Talk:Flatulence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is probably less funny than you expected.

Contents

[edit] Move contents box

As highly puerile as it is, I suppose so. But, I must admit, it is a fairly interesting scientific matter. After all, don't you find it strange that we know what the sun is composed of, without actually getting near it, but don't understand our own bodily functions?

...People ACTUALLY debate this? -Liarre

People make it sound like these animals don't produce gas if they are not labeled " Livestock " and thats completly false. What about other animals? Other sources? Also, there is no way to detect where methane came from, methane is methane. The part about 20% of methane emmisions coming from livestock is obviously untrue propaganda from the vegetarian community. -Reid

My cat farts all the time JayKeaton 08:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Administrator I added something I think could be useful, I regret if you don't know who Dante is and what he did for Italian language, I think you should think more about it! manu thanks --Chicco 16:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but the reference website given on the flatulence page denotes that the main gas in a fart is indeed nitrogen, even noting that 2/3rds of people dont emit any methane from a fart.

From the site:

"According to Dr. James L. A. Roth, the author of Gastrointestinal Gas (Ch. 17 in Gastroenterology, v. 4, 1976) most people (2/3 of adults) pass farts that contain no methane. If both parents are methane producers, their children have a 95% chance of being producers as well. The reason for this is apparently unknown. Some researchers suspect a genetic influence, whereas others think the ability is due to environmental factors. However, all methane in any farts comes from bacterial action and not from human cells.

so clearly the select few who can pass gas and light it on fire (I have only met a few who can do this, not all can) clearly are in the minority. For this reason I see to it that the composition part of the article should be changed.

Don't forget the hydrogen though, that's flammable.

Cabbage, too, right?  ;-) --LMS

Would like to know what kinds of gases are emitted. Is it really methane, or is that a myth? --RjLesch

A simple experiment with baked beans and a match should convince you that it's methane :) --Robert Merkel
The explosive component may be methane, but the offensive part for most carivores and omnivores's output spells like Hydrogen Sulphide, H2S.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=flatulence

It's so sad that Wikipedia's article isn't on the first few pages of the "flatulence" search results!  :-) --LMS

Flatulence has SFA (Sweet Fuck-All, do we need that too?) to do with the nature, chemical composition, or sniffability of gasses released.

I humbly suggest:

Gas released from the latter end of a consumptive's alimentary canal.

Putting on my (dusty) medical doctor's cap - I disagree. The gas released is of significance, it says a lot about the diet of the animal involved and in humans can be a diagnostic aspect in certain gastro-intestinal disorders. Plus the gas involved is a direct consequence of the microbiology of the GIT, so it relates to bacteriology. We had an entire lecture on it during second year physiology (!) (If I could remember anything I'd write the article myself) - MMGB
I just wish I could track down the New Scientist news article from 25 or more years ago where someone's excessive flatulence problem was solved when they analysed the gases. It was mostly CO2, from which, by a chain of reasoning I don't recall, they concluded he should cut down on dairy products. The report said it worked...
Plus of course "consumptive" means "infected with tuberculosis". --Paul Drye
My handy dandy dictionary would say that you're being too exclusive: consumptive - tending to consume, destructive, wasteful. Just for fun, btw, consumptive in your sense specifically means tuberculosis that affects the lungs. --Colin dellow

Not all cultures consider flatulence an embarassing or guiltily amusing subject: people from the Punjab, in my experience, consider flatulence no more amusing or embarassing than sneezing. This may well be true of other cultures: are there any other world-wide Wikipedians with examples of cultures that smiply do not give a toss about flatulence?

"As methane is flammable, some flatulence is as well" Should we add a warning ? DON'T TRY IT

"The gases are most often caused by swallowing air" - Is this bit true? If so, then methane would not be expected as "the primary gas released". There is little methane in ordinary air. -- Oliver P. 04:41 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

Answer: Reboot has stated in a recent edit summary, "flatulence isn't cause by swallowing air. You can cause a ructation that way but not flatulence." Thank you for clarifying that. :) -- Oliver P. 21:48 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

Reboot I have conducted extensive research into this subject.

Also, not only does tight clothing cause a gassy stomach to be painful, it also can contribute to the production of gas. I wonder whether this can be substantiated in any way? It looks rather dubious to me. Nafnaf 11:11 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Bovine flatulence is a source of greenhouse gas and may contribute to the greenhouse effect.

Is this for real? It's going to be part of the cycles of nature, ie the carbon cycle, isn't it? The difference between cows and cars, say, is that the latter "eat" fossil fuels which, until recently, were locked away underground where they couldn't affect anything... Evercat 04:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Unfortunately, not only is it really true, but it is also heavily significant. I can envision not including cow-farts in the article on the basis that this is about people-farts, but that is just about it. If the article is about flatulence in general, rather than flatulence in humans, the article is much too humanoflatulency-centric as it is, and probably could benefit from a wider treatment of flatulence in lower animals in general. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 07:58, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed! Refer to the New Zealand Government's so-called Fart Tax: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3529313&thesection=news&thesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=&reportid=57030
Yes, it's part of the cycles of nature normally, but the number of cows raised through agriculture is anything but natural. The Ungovernable Force 05:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody shed a light about the relation between vegetarianism and flatulence? Guaka 22:26, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

There is an inconsistency between the statement in the "Causes" section that 90% of flatulence is from exogenous sources (i.e. air) and the statement in the "Composition" section that methane is the primary gas released. Air is about 80% nitrogen, and nitrogen is inert. So if a fart is 90% air, then the fart would be about 70% nitrogen (i.e. nitrogen would be the primary gas, not methane). Does anyone have data to reconcile this contradiction?

i have added what i thought was NECESSARY to the information on flatulence. the ofthen humerous expulsion of gas through one's rectum.

[edit] Exact mechanism by which beans cause flatulence

In beans, the most notorious offenders in this regard, the problem seems to arise from starch molecules resistant to digestion: when the polysaccharides reach the intestines, intestinal bacteria feed on them, producing gas.

My source (McGee, 1984; see article) suggests that the precise mechanism in this instance is indigestible oligosaccharides (a type of polysaccharide) reaching the lower intestine and being metabolised by bacteria, producing CO2 etc; and that oligosaccharides are particularly prevalent in legumes where they are used for storage of sugars.

It doesn't mention starch in this context. (Is starch particularly "resistant to digestion"?)

Can anyone gainsay this? Otherwise I'll edit the article in a wee while.

JTN 21:35, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Now done.

I note in passing that my reference gives significantly different figures for the composition of flatus to those given in the article:

"Work in the late sixties showed that normal individuals averaged an output of about a pint of gas a day, of which half is nitrogen and the result of swallowing air along with food or drink. Another 40% is carbon dioxide and the product of aerobic bacteria in the intestine. The remaining small fraction is a mixture of hydrogen, methane, and hydrogen sulfide, the products of anaerobic bacteria, and ammonia and the highly odorous indoles and skatoles, to which all the bacteria contribute."

However, he does also note that these things are highly variable, as you might expect.

Anyway, that's probably enough hot air from me.

JTN 20:50, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

[edit] Euphemsms question

Okay, is "mess your pants" and the equivalents starting with sh** really euphemisms for flatulence, or do they more accurately describe the proverbial "accident?" --Joe Sewell 16:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think they are, and neither are most of the things under "euphemisms". Remember that a euphemism is a non-offensive way of saying something, and I hardly think things like "ass perfume" qualify. So I've divided the list into euphemisms and dysphemisms. I also deleted a few of them simply because they didn't seem to be referring to farting but to a rare unfortunate side-effect of farting (or to other activities entirely). If anyone disagrees re-add them. Reene (リニ) 02:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Thunder from Down Under

What causes the noise of a pooder? Garrett Albright 05:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blow a 'raspberry'. Its the same idea. 8-)--Light current 14:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request for audio files to accompany article

It would be very encyclopedic! :-)

Don't think there's very many people in the world who haven't heard this sound before... Garrett Albright 09:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is there any need?, do we need audio files for laughing, eating, clapping, talking, etc. Only deaf people have not heard a fart, and I doubt a sound file will fix that.--Clawed 11:14, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why do Farts Smell? So deaf people can enjoy them.

[edit] Burping and Farting

Hi, just correcting a common misconception about bovine flatulence and the greenhouse effect; the methane in fact mostly comes from animals burping rather than farting (see [1] ), and I've corrected the article to reflect this.

Ziggurat 02:21, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC) (who has heard all the NZ sheep jokes he needs to)

[edit] Dysphemisms

By all means, if I accidentally removed a few that are in fact used and well-known somewhere in the world, re-add them (though I would defy you to find a part of the world in which "shit your pants" is a dysphemism for farting). But please do not blanketly revert my changes, especially when I'm quite confident that most of the bullets I removed are patent nonsense added by anons wishing to leave a mark on the article. The list was large and unwieldy, and ideally it should really only list the most well-known dysphemisms used. The list is not meant to document every single dysphemism ever used by any human being, after all, it's meant to serve as an example in the context of the article by listing a few well-known terms. →Reene✎ 10:22, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have not heard 90% of the dysphemisms you have retained. So on what basis are words to be retained? Shall I delete all those I have not heard of? I suspect every word that has been included in this list has been heard by someone and few if any are inventions. I believe the slang words for flatulence occupy a secret and private space in society around family and close friends and Wikipedia is an opportunity to list and share these with both a scientific and humorous result. So I vote for keeping this list as open and as extensive as possible, I have made it into an alphabetic list of paragraphs so that it takes up less space. Lumos3 23:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would encourage you to use the Google test in this instance, as I have. For example, "cut the cheese" gets 22,000 hits. "Let one rip" gets 6,230. On the other hand, ones like "lay an air biscuit" gets a whopping 95, and "ass perfume" gets 81. Continue ad nauseum. I notice you also removed "fart" from the list for some reason, and that one gets over two and a half million hits. I'd also like to remind you that Wikipedia does not serve as a repository for every slang term and neologism ever coined. If it's not got some measure of notability, then it doesn't belong on a list where it only serves to bloat the article. →Reene✎ 01:42, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia does contain glossary pages for various specialised fields (see Wikipedia is not) and I believe this list fits this criteria. I like the idea of using Google to cheek the currency of terms . I have a dictionary of historical slang which contains dozens of possible candidates none in current use but all relevant to the article . Perhaps in the future the article could divide terms by century as well .Lumos3 11:14, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Slang terms for flatulence, the last time that I checked, do not constitute a "specialised field" that deserves a glossary page. Only terms with some notability (and this goes double for slang) deserve mentions on Wikipedia. As Reene has demonstrated, "fart", "cut the cheese", and "let one rip" all have a massive amount of currency and notability. "Ass perfume" and "lay an air biscuit" on the other hand do not. Please don't add them again until they do. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 04:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is the history of flatulence and the terms used to describe it not a valid area for this article to expand into. Historic terms may have little currency or Google hits but are still of interest. Lumos3 22:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Flatulence has a history? Have farts evolved over time? Come on. And you do not expect me to believe that "lay an ass air biscuit" is a historical term for fart. Please tell me you don't. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 23:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) -- Sorry, "air" biscuit.

[edit] Damned kids...

That's a neat trick; the offending text below isn't in obvious in the code. I thought I could get rid of it, but maybe not. Maybe someone else got to it seconds before I did.

"Flatulence my dad fart at homwe all the time so i have a real gas mask i carry around with me hows about dat lol hashahahha consists of gases that are produced by symbiotic bacteria and yeasts living in the gastrointestinal tract of mammals and are released through the anus. Flatulence is known colloquially as farting."

  • Don't worry - apparently someone got to it just before you did =) [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 22:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Sound amplitude plot for deaf people

Why do Farts Smell? So deaf people can enjoy them Hi, ..I just read someone before mentioned that deaf people are the only who did not hear fart sunds. It would be thus useful to add sound amplitude plot. Also, composition of gasses in form of chart or pie-chart would be more useful than reading through sentences to gain information on composition of gasses. There are also studies that were conducted at various scientific institutions that include thermal images of flatulance "event" itself, showing warmer gasses escaping from the "rear" in red and orange colors while the surrounding is left in blue.

This would be great! -69.110.10.32 05:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palliatives

Many people notice that if they reduce their intake of most refined carbohydrates such as rice, pasta, potatoes, and breads, their stomach gas production decreases significantly. What is the evidence for this? I'm not a nutritionist, but I've never heard of rice and potatoes described as being refined carbohydrates.--JBellis 18:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whoever smelt it, dealt it. Whoever made the rhymme, did the crime.

[edit] Encyclopediciety

At the moment, the article has only one reference: a cookbook. That's rather thin. Does anyone have access to a more, shall we say, "core text" on flatulence?

Dunno about core texts. The following looks like the most relevant reference in McGee's bibliography:
Pfeiffer, C.J. (1968). "Gastroenterologic aspects of manned space flight". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 150: 40–48.
Chasing this [2] suggests other relevant reading. -- JTN 20:33, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

I also changed the very long list of eu- and dysfemisms into running text, to avoid dysbalance. I do not think Hindi and Malay terms should be mentioned here, unless they have significant usage amongst English speakers.

I suspect this whole section should probably be in Wiktionary, in its capacity as a thesaurus. (I believe that non-English terms would be appropriate in Wiktionary.) -- JTN 20:33, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Are there cultures in which farting in public is accepted? At the moment, the "social context" paragraph is rather unspecific. JFW | T@lk 20:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Selling Beans

Don't you think they should sell baked beans at gas station convenience stores -- just so people can get gas for themselves as well as for their cars?

lol =P


Flarn 20:12, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A poem about farts

Beans, beans,
They're the musical fruit.
The more you eat 'em,
The more you toot!

Beans, beans,
They're good for your heart.
The more you eat 'em,
the more you fart!

The more you fart The better you feel So eat beans At every meal

Flarn 20:12, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know beans aren't fruit. ;-)


I suggest you change the last line to
So eat baked beans at every meal
(It sounds better) 195.93.21.1 21:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello everybody, I added a few lines adding some stuff about Dante's Inferno, in which he said something funny about the topic! --Chicco 16:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This is what I think about this poem: blah, blah, blah, it is stupid and gross and my brother once gave me the first stanza of this poem, which made me want to kill him!

[edit] Trivia

Recently I spent quite some time mercilessly slashing teenage humour and irrelevant trivia. Gradually, more stuff in inserted. All those quotes from Dante and Rabelais are very funny, but there must be hundreds of these in world literature. Similarly, the episode of a British royal is very funny but probably not the only one of its kind. The list would be endless, similar to the list of slang words which I murdered recently.

If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia, it needs to be able to treat even a smelly subject like flatulence with a certain degree of seriousness. JFW | T@lk 07:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

On a similar note, I see our inexhaustible lists of euphemisms and dysphemisms are back. To me, it seems that if these belong anywhere, they belong in Wiktionary. (...oh, I said that already. Never mind.) -- JTN 12:17, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Dear JFW, I don't think you should judge funny what you read about Dante at least. The Divine Comedy is a pillar of Italia literature and compulsory in Italian high schools. La bocca sollevò dal fiero pasto, he raised his mouth from the fierce meals, referring to a man punished to starvation along his children is just a few line far from the line I put in the article. I think we should add aspects referring to the article that are part of our culture, i mean, Rabealis is not south park, is the heritage of a time that is in us, even if us don't know nothing about it. I you are diserting about the importance of flatulence in linguistic you cannot, you cannot skip the Literature

I hope you would restore the tiny article related to history, I think an Enciclopaedia must be complete.

P.S. why don't you erase the line the refers to the number of flatulence we perform, everyone does them and you dno't need some expensive calculator to count them!--Chicco 17:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't titled your response "Arrogance", because this indicates you have utterly missed the point. I am not saying that literary references are out of the question, but there needs to be a firm guarantee that only the best known references end up in this article, before South Park and The Simpsons enter through the side door.
Please provide some form of evidence that the Dante and Rabelais quotes are indeed the best known references in literature to flatulence. If they are, then I will personally reinsert them without reservations.
Do me a favour, and don't take things personally, Chicco. This attitude is the death of the wiki. JFW | T@lk 19:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe I was to rough, but the authors I quoted are the pillars of italian and French literature, somewhat a Shakespeare for someone who doesn't know them!. I wish more people will add referencies to GREAT authors who were able to talk of such disgusting activity. I think you should put back the stuff about Queen Elizabeth, notionism is the base of a wide open mind, after all I don't like and probably won't understand completely Einstein's theories. have a nice day --Chicco 20:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Please make a WikiQuote page for any other literary farts you may like to quote. JFW | T@lk 14:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is awfully inaccessible. A kid who wants to learn about farts is bombarded with a bunch of terminology ("aersolized feces"??) rather than just the basic important stuff about them, and the interesting stuff -- like "beans beans..." Can we just call this page "Farts" and get it over with? Flatulence is a rarely used, mostly medical term. -69.110.10.32 05:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Linguistics" and the superglue troll

User:Zanuga put back the list of words. As Wikipedia is not a thesaurus, I contest the need for such as list. No other article about a non-taboo subject needs a list of euphemisms, dysphemisms etc. I do not claim to be a linguistics expert, but I am trying to keep this article free from adolescent rubbish.

As for the superglue joke: the page you quote is about using superglue as a way to heal lacerations. Your trolling is inexcusable. JFW | T@lk 16:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The linguistics section highlights the fact that euphemisms and dysphemisms are an integral part of how people refer to the subject. It is therefore helpful for the fuller understanding of the subject if the many and varied expressions used are identified for the purposes of research and education. Other people can be expected to add to the list and so improve the understanding of worldwide readers. Many euphemisms and dysphemisms will be more local in expression but can provide a reference for those encountering them. The intent is not to provide a thesaurus but to illumninate. The linguistics has no other statemnent other than "euphemism and dysphemism". Either employ it as a meaningful section or remove it altogether.

User:Zanuga |  00:04, 27 May 2005

They do not illuminate, they clutter. They also attract vandals and trolls (see the edit history). If you are that sure about the merits of this section, perhaps we should take this to requests for comment. JFW | T@lk 20:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I am very happy you removed the linguistics section. It was indeed attracting vandals and trolls. JFW | T@lk 13:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the word "fart"

The opening of the article mentions the word fart (as it should), then stating that it might be offensive. It then goes on to use it in the very next sentence (outside the context of the word itself), and then sporadically throughout the article. Huh? If we acknowledge a word to be offensive, do we really need to be using it indiscriminately throughout the article when we don't need to? Moreover, would any encyclopedia that takes itself seriously do so? Don't get me wrong, I have no qualms with the word itself, and I say far worse every day, but it isn't exactly encyclopedic in tone. - furrykef (Talk at me) 03:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right. What verb, apart from "passing wind", would describe flatulence in a non-offensive tone? JFW | T@lk 09:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree and have been bold and removed the following from the article ", but some people find the word fart offensive and will use a euphemism as an alternative"--Clawed 11:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, come on now. It's true, isn't it? You don't need to cut it out just to lazily justify using a potentially (if only mildly) offensive term. - furrykef (Talk at me) 30 June 2005 22:27 (UTC)
One verb that can be used instead of "fart" is "expel," for instance, "expel gas," or "expel flatus." I think this would sound more encyclopedic. -JD
or cutting the cheese :)

or; Breaking Wind :( or; Passing Gas  :/ or; Bombing  :\

[edit] The section on containing the fart was damn funny

ROFLMAO. that section of the mechanical remedies was the first time i heard a remedy for farting this way. the If done incorrectly, however, this may result in a characteristic high-pitched squeal. line was double funny since there was a pig nearby my house that squealed at the same time when i read that line. :) --Idleguy 04:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flatulence remedy error?

The article about flatulence contains this: Mechanical

In social situations where the sound of flatulence would be particularly inappropriate a temporary remedy can be obtained by placing a piece of cotton wool or paper tissue about 4 cm in diameter onto the anus...

Four centimeters is one and one-half inches!

  • That's correct. A smaller diameter is held less securely by the sphincter, and is less efficient at allowing gas through. 70.189.120.44 23:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patents

Patents to do with farts are not very notable, or are they? I can sorta imagine the medical use of fart collector bags (to check for the composition of the contents), but the rocket... JFW | T@lk 21:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Having had to spend three weeks looking through thousands of patents filed in the UK over a five year period as part of the research for a TV show some years back, I can confirm that patents of this type are very rare and therefore, in the context of a general discussion on flatulence, arguably significantly notable. As an aside, it was intriguing to note in the course of that job just how few 'lone inventors' patent ideas compared to the many from corporations. I don't have stats to quantify this but vivid recollection is that, when British individuals did seek a patent, the most popular design concepts they wanted to protect were either golf gadgets or devices for catching dog poop (I kid you not). There was also a patent for an anal masturbation device (again I kid you not). For me this underlines some kind of anal fixation amongst inventors and is yet another reason for noting fart-related patents ... that said I leave it to the community to decide and invite anyone better at wiki layout than me to tidy up the presentation of that section if the patents are to stay in User:infilms

[edit] common term

As I understand it, Wikipedia is supposed to use the common term for something. For this, the common term would be "fart". The seldom-used term "flatulence" can be a redirect to the common term. 24.170.177.130 04:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed -- lets call them farts. When was the last time you were in a group and smelled a nutty odor and said "who amontgeth thee hath let loose yonder foul flatulence??" -69.110.10.32 05:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No, fart is slang. JFW | T@lk 05:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The page was moved by cut & paste action. This is not the correct way of handling this. Moves can be requested at RFPM. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 05:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I undid the move of fart to delete me please and the attempt to turn that article into the new flatulence article. This is not the way page moves are effectuated. I am fully aware of naming conventions, and this is the policy that voters will keep in mind when voting on the move. But don't do manual moves: this destroys the edit history. JFW | T@lk 05:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

requested move begun (below). JFW, as you are knowledgeable about page moves, you might consider getting the ball rolling on the vote next time rather than reverting. -Justforasecond 05:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Proposed move to Fart, per Wikipedia naming conventions we should use the common name Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)

From the policy -- When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support Justforasecond 05:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "fart" is slang; also, this article is not about individual flatus but about the phenomenon. JFW | T@lk 05:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't obscure the issue please. Fart is the word everyone knows. Justforasecond 05:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Will you please just respect everyone's opinion and not try to argue with every point? JFW | T@lk
Both JFW and Knowledge Seeker are in the medical professiosn, and may be predisposed towards medical terminology rather than common names. Justforasecond 05:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Circumstantial Ad Hominem. Stick to the discussion of the topic, not the other Wikipedians. --Sketchee 20:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 06:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose while most people would type in fart into the search box, I assume they expect that the article would be located at flatulence not at fart. --Clawed 06:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above. --Muchness 07:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Jfdwolff - Jds10912 14:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The slang term is welcome to be mentioned in the article or have it's own article if appropriate, but no reason to move this--Sketchee 20:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. as per JFW --Bob 20:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Another predictable vote from someone in the medical field. Wiki policy requests the commony used terminology, whether or not your POV is that "fart" is a bad word. -155.91.28.231 23:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Or maybe this user is voting against the move because they think 'fart' is a slang term and not appropriate as a title. You can't assume that just because someone has a medical background this is their reason for voting. In a debate, it's always much more convincing to argue the point rather than the person. Ziggurat 00:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good grief. --PHenry 00:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE fart is an event (or an object), farting is an action. The article concerns more that just that. So... why fart, why not "pass gas", "break wind", "cut the cheese", they are all fairly common names for the event. Nominator does not make case that fart is most common. 132.205.45.148 18:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Fart is far more common then any of those. It gets over 5M hits, each of those get less than 100,000. If yall think it should be broken into a separate article, so be it, but right now fart redirects to here. Flatulence, according to most other sources, is a name for the gassy condition[3]. Flatus is a name for the actual gas[4]. Someone proposed "Flatulate" as the name for the farting act, but appears to be a neologism. -155.91.28.231 05:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The most common popular usage is just one of many concerns that need to be taken into account when choosing an article title. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The policy couldn't be much more clear. What would an average user type in the search box? -155.91.28.231 05:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article describes the condition, not just an action, and flatulence is the best and most commonly used word to describe the condition. No Account 23:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, fart as a noun refers to a particular passing of gas, flatulence as a noun refers to the general phenomenon. -lethe talk 00:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Flatulence is the polite term. If you were to explain the problem to your doctor, would you say, "I suffer from flatulence," or would you say, "I can't stop farting?" There is already a redirect from fart. A Google search on the word fart brings you to this article. --malber 01:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about politeness. The standard is not "what would you say when you go to the doctor", it is "what would the user put in the search box" .... as stated many times already. Anyway, the vote is closed and there's enough complaints that a fart is different from flatulence that we probably need two articles. One for the condition of having excess intestinal gas ("flatulence") and one for the sound and plume of gas that is emitted with it ("fart"). Maybe even one for the gas while its inside you ("flatus") -Justforasecond 02:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
This is now the second time you start arguing with people in this vote. Will you please stop this? It's mighty annoying. JFW | T@lk 04:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it's not only the second time. The contributions by User:155.91.28.231 are from User:Justforasecond as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Maybe I live in a low brow community, but I've NEVER in my life heard anyone call a fart "flatulence" except maybe as a joke once or twice. JayKeaton 08:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 05:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

It's a tricky call - while many dictionaries state that 'fart' is coarse slang, the word itself is actually older than 'flatulence' (the former coming from Anglo-Saxon "feortan" and the latter only appearing in 1711, derived from Latin via Middle French), so the obvious division is between 'lower class' vs. 'upper class' terms (the same reason that most swear words in English are derived from Anglo-Saxon roots, whereas the polite form comes from Latin). Additionally, I notice that Wiki uses Vomiting instead of emesis, and Burping (yeah, I wrote that article, sorry!) instead of eructation.

That said, 'flatulence' is a much more common term than emesis or eructation, and it's certainly common enough to be an acceptable title for the article. Much of the article is dedicated to a medical/physiological discussion of farting, in which case this title is more commonly used, and it will probably draw fewer attempts at vandalism as well. 'Flatulence' is used more in an academic context (compare Google definition of flatulence vs. Google definition of fart).

Personally, I'd be inclined towards 'flatulence' for tone reasons, but I can understand the opposite point of view too. Ziggurat 10:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It it not slang -- it is the common name. Wiki is not a medical dictionary. -71.129.2.122 23:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
"fart (färt) Vulgar Slang." American Heritage® Dictionary. I suppose if we are to argue that this isn't a medical dictionary (even though the term "intestinal gas" is more of a medical term), we can also argue that Wikipedia isn't a slang dictionary either and go no where.
Odd that definition doesn't describe farts as flatulence. An oversight I'm sure. The naming guide is pretty clear that the common term should be used. Flatulence is not the common term, it is medical language. -69.110.44.70 04:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
As for your comment on my talk page, there is nothing "uncivil" about pointing out a fallacious argument. --Sketchee 00:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand the desire to have tone -- every other encyclopedia was written with tone (for prudish reasons, I imagine). Do the non-doctors here actually say things like "who flatulated"? or "someone flatulated", or think to themselves "I gotta flatulate but there are too many people around"....I have never heard anyone refer to passing gas as flatulence in a non-medical context. The test wiki proposes is pretty simple -- if someone wanted to learn about farts they would google for farts, they'd type 'fart' in the search box. -71.129.2.122 23:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Neither vomitting or burping are vulgar words like fart is. --Bob 20:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the observation, Bob. The wiki policy says nothing whatsoever about "vulgarity". -155.91.28.231 05:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support gottabe

Would those proposing Flatulence be moved to Fart also support moving Sexual intercourse to Fucking? Fucking is obviously a more common search term. --malber 04:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we're going to be using "common" terms, why the ICD-9 template? If flatulence has to be renamed, then it would mean that an article like Myocardial infarction would have to be renamed Heart attack. --malber 04:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the medical symptom of flatulence. Per the ICD-9, it is a term adopted by the World Health Organization and the AMA, so it thus represents what is accepted in the international medical community. For these reasons, it should not be moved to Fart. An article about the colloquial word fart, examining its social impact and connotations would be an excellent piece. It's patent nonsense at this point to argue otherwise. --malber 14:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flatulate/flatulation

Google shows the terms "flatulate" and "flatulation" are in fairly common usage (12,000 and 11,100 hits respectively), but I can find no reference to them at OneLook[5]. Is there a reference to confirm that these are grammatically correct terms? --Muchness 07:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Fart is a lot more common -- about 5,870,000 -69.110.0.154 07:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

With respect, the comparative frequency of "fart" is not relevant to my question. I'm trying to establish whether "flatulate" and "flatulation" are legitimate terms or erroneous terms in common usage. --Muchness 17:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
"dick" gets a lot more hits than "penis", but I wouldn't expect that to be moved. sjorford (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, but "dick" has more meanings than "penis" so it would get more hits. 64.192.107.242 22:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a specific policy against "dick". CDThieme 18:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged for cleanup

I tagged the article for cleanup mainly for the text under "Mechanical." For example: For acute situations, it is recommended to spread the buttocks, so as to stretch open the sphincter while the gas is passed. This is best accomplished by sitting on one buttock, shifting body weight laterally, then putting the body weight on the other buttock. The opening will not snap shut and the passage will be silent. If done incorrectly, however, this may result in a characteristic high-pitched squeal. While this is funny, I don't know if it's the sort of information that belongs in an encyclopedia article. --Bri 00:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not the use of cleanup. Cleanup is when the whole article is poorly phrased, lacks wikilinks or references etc etc. As for the bizarre passage you cite, just change it to something more appropriate. Be bold, don't wait for someone else to clean up. JFW | T@lk 23:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I've commented this section out; I agree that it needs to be revised or replaced with something more encyclopedic.--Muchness 12:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] IAL

I really wish Id found this page earlier. Havent had so many laughs in quite a while 8-))--Light current 15:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] aerosolized particles of feces

"Flatulence is a mixture of gases ..., and aerosolized particles of feces, ...." "Aerosolized particles of feces are also present in flatus, though in minuscule amounts." Why were these phrases deleted? Isn't that true? 210.229.77.61 17:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete them, but the most likely reason is that it's unsourced and someone thought that it needed a reference. Ziggurat 02:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex difference

Can anyone explain why men's farts are, on average, noisier than women's farts? Is there a physiological explanation? Thes entinel 03:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually checked the difference in decibels? The physiological explanation would be a difference in pelvic anatomy, shape of rear end etc. But I suspect men are just rude pigs who let off irrespective of the circumstances, while women find a more private place to do so. JFW | T@lk 12:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
JFW, I know you're a doctor, but trust me, women can be just as bad as men when it comes to flatulence ettiquite. --D-Day 12:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I know, D-Day, I know. Most of my response was tongue in cheek. JFW | T@lk 14:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but surely it better out than in!. Anyway its just not controllable with me. Agreed the best procedure is to slope off to the mens (ladies) room to perform a full evacuation procedure! If that cant be done, they just have to let fly! So in short, etiquette I dont really think comes into it. ie I dont think people do it unless they need to. 8-|--Light current 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aren't invertabrates animals?

The article says,

All animals flatulate, including most invertebrates.

That's pretty weird. That's like saying all humans flatulate, including most women. I'd change it, but I don't know exactly what it should say. NickelShoe 06:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't make any sense. PizzaMargherita 13:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So I decided to actually read the link...the link only talks about fish, and actually says they don't fart (in the technical sense of the term). So I took it out. If we have another reference to support the stuff about invertebrates and whatnot, then we can put it back in later. NickelShoe 17:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listing of colloquialisms

There have been some editors attempting to add colloquialisms for farting to the article. I don't totally object, but an extensive list would be a bit much. Does anyone else have any opinions about it? --malber 14:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The list has been a target for what I'd call 'frat info' - and I think the best way to ensure that the article remains encyclopedic is to only include colloquialisms that have attention in verifiable literature (slang dictionaries and the like). That way, if someone wants to add legitimate colloquialisms they can, and reference them as such, but anyone who just wants to throw in their own neologism or rarely-used quip will have to prove it's valuable information. Ziggurat 20:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence from the end of the intro "and other, more colourful terms" because it adds nothing to the intro and is probably the root of why so many people seem to add their own colloquialisms (real or not) there. Ziggurat 00:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

We've had a long list of terms in the past. This was trollbait and was deleted. History should not repeat itself. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that so long as these terms are common knowledfe (eg pass gas) or can be cited in a widely known slang dictionary they should be allowed to stay. This is relevant info as people often call flatulence by these euphemisms...as long as we stick to this guideline, the silliness shouldnt get too out of hand. Interestingstuffadder

The silliness always gets out of hand. Wikipedia is not actually a thesaurus. We do not need to list all known synonyms, euphemisms and dysfemisms for all sorts of terms. Please do not reinsert the section. JFW | T@lk 00:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems apparent that a brief list of terms for a function that is rarely referred to in conversation as "flatulence" would be at least moderately useful. Clearly this page is closely monitored by several editors -- this should be enough to prevent such a list from getting out of hand. Isn't this sort of constant improvement by concerned users the essence of what makes Wikipedia work? As for thesaurus point -- numerous entries list a few widely used synonyms. Finally, it is not clear to me what, in an environment like Wikipedia that claims to be a democratic, cooperative endeavor, qualifies you to tell me what I can not do -- what I take away from the above posts is that there is in fact no clear consensus on this issue. Interestingstuffadder

Reverting nonsense is not my idea of useful Wikipedia work. You are free to disagree with me, and of course nothing qualifies me to tell you what you shouldn't do bar a little more Wikipedia experience and a string of disappointments with "lists of slang" on this and other pages. Your attempts at creating redirects for every known slang term in the world seem to indicate you are serious about this, but I suggest you await other responses before making further attempts to recreate the section under discussion. JFW | T@lk 01:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What about the idea of a spin-off page for slang terms? I'm also not convinced that information should be censored, so to speak, because it's trollbait. The reason for keeping information out ought to be that it's not encyclopedic. Meh, I don't know. NickelShoe 01:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Since when are slang terms encyclopedic? JFW | T@lk 01:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Doctor -- I just read back over this discussion section and found that when you removed this list in the past the discussion was mainly between you and one other person -- hardly a consensus. Moreover, in this very discussion a much more "experienced" user has made essentialy the same proposal that I have made -- a closely watched list of relevant slang terms. Thus, at this stage I count 3-1 in favor of my point of view. Is that sufficient "other responses" or do you await a level of discussion regarding this topic that is unprecedented in its previous incarnations? How many votes from other Wikipedians are necessary to overcome your objections? Moreover, I am more experienced than these edits indicate. I admit to having multiple accounts (which per guidelines can be legitimate). As a health provider (particuarly in a socialized health care system where you must encounter all kinds), you should know that not everyone is familiar with the "correct" term for these taboo subjects. In recognition of this ignorance of said "correct" terms by many who lack our level of education, I do think it is worthwhile to include these redirects and lists of limited numbers of synonyms. However, acknowledging that some other editors find this silly or trollish, I care not to cause problems for the reputation of my primary Wikipedia identity by undertaking this project under that username. Thanks... Interestingstuffadder
First, I don't see anything unencyclopedic about slang terms on the face of it. In fact, I think long-name-dude has a point about the fact that this is a word people usually use slang for. As long as it's kept short and cited, I think it's actually somewhat helpful. It's not exactly without precedent. NickelShoe 01:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, have it your way then. Will you also be patrolling this page for the familiar excesses? JFW | T@lk 01:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking to me, yeah...haven't I already been doing that? Yeah, it's just been on my watchlist for a day or so, but it'll stay there. NickelShoe 01:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to Interestingstuffadder (is that type of snake?), but of course your help in patrolling would be appreciated. JFW | T@lk 01:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I will certainly be patrolling for the "familiar excesses" ... so do i have your permission to re-add the beginnings of said list? Interestingstuffadder
The best way to make such a collection better is to 1. reference the entries - okay, so they're common slang, so they should be located in a slang dictionary or similar publication and linked to, and 2. contextualise it. Rather than simply create a list, write a couple of paragraphs on flatulence as a taboo subject, and how colloquialisms (both vulgar and mollifying) have commonly and historically appeared around this topic. Does it appear in dialects/variants of English (e.g. is there a Polari term for it) ?; what standard forms do the colloquialisms take (i.e. group them according to 'wind metaphors', 'odour metaphors', etc.)? That's encyclopedic. An unverified list is not, and is of little value compared to the alternative I describe. Ziggurat 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article?

I think that, with some work, this article can be a featured article candidate. What can be improved? --D-Day 22:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly add some sort of pictures, diagrams, and sound files. --WAZAAAA 04:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, a picture of one man farting sounds like the beginings of a Chinese proverb. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 21:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1001 Arabian Nights Tales -- Is this true?

In the translated version of Penguin's "1001 Arabian Nights Tales," a story titled "The Historic Fart" tells of a man that flees his country from the sheer embarrassment of farting at his wedding

I have this as a text file on my computer and nothing comes up with "fart", or "the historic". Is it titled something else?DyslexicEditor 23:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's legit: [6], [7] (turn to next page) --Muchness 23:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nitroglycerin?

Odors result from trace amounts of other components (often sulphur containing, see below) and nitroglycerin.

Farts contain nitroglycerin??? Wouldn't that cause some sort of an explosion or something??? --jess523s 00:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is an intended joke. Nitro is not a naturally-occurring compound. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.223.226.5 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 18 February 2006.

[edit] just added one word

i changed 'with a characteristic sound and...' to "often with a ..."

it seemed logical, as the sound and smell varies from organism to organism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeyramoney (talk • contribs) 11:54, 4 February 2006.

Good stuff, but does such a small change need to go on the talk section? JayKeaton 08:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Carpal" references

I think this is an intended joke: the "pull my finger" stunt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.223.226.5 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 18 February 2006.

[edit] Colloquial for accidental defecation needed

I think this passage should read as follows:

"Flatus is brought to the anus in the same peristalsis method as feces, causing a similar feeling of urgency and discomfort. Nerve endings in the rectum learn to distinguish between flatus and feces, although loose stool can confuse these nerves, and sometimes results in accidental defecation. The colloquial or slang term for this event is a 'shart.'" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.44.39.88 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 20 February 2006.

I don't know how important the term "shart" is. I have never heard of it outside of reverting it out of this article. NickelShoe 13:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
In the movie "Along Came Polly" they use the word "shart" and give the explanation. 13:07, 19 June 2006 (fart expert)

[edit] Fart.com?

Yes, there is such a site, but I'm not 100% sure if it should be added. Thoughts? --D-Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 14:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OMG please not. JFW | T@lk 10:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Does it add useful information or extend beyond the article? I'm guessing not, in which case, no. Ziggurat 21:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote 1.5 billion litres? I did a conversion and it should be only 1.5 litres. I went to correct this but it had already been done. People should really get their facts straight before posting on this site.

Wikipedia:Vandalism JFW | T@lk 02:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flatuence has an ICD-9 Code ???

How funny is that? What is the compensation for that diagnosis? ER MD 09:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AHAHAHHA :D:D LOL

The average human releases 0.5 to 1.5 litres (1 to 3 U.S. pints) of flatus in 12 to 25 episodes throughout the day.

Usage: "Ah, episode III was by far the best, and so fresh. A real enjoyment to all of my senses."


I just can't stop laughing at "episode" in that context AHAHHA. All I can say is LOL!

--84.249.252.211 21:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative to propose? "Occurrences"? "Flati"? JFW | T@lk 10:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I took a quick look at what this discussion was about and reworded the sentance to avoid the use of episodes or occurrences. --Clawed 11:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the previous wording, because it avoids the use of the back-formation flatulate. "Episodes" sounded fine to me in that context. --Muchness 11:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Episodes sounds just as silly as flatulate. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. I just have reservations about the appropriateness of using a word that is grammatically incorrect, and isn't in published dictionaries. --Muchness 00:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
If anyone can find a better word than 'episodes' I say use it, but 'flatulate' ain't in any dictionary I can find, so it should be used with caution. Ziggurat 04:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I recently watched an episode on the discovery channel reguarding Flatulence on Myth Busters. Apparently some guy died in his sleep because he flatulated in great amounts. They didn't confirm the myth but said it is plausible if in a very small enclosed area AKA small room. What do you guys think about that?

Um, maybe you didn't pay much attention, but they said it wasn't possible. They busted it. The Ungovernable Force 05:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Powerpuff Girls Addition to Literature & Art Section

Hi Ashkenazi! Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy your time here and contribute some excellent material to this encyclopedia. I just thought I'd note that I've removed the section regarding the Powerpuff Girls from Flatulence, as it seems to me that it was a single gag from one show and not a significant cultural event for the history of farting :) As you can appreciate, if we were to add all such references from all television shows the page would become absurdly long. If you disagree, it's worth raising the point at Talk:Flatulence or ask me on my talk page. All the best, Ziggurat 02:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ziggurat. I felt that the addition was unique enough to be included, given that unlike an overwhelming majority of repetitive flatulence gags on television, it was particularly surprising (and disturbing) because Buttercup is a cute little girl, rather than a purposely disgusting gag-based character such as Ren & Stimpy. I agree that including any and every flatulence gag would create a list of cumbersome and undesirable length, but as it is highly infrequent that flatulence gags are attached to such characters, and given it quite possibly had never been done as such in previous children's cartoons or television programs, I feel its inclusion is warranted. I have re-added the addition based on this, though I will be glad to respectfully discuss it further if you still disagree. Thanks for your feedback, --Ashkenazi 06:13, 31 May 2006 (PST)
I would imagine that if it were that significant someone would have written about it, complained about it, or otherwise demonstrated that significance. But it sounds like we're just going to disagree on this one, so let's see if other people think it's appropriate or not. 07:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Having done a Google search with the keywords, "powerpuff fart buttercup," 3,780 results turned up. A search under ""Powerpuff Girls" fart Buttercup" turned up 1,910 results. If you do a Google search with keywords related to many of the other entries under the Literature & Arts section here, only a small fraction of such results show up. To demonstrate, consider the following search results for existing entries (to be generous, I changed the word "fart" to "farts" and "outbursting" for cases where the actual act was described exactly as such, because including the keyword "fart" gave fewer results):
  • ""Miller's Tale" fart" -- 895 results
  • ""Monster Rancher" fart" -- 500 results
  • ""Son of Stimpy" fart" -- 247 results
  • ""Of the Force of Imagination" outbursting" - 37 results
  • ""Tasmanian Babes" farts" -- 29 results
Given its much greater discussion abroad than several existing and accepted entries, and the fact that the incident has been demonstrated as unique and unusual enough to exclude it from the category of being just another flatulence gag, I feel that it is more than appropriate for inclusion in this article. I will be glad to consider any further disagreements you might have at this point, however. Thanks again for your feedback and interest in the entry. ^_^ --Ashkenazi 06:13, 31 May 2006 (PST)
Having looked at the first few pages of those google results, I don't see one reliable source, and actually very few that discuss the incident in question. But then, I'd be tempted to remove a lot of the entries in this section: The Tasmanian Babes Fiasco, Gargantua, Mythbusters, and Ren and Stimpy could also be removed, as there's no demonstration that flatulence takes a significant part of these episodes / books, and vice-versa. Ziggurat 20:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
While some of the results that cropped up for the Powerpuff Girls search didn't discuss the incident in question, the same can be said for most of the comparative searches that yeilded fewer results and those yeilding greater results (the Ulysses or Arabian Nights entries, for instance) -- though searches yeilding larger results for each set of key words, I find, tend to contain proportionally higher references to the target incidents; though I see (and am glad) you're being consistent in advocating their removal as well. While a somewhat reliable source/transcript is cited in the inclusion of the Powerpuff Girls incident, you likely won't find "reliable sources" regarding its significance (or most of the others included in the Literature & Arts section, as newspapers, journal articles, and mass media outlets tend not to focus on the matter). I feel its inclusion is warranted regardless of the fact that the incident wasn't the entire focus of the episode or series, and regardless of the fact that reliable sources haven't discussed its significance at great extent, as it remains a unique and unusual instance of flatulence in literature & art, and presented in a highly-popular children's mainstream program. Furthermore, I found nothing in Wikipedia's articles for content inclusion/exclusion criteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not) forbidding information that doesn't have widescale influence; simply that Wikipedia's mission as an encyclopedia is to be informative. Consider that the flatulence instances in works that are much more widely discussed due to their stature in the literary world, such as Joyce's Ulysses, were, in context of the novel, very minor instances that were not a point of central focus at all, and had nothing to do with the theme or plot. Would you advocate their removal, also? We might as well remove the entire Literature & Arts section if consensus requires that each cited instance of the act in question is the primary focus of the work, and has been discussed extensively for its cultural impact in the Wall Street Journal. --Ashkenazi 03:01, 01 June 2006 (PST)
I'd be in favor of removing most of the references. It just clogs up the article with trivia. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with you Ashk, most of these references should go. In my opinion, the following are worth keeping:
  • Arabian Nights (focus of the whole work; culturally relevant)
  • Montaigne (factual information about the historical perception of the fart)
  • Emile Zola (major character feature)
  • Walter the Farting Dog
  • The Gas We Pass
  • Beans Beans the Magical Fruit... (flatulence playing a significant part in these works/songs)
  • Blazing Saddles (significant; see reference below)
It's not true that there are no cultural discussions of the impact of the fart, see for example [8] (Who Cut the Cheese?: A Cultural History of the Fart). The book in question notes significant cultural events such as the breaking of the American 'fart barrier' (April 2, 1982 saw the first mention of the word 'fart' on US television, for example). Regardless of the topic, there are ways to demonstrate the significance of individual events, and the Powerpuff one just doesn't cut it without reliable sources.Ziggurat 22:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say there were no cultural discussions of flatulence anywhere or that every instance included didn't discuss cultural influence; simply that many of them, whether they were more or less widely-discussed than the Powerpuff Girls incident, were no more or less significant. Occasionally, it's a matter of discussion in the media, but not an issue of regular focus as is politics, war, abortion, etc., so it's less likely you'll find frequent articles discussing its ongoing cultural evolution and impact, regardless of how unusual or significant an incident in art or literature might be. The Powerpuff entry contains a reliable enough source/transcript for its occurrence, which, according to Wikipedia's policies for inclusion, should be enough. Its entry isn't in violation of any rules I am aware of, and as such, I suspect that its removal would only go against Wikipedia's mission to be informative, and thereby be destructive. Of course, for the sake of making the article concise, I wouldn't be opposed at all to taking the "Literature & Arts" section and creating a separate list page for it that is linked to from the main article. If you can direct me to an official Wikipedia rule or policy that advocates the removal of well-sourced information for the sole reason that it doesn't have a widescale cultural impact or isn't the primary focus of its parent work (even though the article in which the information is contained in has absolutely nothing to do with the parent work, but the act itself), I will be glad to reconsider my position. -- Ashkenazi 05:01, 01 June 2006 (PST)
The relevant 'rule' in this case is Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue weight - "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." There needs to be proof beyond your opinion that such an inclusion is culturally relevant to the topic of the article. Ziggurat 22:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The NPOV Undue Weight rule isn't being violated, as the inclusion of the Powerpuff entry is a single mention, and doesn't give it significant discussion space relative to other aspects of flatulence discussed in the article, such as its nature, origins, etc. The NPOV rule, at any rate, says nothing about significance to the cultural influence of entries regarding the subject, but rather, to the significance of the entries to the subject itself. The term "significant," according to several definitions I've looked up, can be ascribed to an instance that bears one of many traits, only one of which is likelihood to have an effect/impact. Other definitions of "significant" include that the instance simply expresses something of meaning (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=significant), or that it's worthy of note http://www.thefreedictionary.com/significance). My opinion on its cultural relevance isn't an issue, because lack of sourced cultural relevance is, itself, an irrelevant critera for deleting information unless the entry in question claims cultural relevance if it can otherwise qualify under common definitions of significant. In this case, I feel the entry's conclusion is worthy of note because 1) it's factual and sourced, and 2) it's unusual enough to be not just another flatulence gag. If the incident didn't involve flatulence, or didn't involve flatulence in any unique way, then it would become considerably less significant, but in both cases, it does. -- Ashkenazi 05:01, 01 June 2006 (PST)
I would suggest that it is, because it's being given undue weight compared with all the other 'fart' jokes on all other television shows. Either they're all relevant and should be included (making the article obviously way too long and useless), or there's something special about the Powerpuff flatulence that marks it out from the crowd (in which case there'd be proof of such a distinction). Regarding significance to the subject itself, where does this entry demonstrate that significance? It doesn't tell me anything new about flatulence; it's simply not informative.
Out of curiosity, why do you have such attachment to this section? It seems like an odd thing to focus on. Ziggurat 22:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind adding comments below rather than into your previous statements? It makes it difficult to keep track if you change the text I've already replied to. Ziggurat 23:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that it's giving undue weight on this single incident, because this incident, regardless of its cultural impact, as I stated above, is still worthy of note due to its unusual nature. It is significant to the subject in that it informs the reader of an unusual and unique instance of the subject occurring in art, whereas the many unlisted flatulence gags are similar in their origin and presentation (i.e., they're not produced by intentionally cute little girls in children's cartoons). It helps the reader to grasp the extent to which flatulence has been used comically in literature and art via noting its use in situations and from characters that are not generally associated with such jokes. Again, significance in this case isn't tacked on to the event because of its existing impact or lack thereof, but rather, because the unique nature of the incident, I feel, makes it noteworthy. Anyway, this is actually my first post regarding something like this. I don't tend to focus on this sort of humor and find it disgusting, but I came upon this page via an outside link, thought the Powerpuff inclusion would be a worthy entry, and thought I'd make a quick edit. Of course, a quick edit has turned into a debate, but so goes online interactions.
P.S. The comment added to the above statement was a re-write I added just a few seconds after the first post, but you had already responded by the time I altered the comment. I got an "editing conflict" message, so I just hit the save button again, and it came up as such.
-- Ashkenazi 06:01, 01 June 2006 (PST)

Heh, yeah, sorry about that, I tend to get obsessed with the little details sometimes, and as you can appreciate this article is often the target of less-than-useful additions. I appreciate your opinion on its worth, but it really is just one opinion. You believe that the fart in an episode of the Powerpuff Girls is relevant/significant (I don't think the equivocations on the definition of 'significance' are important - we both know what it refers to) to this article; I do not. There are several avenues to determine what should be in the article:

  • We can talk about it and come to a consensus
  • We can wait for other people to offer their opinions and determine what is appropriate from that
  • We can offer verifiable proof of our positions - seeing as I can't prove a negative, the onus is on you to justify the inclusion, which is why I've been asking for proof that this is more than just one person's opinion of its relevance.

P.S. The edit history seems to suggest a nine minute gap between the two edits (diff). If you need to rephrase comments, could I suggest using the 'Show preview' button? Ziggurat 23:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Ziggurat 23:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I will agree that the disagreement has arisen from what we feel is significant enough for inclusion, and whether having an impact or simply deviating from the norm substantially, though upon looking further at the NPOV rule regarding undue weight, I am unconvinced that, regardless of the my position that it fits a valid definition of significance based on my opinion that little cartoon girls farting is unusual, its inclusion gives it undue weight to other instances (a longer list of flatulence jokes that may not be discussed as unusual abroad), as such instances are not yet included in the article, and are all technically significant to the subject, as they involve the subject occurring in literature & art. Many topics involve potentially so much information it would be nearly impossible to construct an article covering its every facet, relationship, etc., that is 100% complete and final in nature. As such, it makes little sense to claim undue weight of existing information by comparing it to information that has not yet been included, and that is not restricted from inclusion by policy -- rather, it indicates that the unincluded information needs to be added. Even if it was not considered unusual or influential enough for inclusion by a consensus vote and my opinion was not shared by many people, it would still be presented with properly due weight to all information currently in the article at this point in time. I have encountered many Wikipedia articles and lists that are very long due to a large amoung of information or examples, such as extremely long, alphabetized lists of homosexual or bisexual celebrities, which seem to be commonly accepted here. Is there a Wikipedia rule or policy that justifies the removal of such lists? A list of flatulence gags in literature and television, unique or mundane alike, would indeed be long, but would be significant to the subject, increase Wikipedia's informative value, and to my knowledge, would not be in violation of any existing policies. In fact, under Wikipedia's content exclusion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not), lists are covered, and such a list that you have argued to avoid is ,in fact, warranted:
"there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic"
Such a list would contain many instances that are associated with the topic (flatulence) regardless of whether they're famous for contributing to the topic culturally or not. The word, "famous," is defined as being well or widely-known or discussed (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=famous), and given that the Powerpuff Girls incident returned thousands of web results, I feel it qualifies as famous. In fact, virtually any event that occurs on such a widely-syndicated and widely-viewed show can qualify as famous given the overwhelming audience it has. As such, I support such a list, including the Powerpuff Girls entry, and all other verifiable instances of flatulence in art and literature.
-- Ashkenazi 06:30, 01 June 2006 (PST)
Undue weight applies to the topic, not the article 'as it stands'. Significance is an opinion, which means that it should be backed up to avoid favouring a POV. I'm not interested in discussing this just on a policy level, though - what's actually best for the article? What does this addition add to the article? What does it tell us about flatulence that's worth mentioning? That it appears in humour? Already mentioned. That it appears in television? Already mentioned. That this was an exceptional or unusual event in animated television? It wasn't, unless sources demonstrate otherwise. It seems odd to talk about my other contributions - I don't see the relevance at all, and wonder whether this whole discussion is part of a larger point you're trying to make - but those other lists include articles and potential articles, not minor events.Ziggurat 00:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I find the position that undue weight applies to the topic as a whole, even unwritten material, to be unusual, and didn't see anything to that end in the NPOV: Undue Weight article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight) anywhere. If that position held true, then it could lead to all sorts of destructive edits, and quite possibly the destruction of Wikipedia if everyone adhered to it. Consider this hypothetical case: a new Wikipedia page is written about George W. Bush, and as the article, like all articles, is in-progress, states only that he opposes late-term abortion. At that point in time, there exists a tremendous amount of information about Bush that is not in the article (in fact, the existing Bush article is massive). Does this justify removing the statement that Bush opposes late-term abortion, even though it's entirely factual and sourced? No. It encourages including much additional information about Bush, though that task isn't necessarily up to the person who started the article; it's up to the readers and community.
Regarding my point of view that the Powerpuff Girls entry is "one of few, if any, such instances", as no current consensus or sources are presented backing up that position, I will remove the claim that it is unusual for the time being, but keep the sourced fact as is. The instance in and of itself tells us, about flatulence, that a popular character in a popular cartoon flatulated, and by that, is informative, associated with the topic, and is not forbidden by policy. Anyway, I don't believe I mentioned any of your other contributions, unless you mean opposing a larger list of TV/literature flatulence incidents, which was a relevant controversy in that, upon further studying Wikipedia's rules, makes certain points in this argument irrelevant as a basis for inclusion or removal of the entry in question (for instance, my previous claim that the Powerpuff entry's allegedly unusual nature justified its inclusion). I assure you, there is no larger point I'm trying to make in this article other than the entry's inclusion, and whether, based on Wikipedia's rules and policies, should be remain, which rules and policies seem to support. The lists I mentioned regarding homosexual celebrities are no different than a prospective list of TV/literature farts in that such a list, as with the smaller list currently included in this page, doesn't blatantly require that the entire work be about flatulence. The act of flatulence is a singular instance rather than a whole person, and in such a list of instances rather than exclusively comprehensive works, would be associated with the topic, no matter how major or minor they are to the episode, because such a list wouldn't be about the episodes, but the instances within the episodes. -- Ashkenazi 07:01, 01 June 2006 (PST)

I don't find the analogies terribly helpful, as the hypothetical article you describe is a prime example of undue weight. However, there the solution would be to fill it in with other facts and information so that the point is put in proper context; here the addition of such facts would just reveal that this is relatively unexceptional in every way. Because the problem is the same in both cases doesn't imply that the solution must be the same. Additionally, undue weight definitely applies to subjects not articles; consider Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance, which talks about omission as a strong source of POV.

This discussion is getting far too long-winded, so I'll try to summarize my points clearly:

  • The Powerpuff addition conveys undue weight because it selectively emphasizes one very common event amongst many.
  • The Powerpuff addition is not a useful addition because 'Associated with the topic' does not equal 'Relevant to the topic', and no relevance to the topic of flatulence has been demonstrated.

Seeing as we don't seem to be reaching a consensus, I'd suggest that we request a third opinion. It may be helpful for you to summarize any counterpoint as briefly as possible to make it easier on whomever agrees to help out. Ziggurat 01:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional facts included in the Bush analogy wouldn't necessarily put the existing fact that Bush opposes partial-birth abortion into greater context if the fact was explained thoroughly, but it would include additional information about Bush to reduce the undesirable presence of undue weight. Similarly, the addition of a longer, informative list of flatulence in literature & art would serve the purpose of its topic by illustrating the large number and specifically, which works of literature and art contain the act in question, much like lists of famous homosexuals help the reader to see how many famous people have been homosexuals, what they do, and who they are. Many, myself included, find such lists interesting for this reason, otherwise, they wouldn't likely exist. For individuals who are into flatulence humor, a list of flatulence incidents in shows and books would likely be very entertaining. On this, I maintain that the best solution in both the Bush analogy and this case is to not omit, but add, so yes -- the solution should be the same. The statement about flatulence in the Powerpuff Girls, in its current form, does not promote any particular point of view on the instance or omit sourced information that would make it more of a NPOV.
Having read the "Space and Balance" article you supplied, I notice that the rule is to add to, and not deleting from, cases in which undue balance may be present, which is entirely what I'm suggesting. The Powerpuff Girls flatulence case is both relevant to, and associated with the act of flatulence. Consider that "relevant" is defined as having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=relevant). Buttercup farting couldn't be more closely connected with flatulence, because it is flatulence. Regardless, just being "associated with" the topic is sufficient for the creation of a list of instances such as the Powerpuff Girls entry, as aforementioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not
At any rate, I agree that a Third Opinion would be a good idea at this point. -- Ashkenazi 08:01, 01 June 2006 (PST)
Regarding additions and deletions, WP:NPOV notes that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." By relevant to the topic I mean it has some bearing on the topic at hand; dictionary definitions seem next-to-useless here. I repeat what I said above that there's nothing in this that informs us about flatulence. Ziggurat 02:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That particular statement refers to viewpoints in articles, and not necessarily statements or sources, for which a clear distinction is made a few lines above:
"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
While there are various viewpoints regarding the inclusion of any entry, if there is no viewpoint presented or suggested in the actual entry itself -- which there is not in this case -- then it does not appear to be in violation of this policy. Now, I don't contest that an undue weight is created by the inclusion of the Powerpuff Girls entry (just as an undue weight is given to many new articles or entries that don't cover 100% of the topic entirely, and is only a natural necessity in any work-in-progress, otherwise many informative works-in-progress would cease to exist), but based on all of the previously-cited Wikipedia rules, I maintain that the proper way to handle it is to gradually add a longer list, rather than delete the statement. Dictionary definitions are key in interpreting policies where words with several possible meanings are not operationalized to that particular context. If more than one possible definition exists for such words and no policy-based distiction is given or indicated, it can only be taken as an "either-or" case in lack of further official clarification. I repeat that entries such as the Powerpuff Girls entry and a longer list would, in fact, be informative regarding the topic, as it would provide the reader with a comprehensive list of instances in which the topic has appeared in popular culture, and specifically, where. -- Ashkenazi 08:01, 01 June 2006 (PST)


"That particular statement refers to viewpoints in articles, and not necessarily statements or sources" Actually, the statement you quote after it is an expansion, not a distinction ("just as ... so is"); I don't know where you got that interpretation from. I object to dictionary definitions because they ignore the spirit of the policy in favour of semantic quibbling and hastily-erected exceptions and equivocations. In terms of significance, I'm of the philosophy "put your money where your mouth is." That is, if something is really significant, the way to demonstrate that is not to argue on its significance yourself, or on the definition of significance, but to prove that someone else holds it to be significant. Anything else is simply synthesis of OR. Ziggurat 03:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


The statement cited above is indeed an expansion, but also approaches viewpoints, sources, and statements as different entities that are simply to be treated similarly in regard to avoiding undue weight. In this regard, it serves as both an expansion and a distinction. Now concerning significance, I tend to feel that its establishment can encompass logical argument, definition, and/or outside consensus -- all are important. Given that a list of entries of flatulence incidents in popular media, by existing definitions, provides cases of flatulence itself, aside from reliably sourcing the incidents and presenting them in a neutral manner (which I have done with the Powerpuff Girls case), I'm not sure how much more one could ask for when the incident's discussion is highly publicized and more widely-discussed than many existing entries and cultural impact isn't a necessity for inclusion. A published source that states something along the lines of, "Buttercup farting was, indeed, flatulence, and we therefore conclude that it is strongly associated with and relevant to the act of flatulence?" Including an incident such as this doesn't qualify as synthesizing original research because no originally-constructed thoughts are presented in, or could be reasonably concluded from, the entry. I still see no reason to remove the entry to remove natural undue bias when a larger list would enhance informativeness for reasons aforementioned, and is the Wikipedia rule of thumb.
The spirit of Wikipedia and its policies are only as good as the words contained in the policies and descriptions, their common interpretations, and the intentions of those who wrote them. Much like the law, oftentimes, policies can be interpreted in more than one manner. People may come to understand words differently; my initial understanding of "relevant" and "significant" may differ from yours. Semantic "quibbling" can be very important in determing whether a policy or law is flexible enough to allow or disallow an entry or action, if taken within the right context (in this case, Wikipedia' mission to be informative, NPOV, etc.). I feel I have sufficiently demonstrated that each of Wikipedia's policies cited, based on definition, commonly accepted examples of similar lists and entries (alphabetized lists of assassination victims and homosexuals listed in or linked to from the articles on homosexuality and assassination) and in context of its mission, are flexible enough to allow for the Powerpuff Girls entry in this article.
I'm sure you will disagree, however. At this point, I again agree there is likely not much more to do other than bring in some outside opinions on the matter, and see what readers agree with. I have admittedly become exhausted with this subject and have no more time to spend with it. Ziggurat, I thank you for an intellectually-stimulating debate and civil conduct. I respect, but simply disagree with your interpretation of policy and criteria for inclusion of this particular entry. I will likely retire from this discussion and not post further. Whatever comes of it from here on based on third opinions/consensus I will accept.
Best wishes,
-- Ashkenazi 08:01, 01 June 2006 (PST)

[edit] 3rd Opinion

This section has gotten completely out of hand. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no enycyclopedic benefit to mentioning that a cute little powder puff girl farted. Indeed this section was already cluttered with useless trivia. Ren and Stimpy? Southpark? Who cares? They probably fart five times every episode too. Do we now need to include every unique farting incident? Oh look so and so farted and its important because they were the first person with X to fart on national television. I wast tempted to nuke the whole section, but I let the more encyclopedic items remain. --Hetar 16:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled across this from the 3rd opinion page also, and was considering adding my own opinion when you added yours. Frankly, I thought both parties made excellent points in support of their positions, and both positions had merit. I thought it was an excellent discussion of the issue. My opinion, after reading the entire preceeding discussion, was that the person in favor of the Powerpuff reference had made an excellent case, and so, for the time being it should remain. However, I think a better long-term option would be to create a seperate list article, and remove the vast majority of that section from this article, replacing it with a link to the list. Just my 2 cents. -- ONUnicorn 16:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I also saw this on the 3rd opinion page. I read the article before coming to the talk page, and the article seemed surprisingly good to me. Looking at the talk and the history, I see that Hetar has just recently edited it to remove a lot of stuff. Although I think Hetar's tone could be improved, I think the edits were good ones. Hetar, I agree with your conclusion and share your concern, but I think you're not showing sufficient respect for the other editors' viewpoints and contributions. --William Pietri 18:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the third opinions (even the ones I don't agree with :) . Thanks all. Ziggurat 21:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with such removal of potentially useful content. For example South Park's Terrance and Phillip are perhaps the best known example of farting in popular culture. And mentions of flatulence in various literary works are unusual enough to be included.  Grue  10:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Can I ask what standard of unusuality you think would be a good guideline? I'd personally love to keep the literary references and chuck most of the pop culture ones (although I could see T&P being valid for inclusion) but I worry that that's just an expression of my personal (parochial?) bias. Ziggurat 11:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 09:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move (June 2006)

Proposed move to farting, per Wikipedia naming conventions we should use the common name Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)

From the policy -- When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?. 19:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Strong oppose Fart is a slang term. Flatulence is the correct medical term. Geeretree 19:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Please see the similar discussion from November: Talk:Flatulence#Requested move. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, in agreement with 'farting' being the slang term and 'flatulence' the proper term. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Gimmetrow 01:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Flatulence is a condition: farting is the effect of that condition. The two terms should not be confused!--Light current 23:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion (June 2006)

  • I'm tempted to close the discussion pretty soon based on WP:SNOW reasoning from the outcome of the previous visitation on this move pointed out by Knowledge Seeker up the page. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Might be good to let the process work through to "no move", and then close the loophole that could allow this to be moved without the full procedure. Gimmetrow 01:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Frequency and waveform of farts

Does anyone have any data on the range of fundamental frequencies and harminoic content (ie wave shape) of typical farts? 8-| --Light current 21:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Why not? - All it needs is a microphone and spectrum analyser - you could even do a full study: if the subject was male/female, and if they had been eating sprouts/beans etc. beforehand. I feel a research proposal coming on... 195.93.21.1 21:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flatulence whilst asleep

Anybody got data on this? ie dB SPL, frequency, tone, smelliness etc --Light current 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've spent the last 5 years studying the phenomena, and basically have too much data to reply with here. If you'd like to see the full 9000 page document, I can mail you the CD. It's all about farts at night. I can also fart you the CD (at night)

[edit] Embouchure

Is it possible to have different controllable anal embouchures - or is it just the overall tension applied to the sphincter? I mean, I dont think you could play a trumpet or a saxophone thro it. Some people do manage to talk thro' it though! 8-) --Light current 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fart noise

In the article it says the noise is determined by the sphincter tightness and the 'velocity' of the gas expulsion. Shouldnt this be 'pressure' of the internal gas (as the exit velocity is probably proportional to the pressure)?--Light current 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring before you a matter of singular importance and seriousness. It concerns two incidents of breaking wind causing great harm and even death. The first incident was observed by me over 40 years ago while serving my country and stationed in a small town in West Texas. An impromtu circus came to town in which one of the side show acts was a man breaking wind and holding a lit tourch by his hind quarters. One such blast sent forth a stream of flame so great in length that it ignited the hair of a woman standing in the front row. She, poor thing, happend to have sprayed her hair with an alcohol based hair conditioner which acted like a catylist for the flame. She suffered 3rd degree burns all over her body and died three days later.

The 2nd incident is of much more serious concern as it includes the scourge of our time AIDS. What is to prevent the Aerosole rendering of broken wind to contain microscopic elements of aids virus? If someone really blasts off couldn't he infect a person with aids? It is something to think about my friends.

[edit] NPOV?

I see someone (an anon) has added the NPOV tag to this article. I see nothing in this article that violates the NPOV policy. No reason was stated for the NPOV tag. So... does anyone see anything in this article that isn't NPOV? If this doesn't get any response by Monday I'll remove the NPOV tag if no one else does. ONUnicorn 20:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of weasel words in the Social context section:
"People will often strain to hold in the passing of gas when in polite company, or position themselves to conceal the noise and smell.
Flatulence can be considered humorous to some people, either due to the foul smell or the sounds produced. Some find humor in flatulence ignition, which is possible due to the presence of flammable gases such as hydrogen and methane, though the process can result in burn injuries to the rectum and anus."
I don't really see any need for this, and it isn't very NPOV. "Foul smell"? I'm not saying I know anyone who enjoys the smell of farts, but it's still POV. Wavy G 02:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point. I'll add a tag to that section. ONUnicorn 13:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out, for the record, that this is not the dumbest discussion I've ever been involved in. The other day, I got into an edit war over the correct spelling of "Zerbert." Wavy G 07:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internal Combustion

I was wondering, if it were possible that when I set fire to my farts that they may follow the source and cause my intestine to explode. this is one of my best party tricks and I feel that I have sufficient sphincter controll to acts as efficient "one-way" valve. If there is any danger in this happening could someone comment. Thanks.

      No danger of explosion on the inside... No oxygen there with which the fart needs to burn.

[edit] Info box

I have just looked at the article again and see that I inadvertently removed the info box on 30 July 2006. I see also that I was no longer logged in so I must have been called away, come back and uploaded the edit without paying due care - sorry. Thank you, Ceyockey for putting it right. (RJP 19:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] "Cake farting"

Users Tolstoii (talk • contribs) PatJohnson9999 (talk • contribs) and 203.30.34.58 (talk • contribs) have added variations on the following content to the article:

As far as 5 years back, cake-farting has poppped into the collective consciessness of the mainstream as websites dealing with women passing gas on cakes started cropping up across the Internet. The humor therein made these photos or videos a hit among the fart fetishist community.
Some also find humour in lying on their back with their knees pulled up to their ears so as to expose their buttocks, and then sprinkle talcum powder over their anus, and proceed to fart and watch the cloud of talcum powder shoot forward in a cloud like fashion.

In the absence of reliable sources to demonstrate notability and encyclopedic value, this content does not belong in the article. --Muchness 18:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uses?

Does passing gas serve any purpose other than to remove gas from the body? Such as assisting the removal of fecal matter? EDIT: Forgot to sign, sorry Babybahamut 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/l/a/Talk%7EFlatulence_a920.html"