Talk:Coprophilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Coprophilia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Popularity in Germany

As far I know (Not being an expert on German pornography, but being from Germany) it is not true that Coprophilia is featured prominently in German pornography? I would really like to know the source of this claim. 132.180.241.108 11:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Me personally, I've watched enough of them. 82.138.217.145 14:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, at least the most famous "provider" of coprophilia performances, acts, pictures and videos, Miss Cheyenne, is German Hektor 22:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It does sound like a fairly bizarre claim to make. Maybe it comes from the South Park movie. :p Hammerite 17:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
A torrent site I frequent tends to upload a lot of different types of porn, including coprophilia. Personally it's really not my thing, but I've noticed all the same that a large portion of those uploaded have .GERMAN. in the title. Just anecdotal evidence, however. --Angrycrustacean 06:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychological reasoning

It would improve the article a great deal if it would mention the psychological reasoning behind coprophilia. 192.115.227.253 12:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Google

Looks like someone has been messing with Google, this page is now "number 2" on the search for widipedia 82.12.106.84 09:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops that was a typo, nevermind 82.12.106.84 09:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to include Japanese culture of special fecal diet? Something about employing highly educated girls, give them a special diet, then prepare their feces in such a way that it is edible. Thank you.lemean 152.130.6.197 152.130.6.197 20:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ned.

The IP constantly adding the Ned W. Waller nonsense has now removed my talk edits - apparently he/she has no answer to my questions regarding his/hers nonsensical edits that don't belong on wikipedia. Please consult the history button to see what has been going on, if you care. Joffeloff 22:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

found on this yoganiketan webpage:
"Dear Friends,
Over the past several years, a certain individual has continually slandered Yoga Niketan in every religious message board on the internet, often impersonating us and using our name or the name of someone associated with our work to engage in countless arguments with others. Many times in our mailbox we have received mail “approving" our "application for membership" to some message board or another which we never joined! He was often posting many places pretending to be "Yoga Niketan" or pretending to be someone associated with our work, often even arguing with himself using one identity and then arguing against himself using the impersonated "identity" of one of our members. So he has gone here and there creating havoc. Our general policy has been to ignore this." 194.6.246.250 02:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 82.15.17.152

The IP 82.15.17.152 should be banned because of all the vandalism he's been doing to this entry for the last couple of weeks. Seriously, check the history of both the entry and the discussion. 194.6.246.250 20:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland steamer merge proposal

No. Not necessary, no need. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming this in in reference to the Cleveland steamer article, why not? -- backburner001 12:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Because it's worthy enough to have an article on its own, for one, and I believe the merge request to be part of a continuing mission to rid wikipedia of notable but offensive sex acts. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree with you on the motivations behind the merge proposal. But, setting the motivations aside for the moment, would merging the content from Cleveland steamer be a benefit to the Corprophilia article? I think, despite the bad faith motives for the proposal, it might strengthen this article to merge the content on Cleveland steamer here. Any thoughts? -- backburner001 17:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There may be some information of worth, but I see no reason to deteriorate the Cleveland steamer article for the sake of this one, either. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Right now the Cleveland steamer looks more like a candidate for wiktionary rather than an article. Joffeloff 18:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Only because of certain people with different agendas. The article needs help, but eliminating it doesn't make sense to me. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
To clarify on badlydrawnjeff's comment: The content of the article has been removed and limited to one sentence repeatedly by one user who disagrees with the existence of the article. See previous versions of the article to discover the deleted content. -- backburner001 22:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I deleted the content that isn't sourced and probably isn't true anyway. Brian G. Crawford 03:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • merge I know wikipedia isn't paper, but this should really be merged. It would best to place this in its proper context as a sexual fetish vis-a-vis other similar er.... poo-related sexual acts. Not that I want to know more about it... *bleah* Roodog2k 23:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Golden showers redirects to urolagnia, and watersports is a disambiguation page. That makes sense. Likewise Cleveland steamer should redirect to coprophilia. Perverts who like to take a crap on each other for fun is notable, but a specific term for it isn't. I still haven't heard a single reasonable argument for keeping the Cleveland steamer in a separate entry, not in two deletion discussions and not in deletion review. If there's nowhere to merge it to, it probably needs to go back to AfD, since that was one of the suggestions most made in deletion review. I'm a reasonable guy. Tell me why it should be kept separate, because I'd really like to know why. Brian G. Crawford 03:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Golden showers probably shouldn't redirect, although it does make a little more sense than this does. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Listed for three days and having you and one other person advcating a merger does not consensus make. Let's wait a couple more days before doing this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. Cleveland steamer is important for different reasons than the Coprophilia association. --Apyule 16:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge, expand Cleveland steamer is an important item to understand in its own right especially as per its use in pop culture. The lead should include a line that it is a type of coprophilia. When I needed to understand what Cleveland Steamer meant, I came to Wikipedia. I'm disappointed that information is now being blanked and deleted in the name of morality. -MarkBuckles 18:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Joyce

Shouldn't it be mentioned that mr. Joyce was a coprophiliac? Perhaps even Satie, but that's unconfirmed. Sarnath 02:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Sarnath

[edit] space docking

I needed to know what space docking was and was bemused that it was not on wikipedia. There does seem to have been an article at one time. Neither is the act mentioned in this article. I've been unfortunate enough to view a video of it, so I know it's not a hoax act. So why isn't it on wikipedia? Was it 'wiped':)Merkinsmum 19:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice

Wouldn't this page be a good place for some interesting pictures, Not! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 08:04, 1 January 2007.

[edit] Names of notable coprophiliacs in "See also"?

Recently, an editor added Mark Oaten to the "see also" section of this article. The change has since been reverted, but it has left me wondering whether or not articles on notable coprophiliacs should be listed in such away. Any thoughts on this matter or links to relevant policy or guidelines are appreciated. Robotman1974 22:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No opinion one way or another, but if I don't see some discussion here rather than continually reverting back and forth between having this in or out I'm going to protect the article with the wrong version.--Isotope23 15:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care for this idiot. But the reference is a violation of WP:LIVING and is not supported by a reliable source. Do you want wikipedia sued for slander? What kind of discussion you want to see with anonymous editors? `'mikka 20:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since the beginning, a better source has been provided at Mark Oaten. I made a post at the noticeboard because I don't know about the validity of the source, I don't know if anyone's taken a look, but we have something better than the satirical paper now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/p/Talk%7ECoprophilia_9a7c.html"