Misplaced Pages

What does the photo illustrate?

Let's not make this a poll. Given that there are some negatives in inlining the picture of human feces, what is it supposed to illustrate? We can be comfortable in the assumption that once the matter is described, every reader of 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? Demi /_C 00:22, 2005 Jun 5 (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 pornography, we need not have any fecal photos on feces. The argument that if you're searching for something you should expect photos of it is pure rhetorical nonsense. If you're searching for something in an encyclopedia, you should expect an encyclopedia article about the topic you sought, not photos of the topic you sought: Misplaced Pages is not a photo album. Including photos in articles is a nice bonus, where the photos are relevant and illustrative. Including photos, however, is neither a necessity nor an excuse. Most reasonable people do not expect to find offensive and repulsive photographs in encyclopedia articles, even if the photos are related to the topic. Nohat 07:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

The argument is a tautology. I'm asking what editorial purpose is served, in light of the above. Demi /_C 06:28, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

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

• Sorry, but this doesn't even make sense. Human feces vary enormously in appearance--indeed, showing this picture as "normal" is a disservice from this perspective (if we are to take it seriously). Demi /_C 05:56, 2005 Jun 11 (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. Eyeon 06:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You're all over the place. I asked you, in light of the above, what purpose the photograph served. You said it was emblematic of normal feces and someone wanting to identify abnormal feces could use it for that purpose. But it is useless for that purpose, as you apparently agree since you have stopped talking about that and started talking about cheeseburgers, for no apparent reason. Demi /_C 07:58, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

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

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

The non-argument argument against the photo

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

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

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

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

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

I won't cater to your vanity by restating my arguments; you can scroll up and read them. Nor will I do a 'deal' with you to get common courtesy. Eyeon 08:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Questioning a Wikipedian's motives

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

If you scroll down to the poll, you will see that so far, SIXTEEN people see the substantive reason to include the photo, and only one person (android) shares your view. No wonder you would try to distract the discussion with an ad hominem attack. Eyeon 09:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shall the human feces photo be linked or inline?

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. Nohat

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

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

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

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

Editors should remember the 3rr

I see some 3rr violations:

User:Eyeon: 1 2 3 4

User:Nohat: 1 2 3 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo poll

Let's make this a poll.

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

Do you believe:

Rabbit, bird, and human poo are OK on main page

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

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

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