Talk:Squat toilet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Common in France

Honestly, there are less and less turkish style toilets in France. It can still be found, but perhaps the adverb "often" is eccessive...--129.130.88.115 05:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yes, they are disappearing, but there are still quite a few, and very recently you would, if you didn't know how to use them, have to put up with them (that's what happened to this American tourist i know). Incidentally, the best i've used were at the nautical stadium in Bourges. I wish i had a photo. Ample foot rests overhanging the huge porcelain bowl below ground level, with the drain at the bottom. Made by Villeroy & Boch, IIRC. Required a power-flush, though.
i'd also like to mention the cost of operation of the new Sanisettes, which require a complete mechanical flip of the commode, platform, and spray the whole thing with strong chemicals, just so that one be able to sit down on a bowl that's clean. --Jerome Potts 20:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of health claims

I would like to see a reference that supports the notion that squat toilets prevent colorectal disorders. - Anon.

I cannot verify that they prevent such ailments, but I recently had several opportunities to use squat toilets while traveling in Europe, and I actually prefer them to sit downs. I'll admit that they are a bit awkward at first, but once you get the hang of it, they're really very simple. I found that I "did my business" much faster squatting than I do sitting. My elimination was much more complete, too. Balance was an issue,but I got used to it. Anyone else try these?

210.21.221.178 03:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)Ed Nilges: I work in China, and the men's room has one squat toilet and three Western toilets.

I could not use the squat toilet because there isn't enough room for me to stand and deliver, but my experience with stand and deliver in the open air as taught in Outward Bound is that it is healthier. Not only do you avoid contact with surfaces, your package, if you do the deed proper, does not contact your epidermis.

Theoretically this means you don't have to "wipe" because the fecal matter stays inside the body, although Outward Bound (which in the wilderness forbids, in my experience, the use of toilet paper as environmentally degrading) does recommend pine-cones in the temperate rain forest of the Pacific Northwest in its place.

When using the squat toilet you do have to aim. I like to think of me trousers as the civilian camp and the toilet as the Japanese airfield.

I hope this is more than enough information on this subject which exerts a certain fascination but on to Higher Things.

[edit] Usage question

Question: How do you prevent from urinating on your pants? If you have to hold and aim your member while in squatting position, it seems like its hard to keep a balance.

210.21.221.184 02:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)Ed Nilges: it takes an effort, for certain. The Western toilet enables one to "go" without thought and while reading The Critique of Pure Reason. But that's part of the problem.

On the flipside, it is far more practical for a Chinese person to practice the Wushu Horse Stance (watch Drunken Master to better understand) while using the squat toilet. ~ SotiCoto (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If you squat with your pants at mid-thigh, they will support you, you need not take them off. Your pelvis will be below the waistline of your pants, so you need not worry about aiming either, just straight and downward is fine. Keep your heels on the ground, balance properly, and you will find it the cleanest and most natural experience you could imagine. It is remarkably clean actually. Your pants and ankles are not in the line of fire whatsoever. That's if you squat the east asian way. I have no idea how the standing toilets work. It seems to me that they would be much more difficult for obvious reasons as well as phisiological problems like the incorrect movement of one's pelvic floor which would. I'm American, but I'm convinced squat toilets are the way to go. DaronDierkes (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Inconvenient when wearing pants that don't slip off over shoes"

The article says squat toilets can be "Inconvenient when wearing pants that don't slip off over shoes".
This seems to assume that every user removes his/her pants before use, this isn't correct, is it? I would assume the pants or trousers are usually kept on and not even slipped below the knee? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 22:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Correct. --Jerome Potts 03:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious implications ?

Is it true that Islam mandates squat toilets and forbids sitting ones ? (this would explain why they are so common in Turkey). I heard that Muslims must squat over sitting toilets where no turkish toilets are available. Also I heard that they must use only the left hand to clean oneself, and that therefore the left ("unclean") hand is never used to eat.

The answer is: Islam mandates cleaning anus with water, but you can still use sitting toilets. In Turkey people usually cleans with water first, then wipes with toilet paper. Western style toilets are also becoming more and more common in Turkey with an additional bidet fixture which is designed to use water with the western style toilets. Basically, no matter what type of toilet, Muslims have to clean them with water. What you heard is wrong, Muslims do not squat over sitting toilets, basic requirement is "water" which is believed to be best cleaning choice. Hope this helped!

[edit] Word replacement of Shitting

"The splashing of water on the buttocks after a heavy shitting does not occur." - replaced 'shitting' with defecating here. No need for the vulgar term here, this is an encyclopedia after all..

I kinda like it the other way
"defecation" will work, but "shit" is definitely true English too: the latter has its root in the Anglo/Germanic origin, while the former in Latin. They mean the very same thing, they are synonyms. Indeed, "shit" is usually considered vulgar, simply because of what it refers to. "defecate" has the advantage of being considered more clinical. And it teaches the young reader about the existence of the word. --Jerome Potts 19:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Intarwebs. Seerius buisniss. ~ SotiCoto (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience versus claimed protoscience

Re-removing the link to Nature's Platform - any website that claims (among other things) that squatting on the toilet leads to a cure for cervical cancer has got some major explaining to do to prove their case. Alex.tan 17:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

LMAO. --Jerome Potts 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No evidence for squatting preventing colitis or Crohn's

Reverted Jonathan108's last edit. To convince myself this was the right thing to do, I did a medline search for "squatting", "squat", "toilet", Crohn's and colitis. There are exactly zero hits for (squatting or squat or toilet) AND (Crohn's or colitis). If there is any good evidence on this matter, please publish a link here. Alex.tan 17:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're really serious about purging Wikipedia of idle speculation about the causes of disease, I suggest you start with the Crohn's Disease article. There's no medical evidence for any of it.--Jonathan108 01:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
If you're so sure of that, I suggest you mention your point of view on Talk:Crohn's disease but please expect to have your position argued (I would surmise, successfully) away by all manner of wikipedia editors. In the meantime, please stop adding in unsubstantiated wild claims here or in other articles. Alex.tan 06:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, and im pretty well teched with ulcerative colitis it doesnt come from the way someone defecates but, maybe, from genetic reasons. Ive never heard this squatting reason in my hole life. I think this part should simply be deleted. --DocBrown 13:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The perils of a loose stool

I've found the health arguments in favor of the squat toilet to be compelling; however, there is one practical point I have yet to see addressed in any literature:

What of the case when the squattee, due to food poisoning or other gastrological disorder, has a loose stool? More severe forms of this have given rise to the term "explosive diarrhea." Not only may the fecal matter not drop [from the anus] in a neat column, it may splash upon contacting the floor of the toilet (given its liquid form, and the velocity with which it may be ejected). Given that the use of a squat toilet places the ankles in close proximity to the "drop point," so to speak... does this not make fouling one's feet rather likely, in those circumstances?

I would imagine a Western-style toilet has the clear advantage here. The geometry of the bowl would make "splashback" unlikely (conceding, of course, that it does present this problem in normal defecation), plus the enclosure formed by the bowl, seat, and sitter's hindquarters prevents any stray leakage whatsoever.

This perceived shortcoming of squat toilets might, I think, be mitigated by adding a raised lip (of about 5cm) around the receiving area---a shield, of sorts, for the feet. However, I've only ever seen Japanese models to have a raised lip, and even then it is rather short, suggesting that it does not serve this purpose.

How does this particular scenario fit into the milieu of the squat toilet?

Iskunk 22:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As an American, I still don't understand how you use it? Do you have to take your pants all the way off? It doesn't make any sense. It seems like ones feet would be too close to the bowl itself. This seems unhygenic! What if you are very ill and don't have the strength to squat? I, for one, will be keeping my good old American version!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.247.115.71 (talk • contribs) .
You failed to specify your gender. --Jerome Potts 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I have the same problem, I do not understand how to use them. Any scenario I can think of to defecate means that I either risk dropping everything out of my pocket or getting my pants dirty. I have seriously looked on Google for an answer, but no luck.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.174.19.49 (talk • contribs) .
I think the idea is that you should roll your pants so that they are bunched at your knees--ie: lower your waistband down to your knees, and raise your pants cuffs up to your knees to prevent them from touching the ground. You may need to hold your pants in place at your knees with your hands as you are squatting. -- Bovineone 05:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Righty-o. C'est comme ça qu'on fait. With a few tries, you get the hang of it. --Jerome Potts 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


As I just specified in the article, the lip on the japanese toilet is not at the buisness end at all. If one squats over the business end, the urine might be aimed a little forward which might hit the water, the guard is there for that. As for your supposed explosive stool, it isn't really a problem unless you squat poorly. Most asian japanese and korean people can squat with their buts about level with their ankles. Not a problem at all. If however, you do the Horse Stance as the ethnocentric gentleman above mentioned, you will have problems.
I've also never found a reason to roll my pants, that seems a little excessive. I generally wear a suit without a jacket. I have pens, change, and keys in my pockets, I've never lost a thing. Generally in such places you pick up the toilet paper at the entrance to the bathroom, so perhaps my items are secured by the toilet paper I have stuffed in my pocket in advance. As your pants are slightly bunched up just above your knees and kept taut as they act as a stabilizing platform for you to squat upon, there really isn't any reason for things to fall out. I roll up neither the waistline nor the ankles. It is a very simple practise, don't be scared. It will improve the flexibility and health of your legs and the whole abdominopelvic region. DaronDierkes (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Zhugo

Does anyone have a reference for Ann Zhugo's death by defecation? I felt it was too funny to be true and Google produces nothing. Nick 21:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm Turkish. I do remember an article in the newspaper "Hurriyet", but I can't remember the name of the pitiful victim. Was the person who made the edit perhaps from Turkey?

[edit] Vandalism

"They are less vulnerable to vandalism than western-style toilets." Why?

Because you can destroy the thing that easy because its mostly in the ground, I think. --DocBrown 00:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You never seen a sit-down porcelain toilet commode kicked to smithereens? --Jerome Potts 19:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Nope, fortunately, our vandals are considerate enough to leave the toilet untouched and just vandalize the walls instead. Odd, that. Maybe we should smash the vandal's toilets (if we catch them) to stop vandalism. LudBob 08:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Killing with toilets is the method of choice for disposing of enemies in Half-Life 2, though it is worth noting they do look rather like pedastal-raised squat toilets. In either case, they are quite easily ripped up with the Zero-Point Energy Gun. ~ SotiCoto (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pros & Cons

The claims about colorectal health benefits have been in search of a source for two years without too much in the way of credible references. I've removed or downplayed most of these claims with the exception of 'rhoids which have the solid study referenced. Reducing the time spent defecating reduces 'rhoids, so it follows that using a squat toilet, which encourages promptness, would have this benefit.

Some of the other disadvatages were duplicates or beginner mistakes (taking off shoes). Ghosts&empties 04:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Gallery

I've removed a picture from the gallery of a woman using a squat toilet. I didn't see what was encyclopedic about a woman hamming for the camera with her pants and underpants around her knees. Tanizaki 22:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. There is no human waste visible in the photo, and no nudity (wikipedia isn't censored anyway). As someone who has never seen or used a squat toilet in person, I think it is valuable to show how you actually use the thing. Toilet has Image:Wiki_publictoilet.JPG, which shows a diagram of how to use the sit-down variety; I think we at least need a diagram here of how a squat toilet is used. Until then I don't have a problem with the photo. —ptk✰fgs 22:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This photo has been removed without consultation and deleted, some time ago. If, by some lucky chance, the original contributor is still around, can they please bring the photo back - it's important to have an image of how to defecate on a squat toilet. It's considered civil to discuss removal of content on the talk page, where the issue is controversial. Walton monarchist89 18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pipe? Siphon?

1. How is the pipe lead away? I assume it takes height from the room below. 2. There is no siphon, I guess. How is the room sheltered from smell?

1: Yes. But those are mostly used at ground level, or in basements. For anything above, you may want to build a platform around it, the height of a stairway step.
2: of course there is a trap/siphon. --Jerome Potts 19:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whose "arguments" are these?

Only one of the arguments is properly attributed to a source. The rest seem like original research. If "proponents" and "critics" really make these claims, certainly sources could be found to support this fact? -- Exitmoose 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the advantages come from the Nature's Platform site. They are fairly well supported by evidence of various kinds -- some historical, some epidemiological, some anatomical. The only clinical evidence pertains to hemorrhoids. The site debunks explanations for many colon and pelvic diseases that have been used for decades by the medical profession.
Some of the debunked theories include the belief that dietary fiber is responsible for prevention of colon cancer and diverticulosis in the developing world. Also, the belief that the pelvic floor is inherently flawed in its design. The same claim about "poor design" has been used to explain the failure of the ileocecal valve to prevent the backwash of fecal matter into the small intestine.
Taken all together, the case for squatting is rather convincing. But the Wiki article is just reporting that proponents make these arguments, not that they are true. So the prohibition on "original research" many not apply. --216.64.1.195 13:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I added the tag because a casual reader (in this case, myself) wouldn't know who was making these claims and what their evidence might be. It's good to see that efforts have been made to attribute each claim to an authority in the field, and as that goes further, the tags can probably be removed. -- Exitmoose 05:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source your crap!

Interestingly, the section "pro" squat toilets has footnotes, whereas the section "con" has none. Come on, people, Wikipedia has existed for years now, get with the program!
--Jerome Potts (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Roman" style of toilet?

In India such a toilet is widely used and is referred to as the Indian water closet or the Jodhpur Pan in contrast with the European water closet or EWC or the Western (or "Roman") style of toilet.

What is the source for that information? Roman "bench" public toilets were used in the squatting position, contrary to popular belief. See this link --Jonathan108 00:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

they were called vespasians. Thanks though, i also thought one simply sat on them. --Jerome Potts 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] not sure where to include

i have a bit of trivia relating to squat toilets. not really sure if it it wiki material or if it is where to put it in the entry. probably the squat loos with the best views are found in the halfway guest house in tiger leaping gorge in yunan china. the are very basi, of the kind you ofen get in china, concrete trench basicly. but the great thing about them was the low partition that enabled a fantastic view over the suburb mountain vista as one was.. er.. doing one's business. i think it was mentioned in one of palin's programmes although i can't be sure. any thoughts? Dylan2106 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

here we go See this link for Micheal Palin's account of the loo with a viewDylan2106 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voyeurism?

How is voyeurism easier with a squat toilet? Is it just because the genitals are less obscured? Either way, it seems like if anyone can get a peek inside the stall in the first place you've got problems. ASWilson 05:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, pretty much. Less of your intimate bits are visible on a sit-down toilet. Plus, if you've got a copy of the paper, or somesuch, if anyone does burst in, you can belt them with it... or cover yourself, or read it. Your choice, I suppose... LudBob 08:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pantyhose?

Why is this statement in here >>> 'Pantyhose must be lowered while using a squat toilet' ?

I'd have thought you needed to take pantyhose off when you're using any type of toilet... Being a bloke, I don't wear pantyhose... anyone able to shed any light (or hosiery) on this matter? LudBob 08:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Pantyhose as in that which is referred to sometimes as "stockings" or as in that which is referred to as "tights"? That is to say that which covers the legs only or the legs and crotchal/hip-type area? Definitions differ. ~ SotiCoto (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Epitome of Awesome.

The Squat Toilet article is quite clearly the most awesome article on all of Wikipedia. How would one go about nominating it for awards? ~ SotiCoto (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Losing one's balance

One of the arguments against squat toilets is that people "may lose their balance". Squat toilets are not to blame for this problem. Rather, sitting toilets have alienated people from their natural ability to squat. The same logic applies to the argument that some people sit on the footpads, out of ignorance. Blame the ignorance, not the squat toilet. --Jonathan108 (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, but in societies accustomed to sitting, it is a problem. Perhaps we shape this to be along the lines of, "One of the arguments against introducing squat toilets is that people accustomed to seated designs can lose their balance." Mattnad (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "kneeling"

I'm removing again the People with weaker knee tendons can be seriously injured when kneeling for a prolong period of time. Reasons:

  1. "weaker knee tendons": wikify, please? This condition, if it exists at all, has to have a name, and in which case it's probably in here somewhere. Or cite the medical term anyway.
  2. "seriously injured": says who, pray tell? I would gladly add a {{Fact}} template, if it wasn't for the next one, which IMO tops it all:
  3. "when kneeling (...)": for the nth time, i ask: who kneels in a squat toilet cabin? Kneeling is when you put your knees to the floor, ain't it? Am i missing something here?

So, basically, if you really want it back, i'd say that you have some explaining to do.
--Jerome Potts (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There you go: http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/paininjury1/a/overuse.htm knock yourself out. Duhman0009 (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No mention of squatting in that article. --Jonathan108 (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Overuse injuries are the result of repetitive use, stress and trauma to the soft tissues of the body (muscles, tendons, bones and joints) when there is not enough time for proper healing. I'd say going to the crapper from 4 to 7 times a day qualifies as repetitive use to the soft tissues. Duhman0009 (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Just the opposite - the third world squat. FiveRings (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence that such "overuse" injuries (cited by Duhman0009) are more common among squatting cultures. Squatting is how the body was designed to eliminate wastes. On the other hand, daily use of sitting toilets damages the anal tissues, leading to hemorrhoids, depresses the pelvic floor, leading to prolapse, and damages the diaphragm, leading to hiatus hernias. --Jonathan108 (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, if you want that people with tendonitis or, perhaps more specifically, jumper's knee (see? I'm helping you, since you won't do your homework correctly) have a difficulty squatting, that may be true, but you're going to have to find a reliable publication which says so, and put the ref in yourself, correctly so if you please, as no, i won't "knock myself out" at it. But i'm pretty sure i won't let in anything so silly as to mention kneeling. For that one, you'll need double proof, if not more. --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This is for all 3 of you. I could say the same thing for the "Arguments in favour" section. The only sources that are there are aren't even actual links, just quotes from some books that no one that comes here has probably read. This could have been made up for all I know by a bunch of Japanophiles. I don't see how any of this can be put there unless you can provide a link that everyone can go and see. Have fun finding sources, I'll remove both argument sections if no actual sources are provided within 48 hours. Oh and Jerome Charles Potts, last time I checked, no one OWNS a wiki page, so please stop acting like you own this one. Duhman0009 (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No you cannot say the same for the "pro section. No you may not remove stuff that has been painstakingly referenced, and, as i already remarked in a previous section in this discussion page, the "pro" section has many sources. Indeed the first two are hardly acceptable, from a porcelain commodes vendor. Out they go if you must. As concerns the others, the burden of proof is on you, you are welcome to go and find those works referenced and verify that indeed they say what is claimed, and if they do not, you are then fully entitled to dispute them and the text in here which relies on them. I'm pretty sure that if you do what your are threatening, you will get at odds with the Wikipedia community.
Personally, i am not interested all that much in either section, and i don't recall contributing to either. So if they were to go, i doubt it would bother me much. But you can be sure that it does matter to whomever went through the trouble of providing all those sources. I know of advantages to using the squat toilets, for having used them many times; i'm not completely sure whether i really favour them over the sit-down toilets. But it certainly bugs me to see people coming in here adding stuff they just made up (i mean sometimes you can pretty much tell that some "contributors" have never even used them at all; what about you BTW?), with disregard for the rules of WP:V and WP:OR. I understand that many may be beginning with Wikipedia, others be occasional editors, however people like myself who have been around here a while do clean up after them (and by cleaning up i don't mean exclusively removing stuff; sometimes it consists of enhancing and completing a clumsy or a slapdash addition, if we can see its worth and can fix it quickly). Those new users then learn, as we all did, the rules and conventions of this project. And so on.
I know quite well that i don't own any page, it happens to be on my watchlist (i don't remember why i added it to my list to start with, but with all the nonsense that has followed, it has remained on my vigil). Cheers, --Jerome Potts (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I too have used squat toilets in the past (common in China Town) and I can assure you that they hurt my knee tendons. I have weak knee tendons and not because of a sports injury, but because it's a genetic condition that I got from my mother's side. As the the so called references http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squat_toilet#References, I stated that none of them have actual links, so no one can go and verify this unless he/she happens to have the proper books. So these are not proper sources and they could have very well been made up or can simply be theories by some quack doctor who never managed to prove his/her research. So yes, I can remove the section if I feel that there is no reliable source, that's the idea behind Wikipedia. Remember, this works both ways. Duhman0009 (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I will add links for many of the references, even though the WP:V article doesn't require links. --Jonathan108 (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a case by case scenario, but it always requires a reliable source that people can use to double check what's written in Wikipedia. If I were to Google for these current sources, I probably wouldn't find much, not in a few minutes anyway. I could easily make up facts from some medical books that no one that comes here has access to and you or no one else could argue against that. Duhman0009 (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to comment on policy here, I'm not sure I agree with a requirement that there are links. I've personally added references from books, news papers, and magazines that have no online access. In those instances, I scanned the pages as backup in case someone wanted to see a facsimile of the document. I would hate to force Wikipedia's scholarship to what's available to the lowest common denominator of access. Books, for instance, are not usually available online and they are absolutely part of reliable sources. Mattnad (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well there you go, you know you have a problem when you need to do the work yourself in order to provide a reliable source. One of the point of Wikipedia is to regroup everything in one package, to put all of the sources in one area. People can read what's on the Wiki page or go straight to the source. Now it's kind of hard to do that when the source is analog. Also, you may be honest in your source, but can you vouch for everyone else doing this? Duhman0009 (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear about your knees and i wish you/them well. However your personal experience has no place in here as stated in the "No original research" policy, the link for which i have already provided earlier. Did you bother to read it? You don't sound like you have.
Next: no you may not remove stuff which has a reference on the basis that you are unable to access the source online by a simple click of the mouse. I have already told you that the burden of (counter)proof is on you. You say “If I were to Google for these current sources, I probably wouldn't find much”, which shows that you haven't. Clearly you just don't do your homework, which to me means that you are not even entitled to an opinion. And i challenge you to cite a Wikipedia policy which requires electronic access (links) to the refs. You do raise an interesting point though, in that a source can perhaps be fictitious, but this discussion page is not the place for this debate, you should take it up in the appropriate discussion pages of the Wikipedia policies. There are, however, a few basic things that one can do to check on the validity of a source: Google its existence. If you fail to find anything about it, then you may bring it up in this discussion page, but not immediately remove just because you don't like it. If the source exists, you can investigate a bit about it: is it really about what it is said to be, or is it on a different topic? If it passes this check also, then indeed the problem is to find out whether the source actually says what the contributor claims it does. I bet you that this has already been brought up in discussions on sources, i really ask you to do your research prior to acting disruptive. --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
In other words, you are basically admitting that if I were to provided similar sources which CANNOT be viewed on the Internet, that neither you or anyone else would be able to remove what I added immediately? Duhman0009 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That is correct, well, almost: i am not "admitting" that, i'm stating it (except that it's not being "able" as you say, but rather "allowed", or "permitted". Would you please go and read the rules?) The trouble is that by now i hardly trust you, so if you were to add something controversial, yet sourcing it, i'd probably go get some help from some folks who are much more talented and knowledgeable than i, to look at your case. If you play foul, you will be rewarded accordingly. --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
See, now because of your threats, you gave me an idea on how to entertain myself. I think I'll call this game "Am I bluffing". I'll add one thing at the time to this article with a source and you and your friends could look it up to see if it's true. Now when will I add one which is false? Only I know :P. Hell, I'll even go one stop above and won't even put start anytime soon, so the first thing will pop-up when you lease expect it. Let the games begin Duhman0009 (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Duh, are you familiar with the Yiddish word for "donkey"? FiveRings (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You known, disguising an insult still falls under the WP:CIV rule. I'm not insulted that you called me an ass, I'm insulted because you don't have the balls to say the word ass >_> Duhman0009 (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was admiring your focus and tenacity. (And clearly you *don't* know the Yiddish word for donkey). You have a personal issue with squat toilets. Ok, fine. I won't fault you for using the word "kneeling" when you meant "squatting" - your knees are involved, and that's what Freud called a 'versprechen'. I WILL fault you for not knowing what a repetitive motion injury is. This is something you get from working on an assembly line for eight hours a day, not something you get from squatting to pee. At this point, your argument became absurd. And your responses now are more absurd. If you want to point out that people with arthritis and Euler-Danlos syndrome may have trouble using squat toilets, go for it. I'll even give you a cite - http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/41/12/1457.pdf . But these threats are only making you look foolish. FiveRings (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
What the christ is the Yiddish word for donkey, then? 76.200.153.78 (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)