Talk:Pissing contest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Unencyclopedic

I consider it not to be so as it covers a set of events which actually occur. Perhaps the title is somewhat slangish (if that is an official word) but I do not believe I can recall any other title they were referred to by.

My apologies for it not being an indepth sociological or perhaps Freudian investigation into the issue but I am really not intelligent enough to write one.

This article is certainly not Encyclopedic. Infact it makes fun of this Encyclopedia. Would it refer to the ussuall meaning of the phrase "pissing contest" which is a methaphore for a needless and acctually a petty fight born out of spite it would be OK. But like this it is a mockery of Wikipedia.

And I don`t belive the author of it was sincerely trying to improve Wikipedia by contributing it.

I was under the assumption that the purpose of Wikipedia was to let people learn about anything and everything they did not understand. Slang words and phrases are a very important in our language and culture. I have friends who did not live in an English speaking country all of their lives and if they came across this phrase in a conversation or TV show they would be very confused. Let's not retard Wikipedia.

The original author provided the literal definition and while I found this highly amusing, I can see where it can be considered not Encyclopedic simply because the phrase is seldom, if ever, used in this literal sense. I have provided a colloquial definition that I hope is more Encyclopedic. This definition could be added to the Military Slang page and may fit on pages describing Government Slang or Business Slang should they exist.

Unencyclopedic or otherwise, it is a useful entry and should stand. Why? Consider these situations: A non-native English speaker comes across the expression and wants to know what it means and how it is used. Another person knows this expression and figures a more-formal expression of the same or similar meaning should exist, but can't think of it. If either of these people turn to an encyclopedia and it's not there, what good was that encyclopedia for them? If the entry is in Wikipedia, that's another strength of Wikipedia over traditional encyclopedias that are unlikely to carry it because... it's unecyclopedic? ...perhaps merely because their editors were too prudish to include such a base expression.
Of course, an argument could be made that the entry belongs in Wiktionary are whatever. Fine, but at least link to the other resource. If, for one, a more interested in a definition of encyclopedia that encompasses all knowledge rather than just what predecessors have deemed encyclopedic. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 03:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female Interferance?

Awesome article but was this really necessary?

Women should not generally engage men in pissing contests because men, besides enjoying the obvious tactical advantage of urinating while in an upright position, are able to further direct their stream to achieve optimal range, coverage, and saturation while minimizing splash-back.

seems kina silly to me.