viewer is a good tool for this. – Vonkworm (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Vonkworm.

Incidentally, if you do look up the Google Ngram Viewer and see that there are entries for "feces is" and "faeces is", you need then to look at the sentences they come from: almost always the "is" is agreeing with another word in the sentence, not the word "feces". For example, "a sample of feces", where the agreement is with the singular "sample".

As this issue has come up multiple more times in edits, here is carefully researched evidence that supports this.

The word "feces" is a plural noun. "Feces" therefore takes a plural verb inflection ("are", "were", "contain" etc., rather than "is", "was", "contains" ...) and plural pronouns. This is a well researched grammatical edit with strong evidence in multiple varieties of English from reputable publications in multiple English speaking countries and from multiple dictionaries. The article itself as well as the above talk page contribution refers to the fact that the word is plural (indeed a plurale tantum because there is no singular) and provides a reputable reference. Despite this, some editors have used "feces" as if the word were singular, which is not unknown but is non-standard usage. Please be very thoughtful of maintaining high standards in Misplaced Pages and keep feces as plural. The following examples drawn from reputable sources of high standard English usage may help editors understand how the word is used in good, standard English.

  • Government of Victoria, Australia: "Faeces are usually firm, moist and easy to pass."
  • National Institutes of Health:
  • "Feces are composed of water, protein, undigested fats, polysaccharides, bacterial biomass, ash, and undigested food residues."
  • "Mite faeces are a major source of house dust allergens."
  • "... if the moist faeces were completely burnt out to gas products and ..."
  • University of Massachusetts: "Feces are mostly made of water (about 75%)."
  • East Devon District Council, UK government: "Dog faeces are unpleasant and can present a serious health hazard, particularly to young children."
  • UK Government: "The life cycle of the tapeworm involves an adult stage in canids, eggs in the environment where faeces are present and an immature, ..."
  • NHS, UK Government:
  • "This occurs because faeces are pushed through the bowel until they reach the affected part."
  • "Soft bulky faeces are easier to push out of the body."
  • USDA: "Indeed, faeces are common to all detritivores, and a large part of organic matter is transformed into faeces in many ecosystems."
  • The Lancet (leading medical journal):
  • "... animal faeces should be considered potentially hazardous, just as human faeces are ..."
  • " Faeces were processed <6 hours post defecation, ..."
  • Nature (leading science journal):
  • "giraffe and impala faeces were almost identical with 27 and 30 ..."
  • Irish Veterinary Journal: "Faeces were obtained directly from the rectum using swabs ..."
  • Veterninary Research communications: "The faeces were examined for the presence of campylobacters, salmonella and Giardia lamblia."
  • New England Journal of Medicine: " In this study, donor feces were infused in patients with recurrent C. difficile infection and ..."
  • Smithsonian Magazine: "the feces were almost certainly produced by humans."
  • Misplaced Pages itself, elsewhere (night soil) uses feces as plural: "Feces were excreted into a container such as a chamber pot"
  • CDC: "the raccoon's feces were not tested"
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Feces are normally removed from the body one or two times a day."

SciberDoc (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

"Dropping" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dropping. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 25#Dropping until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Low importance?

How can something that every normally functioning human being produces at least every couple of days be of "low importance"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.137.178.203 (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Poop is very important, even though we don't like to see it often. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think "pp small=yes" is supposed to be in the source of the article and might need to be removed Cool-person27 (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Hello Cool-person27. That coding is for the template that creates the small lock icon near the top of the page. The lock icon is a standard practice on Misplaced Pages, and it helps notify editors that the page is under semi-protection.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The worlds biggest dinosaur poo

I’m not sure if the record has been broken but I do know that once a guy who collects antique dinosaur feces once broke the world record of the biggest dinosaurs fece Wikilover126 (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change line "Birds (individual) droppings" to "Birds (individual) Droppings Arsijan (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There is already a discussion at Talk:Bird droppings regarding its status, and such a link would have to depend on that consensus. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am sujaan and i am 22 years old and I would like to be and editor because i am good in English 2001:8F8:1B6D:12A:DC77:6E52:CEE3:E34D (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Remember, you can already edit the vast majority of articles without even registering. Only certain ones will require making an account or achieving a number of edits. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the final paragraph of the “Uses of animal feces” heading, the paragraph pertaining to the Middle Eastern usage under the subheading “other uses,” is unfounded and not cited. The paragraph holds no truth and is likely vandalism. Foedit (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done The claim was added here without providing any source, I've reverted it. Deltaspace (talk • contribs) 09:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Feces is a plural noun. The opening definition should use “were” instead of “was” and “have” instead of “has”.


"Feces are the solid or semi-solid remains of food that were not digested in the small intestine, and have been broken down by bacteria in the large intestine." 138.88.69.220 (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. You're parsing it wrong. "Feces are the...remains of (FOOD that...has been broken down by bacteria)". --jpgordon 16:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The word poop is not linked to the Misplaced Pages page on poop (https://en.wikipedia.org/Poop). I can not complete my Misplaced Pages speed run from "anything" to "poop" because of that. Please help change that urgently.

Thank you :) Bytebanterer (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: DAB pages are almost never directly linked per WP:INTDAB. Liu1126 (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Human feces not actually necessary

I understand that wikipedia is not censored, but given that a photo of human feces is pretty much unnecessary, especially of fresh human feces, why not just use the photo of elephant poop? Some people read Misplaced Pages while eating for example. I am interested in reading more of it but don’t really want to stare at a photo of someone else’s fresh poop. Censorship is bad, but maybe taking into account the experience of readers should matter? I’ve seen a photo of someone’s fresh self harm (a cut-up arm) on the general Harm page, and obviously removed it because it was irrelevant and horrible. I say we replace the image of human poop with an image of a cow pat or something similar: still have a comparison, don’t have someone’s human feces on display. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Replaced it with a cow pat, which I think provides equal value. Recognize that e.g. sanitation workers (above) don’t get bothered by human poop but I don’t think I’m removing value here. Maybe lizard poop or something similar could be used if elephants and cows were deemed to similar, or even owl pellets? I think there’s no reason to choose the most disturbing image just because it was there first. Recognize I’m going a little against the not-censored policy but other images provide equal value and I’m not saying it’s inappropriate, just unnecessarily disturbing. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Why no picture of human feces?

Everyone reading the article is human, and it would make more sense, and be more relatable (and obvious), than pictures of elephant feces. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Because ever sighted person reading the article knows what human feces look like. --jpgordon 21:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: