Talk:Defecation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Defecation article.
Article policies
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

Contents

[edit] Shitting

Does "shitting" belong in the heading of an encyclopedia article on defecation? Jeff Anonymous 03:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a perfectly appropriate AKA --Blackcats 07:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I certainly don't approve. This is an encyclopedia, not a slang dictionary. If this page was being used for research by a younger audience, it could cause the wrong impression. Keep Wiki Clean. Removed colloquial terms not rquired or helpful for the understanding of this article..Hamdev Guru 20:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Give me a break! How many people say, "I defecated"? Instead, several of them say, "I took a shit."
That is irrelevent, I want wiki kept clean – it is completely unnecessary to quote colloquial phrases here. --Hamdev Guru 21:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (And Assumign Good Faith and everything, but please don't vandalise my User page again, Thanks :))
You're wanting to keep wiki clean is irrelevent. Shit will be staying on this page. Thank you JayKeaton 11:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys,
i just looked up defecation for my med assignment and i wouldn't have found it if it was headed 'shitting'. So turns out it was useful to use the medical term (or maybe i should just stick to my texts!) wow, i really sound like a nerd now! bugga.

Cheers, phil


It is important to note that wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. There are pictures of real vaginas, and erections, on the site, that break no rules. SiDNEy 23:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but if we include the term "shitting" do we also include "taking a dump," "laying cable," "pinching a loaf," etc.? There're many common slang terms for this. 65.95.157.80 05:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

-I think that the term "shitting" is unnecessary because it's simply slang rather than a proper, official term.- (Lemmy12)

As long as "shitting" continues to redirect here it doesn't matter whether "shitting" is or isn't mentioned in the article. If it can be used without degrading the professionalism of the article, and I'm sure there exist such ways in which it can be used, I see no reason why it should be removed. There is certainly no reason to censor it. - (Elsenrail)

The simple fact is that someone may search it, and they should get a relevant result. Dukeofwulf (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Point of information, the word "shit" is not slang at all; it and its etymological antecedents have been in English for a VERY long time. See the entry at World Wide Words. Ashanda (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ball movement

"ball movement" redirects here, but there isn't any explanation as to why a "ball movement" is called that. i've always been confused by that, because it seems to me that it's the shit that moves through the balls, while the balls themselves pretty much stay put, perhaps wiggling a little at the most...

i guess it's a movement going through the balls. sort of like calling traffic driving through a tunnel a "tunnel movement." maybe just one of those non-sencical euphemisms...

--Blackcats 07:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Is that really a valid term? I've never heard that before! --Attendsboi 08:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I believe they all mean to say "bowel movement". 65.175.246.202 01:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur.

"Ball movement" is term used in baseball and cricket to describe the action of the ball on a curve or slider.

Thank god somebody knew that it was, in fact...BOWEL movement.

I can't believe that that many people would get the word wrong :\ —An Sealgair (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Although calling it a "ball movement" is blatantly ignorant, perhaps it is a common misunderstanding and should still redirect? I mean, if all these misunderstood... Dukeofwulf (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV edit

"Many people" find a variety of things "physically pleasurable and satisfying." However, why is this appropriate or useful information for this article? Please provide some defense for leaving this bit of subjective, tawdry information in an otherwise competent article (and explain, if you would please, why similar sentiments are not appropriate to add in articles such as, say murder (which "many people" find "satisfying"). Thanks in advance.

Actually, the murder article does refer that. Use your browser search feature to search for "satisfaction" Rbarreira 18:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Valsalva Maneuver

The article says:

"During defecation the chest muscles, diaphragm, abdominal wall muscles, and pelvic diaphragm all exert pressure on the digestive tract and respiration temporarily ceases as the lungs push the chest diaphragm down in order to exert pressure."

This process only occurs when using the sitting position, which is used by less than one-third of the world's population. The process is called the "Valsalva Maneuver" and has a number of damaging effects on the body.

Most of the world (and the entire world 2 centuries ago) uses squat toilets. I've added an external link to "Health Benefits of the Natural Squatting Position" to clarify the difference and advantages of reverting to this natural method.

~ Jonathan

--65.142.136.201 16:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed link. The link [1] goes to an article that ends up blaming sitting toilets for everything from colitis to appendicitis to prostate cancer. I might add that the best part about the linked article is the "case study" (near the bottom of the article) where one woman cures herself of cervical cancer by changing to the squatting position for toileting. An interesing read but, until proven otherwise, this is pseudoscience. Alex.tan 16:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do we really need a picture?

I won't edit it but do we really need a picture of a cow laying down a huge turd? Is it really needed to get the point across? Ewwwwwwwwww!

Same. I was eating when I saw that. :'( --Sinewaves23 06:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

_________________________

Well, I think we could use a picture of a WOMAN laying down a huge turd!

-Anon. _________________________


It shows a little bit of the spectrum of defecation, with the illustration of the human rectum, and then representation of the other members of the animal kingdom! I wouldn't want this page to be accused of being overly anthropocentric. Further, with the issues of runoff from farms, cow defecation is certainly tied to the bigger environmental and social issues around defecation as a whole! Now, pretty much everyone knows what poop is, and that everyone poops. But just because information is understood doesn't mean we have to exclude it. I think it's the best of all possible pictoral examples of defecation. If not for this, someone would surely post a picture of someone squatting in the grass. Think of that! 23:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if some idiot put a picture of a cow defecating. That is not needed i think i understand defecation. I don't need to see a cow pooping. Please get rid of it. The image is stuck in my head. (Glass of water 04:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

It's a good image; it demonstrates the action without being too gross. You were asking for trouble eating while reading about defecation to begin with! 65.95.157.80 05:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Eating while looking at defecating? Nice move! Tourskin 03:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell are you looking at the defecation page while eating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.86.8 (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia is not censored

This is an encyclopedia article about defecation. Anything that is relevant and encyclopedic needs to be included. That includes full description of defecation. That includes images of defecation. And, yes, that may even include the word shit. Whether we like them or not, we must follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Two relevant ones:

"Wikipedia is not censored."
"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
Okay... But one question: What about our younger users? Random the Scrambled 21:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
What about the adult users then? There are wikis that are censored for the protection of minors, and they aren't as big, or as good as wikipedia. There's a reason wikipedia isn't censored, and that's because there's a real slippery slope there. There'd be no containing it. A picture of a cow defacating might be as offensive to someone as a diagram of sexual intercourse and is certainly less offensive than a picture of a person dying of any kind of infestation. You can post to wikis that eliminate swearwords. Wikipedia is designed to inform, censorship is against the rules here. SiDNEy 23:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Children should use a children's encyclopedia like Compton's. 71.252.104.25 08:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyone that uses Wikipedia to get information is out of their mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baseton (talk • contribs) 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes We do!

[edit] Human Health

If humans may move bowels twice a day, or a few times a week, which is currently thought optimal, or healthy? And if such a consensus exists in the medical community, does that information belong on this page, or the page for constipation? 23:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How bout a picture of poop coming out of a human butthole???

[edit] Corn Cobs?

"The anus and buttocks may be cleansed with toilet paper or similar paper products, rags, leaves (including seaweed), corn cobs or sticks"

Is this for real or is it vandalism?

the article on toilet paper mentions early uuse of sticks, so it must be true. Ilikefood 02:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was vandalism too, but it seems to check out: "The material of choice among colonial America was corn cobs. When daily newspapers became commonplace in the 1700's, paper became the material of choice (I guess that one could say that Gutenberg's printing press caused the toilet paper revolution)." [1]

[edit] Sloths

The introduction states that "sloths can go for a week." Does this mean that they can go for a week without defecating or that their metabolism is so slow that it takes a week to empty their bowels? 172.131.84.109 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)RKH

[edit] Fecal Ingestion

How come fecal ingestion isn't mentioned? This happens more often than you know, you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.7.122 (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Might I ask that you are referencing cupchicks now? Two girls one cup. GROSS RESULTS!

Dude, that video's sick. Anyway if you're interested in eating fecies then search for coprophagia. --Meridius 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

Read somewhere that a guy used a full manure spreader to put shit on a town's city hall to protest some policy AS being full of shit. 65.163.112.114 (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I say that there should be a picture of someone defecating.24.121.39.32 (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I really, really, really really really don't think that is neccessary. I know wikipedia is not censored, but I also know that this is an encyclopedia, and I don't think that an image of someone defecating is needed on this article. T.Neo (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The picture could be made small on article's page, and anyone really interested could click on it to see it full size. Apparently disgust of fecal matter is learned at a very young age (approx.18months, ref a UK TV documentary), so anyone older than this may not be objective, however their vocabulary will probably be a bit limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.216.34 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What about a picture of just a toilet, or a dog or cat mid poo? JayKeaton (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I'd go with 80.42.216.34's idea.

_________________

Huh, Jay? What's the difference between a picture of a cow, dog, or cat pooping, except the kind and size of the animal and of the poop?

-Anon. _________________


[edit] "May require cleanup"

Brilliant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.177.169 (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide view?

Why is there a {{worldwide}} on this article? I don't think that there's anything in here that's US-centric, is there? --Mblumber (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection

Ive protected the article given the amount of vandalism this page has received. Feel free to remove the lock if I am in the wrong however thought it would be a good idea. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding a protection tag doesn't actually stop anyone from editing. It's just a notice to other users. If you think an article needs protecting, you have to request admin help on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Just done that btw. — FIRE!in a crowded theatre... 08:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)