Talk:Feces/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Feces. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Prevailing opinion

The prevailing opinion seems to be to include the photograph of human feces (even if you remove the alleged voting irregularities.) However, those who opposed the image in the past are now placing the image at the bottom of the page and reducing the size to a thumbnail. Two new issues arise: (1) SIZE of photo and (2) PLACEMENT of photo. NOTE: The following poll is NOT to debate inclusion of the photo. For that debate, SCROLL DOWN. If you do not believe the photo should be included on the page at all, DO NOT VOTE IN THIS POLL. -- LittleRedRidingHood 00:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VOTE HERE ON SIZE. The photo size should be:

Normal size (200px)

LittleRedRidingHood 00:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thumbnailed (100px)

Vote

VOTE HERE ON PLACEMENT. The photo should be at or near the:

Top

LittleRedRidingHood 00:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bottom

Vote

Archived Discussions

This page is too big. I'd like to see the following archived:

discussions on eating poop (non-controversial)
discussions on whether or not people are sock puppets (should be at RFC)
debate on blocking the page in the past (moot)
debate on unblocking the page in the past (moot)
stupid comments like "put the poop in the freezer" (vandalism)

I tried it once but I got a rude message from SlimVirgin. Does anybody else have an objection to this? LittleRedRidingHood 00:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let the admins do it. ‡ Jarlaxle 00:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Shall there be photos of feces?

Why is there no picture of fresh feces? I understand there are problems with obtaining legal pictures on other Wikipedia pages but obtaining a picture of fresh feces is probably one of the easiest things.

The old photo before was small, petrified, and not characteristic of human feces. I have added a new photo which is more representative of a typical stool. Eyeon 05:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigh... Is this really necessary? Is there any reason that you have taken a picture of your dung other than for shock value? I'm going to shrink this so it's a little less visually putrid. --Barfooz (talk) 05:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an article on feces. There is no shock value when one looks up 'feces' and finds... gasp... feces. I have also included pigeon and rabbit feces. Eyeon 06:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to step back, take a look at yourself, and realize that you are arguing about posting a picture of a turd. Fine, have your turd. I'm off to better-smelling areas of Wikipedia. --Barfooz (talk) 06:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE PROJECT. THE IMAGE APPEARS OUT OF CONTEXT AND WHILE FAIRLY AMMUSING TO REGULARS WILL NOT BE UNDERSTOOD BY ROOKIES WHO MAY MIS-INTERPRET IT. 62.253.96.40

out of context? where might the proper context be? Eyeon 23:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the image is absolutely disgusting and doesn't deserve to be in the article. However, the caption for it could be incorporated into the article. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Human Feces Photo: Is it necessary?

I've noticed there has been quite a bit of debate over whether there should be a picture of human feces on the this article, and I have a simple question: is such a picture really necessary? --Der Sporkmeister 16:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not. Nothing in Wikipedia is really necessary. Least of all necessary is your question, which you could have avoided asking, if you had actually read the debate. Eyeon 16:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I figured I'd get the "if you actually read the debate" response. I was, as you can clearly see, too lazy to read all of it. --Der Sporkmeister 16:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Or any of it. Why are you here? Eyeon 16:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He's here because it's a free encyclopedia. --DanielCD 17:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One point for DanielCD. --Der Sporkmeister 17:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What does the photo of human poop illustrate?

Let's not make this a poll. Given that there are some negatives in inlining the picture of human feces, what is it supposed to illustrate? We can be comfortable in the assumption that once the matter is described, every reader of Wikipedia can consult some of the thousands of examples they produce in their lifetime. So what is the point (besides proving a point) being served by including the image inline? Demi ^T/_C 00:22, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

The point, obviously, is to troll Wikipedia by inserting offensive images into articles. Just as we don't have any pornographic photos on pornography, we need not have any fecal photos on feces. The argument that if you're searching for something you should expect photos of it is pure rhetorical nonsense. If you're searching for something in an encyclopedia, you should expect an encyclopedia article about the topic you sought, not photos of the topic you sought: Wikipedia is not a photo album. Including photos in articles is a nice bonus, where the photos are relevant and illustrative. Including photos, however, is neither a necessity nor an excuse. Most reasonable people do not expect to find offensive and repulsive photographs in encyclopedia articles, even if the photos are related to the topic. Nohat 07:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The picture is supposed to illustrate a normal human turd, and it does so quite well. I would challenge anyone to find a photo that better illustrates human feces. Eyeon 06:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The argument is a tautology. I'm asking what editorial purpose is served, in light of the above. Demi ^T/_C 06:28, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

If someone defecated and feared that their poop was abnormal because the distal end had small round harder bits, or freak out because it was glistening with mucus, then referencing this image would reassure them that their poop is normal. A doctor's visit is avoided, money is saved. Photographs illustrate and add information, they are not just a 'nice bonus'. But what if the photo should suggest a real problem needing urgent medical attention? The illustration should be inline, and not linked, because to banish the image from the main page stigmatizes the subject matter. People are less likely to seek medical attention for taboo problems. Eyeon 06:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but this doesn't even make sense. Human feces vary enormously in appearance--indeed, showing this picture as "normal" is a disservice from this perspective (if we are to take it seriously). Demi ^T/_C 05:56, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

- Humans themselves vary enormously in appearance. Dogs vary, cheeseburgers vary. If we eliminate photographs from Wikipedia because of "enormous variation", then Wikipedia would be quite bare. The proper response is to add MORE information - not to purge it. Eyeon 06:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - You're all over the place. I asked you, in light of the above, what purpose the photograph served. You said it was emblematic of normal feces and someone wanting to identify abnormal feces could use it for that purpose. But it is useless for that purpose, as you apparently agree since you have stopped talking about that and started talking about cheeseburgers, for no apparent reason. Demi ^T/_C 07:58, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

- - Do not mischaracterize my argument; 'normal' does not mean 'emblematic'. To illustrate: If you had a four inch erection, it would still be considered 'normal', and a photo of it at penis would not be inappropriate. But to refer to it as 'emblematic' would be wrong, when most other penises are significantly larger. It would be appropriate in the article to add information about larger penises, or, to find a more representative example. It would NOT be appropriate to summarily delete the photo. In reference to cheeseburgers, I was illustrating how inappropriate it would be to remove all pictures where variation is at issue. I am not 'talking about cheeseburgers'. I am still on topic, and I am making an analogy to illustrate how weak your argument is. Eyeon 08:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images are a 'nice bonus' on real life 'printed' encyclopedias, where they have limited space. This is the internets, the cost of carrying an image is considerably less. We can have it, and it further illustrates the article.24.232.58.144 11:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't tell me, let me guess. We are having a picture of faeces in case anyone doesn't know what it looks like? This is the argument used on other pages where in the name of "anti-censorship" other trolls have placed images they know will offend some readers. The argument is, to coin a phrase, shit. So is the one about "if you put faeces in the search box, you'll expect to see a picture of a turd". No, you would not. Unless you were acquainted with the kind of childish prick who delights in trying to create Pornopedia. Ultimately, any article that has the slightest possibility of carrying prurient material will do so, and WP will be entirely unuseable by much of its target readership. Is that really what we want?Grace Note 06:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grace note, you have presented a straw man argument and then knocked it down. Not a useful contribution. Instead of 'letting you guess', how about you actually read the discussion and respond to the honest arguments actually presented? Eyeon 06:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, did you think you actually did present an argument? I answered the risible puffery you thought passed as one. I was guessing your next one and answered that one too. I also correctly characterised what kind of editor you are and posed a question that should bring a flush of shame to your face. Jeez, man, I call that a truly useful contribution. What more could you ask? Grace Note 04:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since you asked, I would ask that you respect Wikipedia convention and refrain from ad hominem attacks that do not advance the discussion, and only serve to distract readers from the valid arguments presented. Eyeon 04:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You present a valid argument and I'll do what you ask. Deal? Grace Note 08:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I won't cater to your vanity by restating arguments. Scroll up and read them. Eyeon 08:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eyeon's behavior

Since we haven't really got a substantive reason to include this photo, I am reinstating the following diffs: [1] [2] [3] [4]. They were removed from this talk page by Eyeon: [5]. I think it's relevant to this discussion whether this photograph is a legitimate attempt to improve the article or not. Demi ^T/_C 08:05, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

I concede that I have made many contributions on Wikipedia, many on controversial topics. None of those edits are relevant to the valid arguments presented here (by me, and by others) in favor of including the poop pic. If you scroll down to the poll, you will see that so far, ~~sixteen~~ ~~eighteen~~ twenty-five people agree that the article should include the photo (either linked or inline) and ~~only one~~ still only one person shares your view that it should be removed. No wonder you would try to distract the discussion with an ad hominem attack. Eyeon 09:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand what an ad hominem attack is--I suggest you read the article to which you keep linking. Second, I haven't voted in the poll, and likely others haven't either, because polls are evil; it's much better to try to come to a consensus through discussion, which I have been attempting to do. Third, you don't seem to be able to count: there are ten support votes for inlining the image, of which one is an anon whose only contributions are to this talk page [6] and one which was forged by you [7], there are nine votes opposing inlining the image and one opposing its inclusion at all. Since GraceNote and I oppose inlining the picture, there is more support for that option than the other. Demi ^T/_C 16:30, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Check the numbers again; at the moment, most people support poop on main page, even when you discount newbies, double voters, etc. Eyeon 04:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In general I assume good faith and hold myself to the WP:1RR, but since you have repeatedly edited this discussion to make it hard for someone else to follow, to retitle or remove uncomplimentary sections and even to forge votes, I would be a pillock to keep doing so. Assuming good faith isn't the same as ignoring bad faith. Demi ^T/_C

My edits to this discussion have made the options clearer to new participants, and removed vandalism and personal attacks on me. If you disagree, identify the specific "bad faith edits" rather than slur my name. I have addressed the 'forgery' issue at the bottom of the page. Eyeon 04:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I recently voted for keeping on the VFD for Images of feces using the argument below, but I have not made up my mind about how I want to vote on this issue, or even if I am going to vote. For Eyeon to add my vote like this was duplicitous. To be honest, I am very pissed off that Eyeon would forge my vote. If this is consistent with other actions of his on the Wikipedia he should be RFC'd, and if someone does, I will add this evidence to the RFC.

The analysis of scat is an important part of field biology. BlankVerse ∅ 14:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal opinion: Although I think that there should be several photo examples of various types of feces in the article, I really don't give a shit whether the photo of human excrement is in the article or not. On the other hand, I do not understand why the No-photo contingent is so worked up about not having the photo. So that explains why I probably will not vote. BlankVerse ∅ 16:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I misinterpreted your intention. I was overzealous when I saw that the poll was not being taken as a strict vote. Android voted twice, Demi removed a newbie's vote from the tally, others altered the ballot to add new options, and the ballot devolved generally into debate. I went too far with that edit and I apologize. Eyeon 04:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Votes are evil. Much better just to revert Eyeon until he gets bored of trying to insert a picture of an enormous turd into the page. Grace Note 05:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was the anti-poop contingent that insisted on a vote, then dismissed the results when it didn't go their way. And now, we hear them actually PROPOSING a revert war, favoring brute force when they realize the force of their arguments is not enough to sway public opinion. Eyeon 13:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revert wars are evil, whereas a survey may be the best way to gauge community consensus on an issue. In this case, there is consensus for having several photos of animal feces, but there is no consensus for the photo of the human feces. Instead of the revert war, you should start an WP:RFC on Eyeon's behavior, AND ask for another page protection for the feces article. BlankVerse ∅ 08:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFCs are evil -- serving more as red rags to shitstirrers than as means actually to resolve problems -- and surveys are rarely used to "gauge consensus". They are generally a means for a majority to try to enforce its will on a minority. Reversion is the best way to deal with trolls. Eyeon will tire of it and move on to other pastures with easier targets. Sooner or later he will find someone with nothing better to do than take him to arbitration and have to get himself a new username. Grace Note 00:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not at all clear to me that the turd is "enormous". How can you determine the turd's relative size simply by looking at it on the internet? --Niglet 07:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's true, "Niglet". It's either very thin or very long. I have to confess that I took Eyeon at his word that it was a turd of the usual diameter. Grace Note 00:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have digitally reduced the length of the turd by about 30%. But somehow, I don't think this will mollify the censors. Eyeon 13:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anymore whether it's necessary or not, because you've been had. What has happened here is that well-meaning people who will defend the image by its relevancy (who are absolutely correct) have been deliberately pitted against well-meaning people who will attack the image because it was added in order to cause trouble (who are also absolutely correct). If you check out User:Eyeon's contribs, he's currently busy trying to add fuel to the fire by linking from Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Current surveys, while laughing all the way to the metaphorical bank and firing up a similar scam with a shock image at penis removal. silsor 23:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Warning: extremely graphic image at Penis removal (just in case it weren't obvious). AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 23:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

You know, in terms of the taboo argument, I have not, at any point, advocated the removal of these images entirely from the Wikipedia. I have, however, advocated not inlining the images. And, yes, it is time to bring up a WP:RFC against User:Eyeon for behavior such as deliberately stirring up trouble and using sockpuppets in votes, and denying the existance of his sockpuppets when confronted with the issue. Finally, I have already removed User:Eyeon's attempt to stir up more trouble by removing his contributions to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Current surveys Samboy 01:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your deleting of Eyeon's contributions at RFC and CS were the wrong thing to do. You should want more reasonable people to enter into this discussion. With more people coming here, it would also make that many more people aware of his recent behavior so that when an RFC is filed on his actions, you will get plenty of support. I won't revert you, but I will suggest you restore those notices at RFC and CS. BlankVerse ∅ 14:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no sockpuppets, see elsewhere for more on that crap. I posted notices at Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Current surveys to bring a fresh perspective and help us reach a consensus. Samboy deleted these postings because he is not interested in others' opinions. And it's much easier for him to slur my edits, and to help SlimVirgin block a majority opinion, if there are fewer witnesses. Eyeon 23:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shall the human feces photo be linked (separate page) or inline (main page)?

Wikipedia policy supports not including shocking images in articles. Images of feces evoke a universal disgust response and these images are only being included here for their shock value. The images will be available on a separate page. Nohat

I agree that the image should be linked, not included in the article itself as an inline image. Samboy 20:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are three images. Should all be censored? Eyeon 20:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If they were censored they would have been removed from Wikipedia. They were not. They were just moved to a different page. That is not censorship. Nohat 20:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Banishing the image from the main page stigmatizes the subject matter. People are less likely to seek medical attention for taboo problems. Eyeon 09:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy supports not including shocking images in articles. - that is in fact untrue. Dan100 12:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing shocking about feces in an article about feces. In an article about strawberry shortcake, well, that would be a shock. And even if a few people are shocked, must we remove all photos of legs because some people find an exposed woman's leg shocking? Eyeon 23:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

there's no article yet on strawberry shortcake? that's a shame. Eyeon 05:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Editors should remember the 3rr

I see some 3rr violations:

User:Eyeon: 1 2 3 4

User:Nohat: 1 2 3 4

I'm asking both parties to not revert this page again; otherwise I'll have to ask for both of you to have a mandated 24-hour cooling-off period. Samboy 00:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism does not count toward the 3RR. Modifying the article against current consensus constitutes vandalism. Nohat 00:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nohat has a special rule for himself, apparently. I count 6 now. And there was no consensus then, or now - the poll is dead even. Eyeon 05:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you read the policy: Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. It says This doesn't apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism. Nohat 00:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Funny, what you were reverting is in no way vandalism. --SPUI (talk) 00:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which, of course, depends on the definition of simple vandalism. I do not know if adding an offensive image counts as simple vandalism. Next time, let other editors do the reverting too. (And since 3RR is a maximum 24hr block, I can choose to not block you...) --cesarb 00:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, sorry about the {{vprotected}}. I had forgotten the name of the correct template. --cesarb 00:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In many places, images of human waste are treated the same as pornography, and including pornography in Wikipedia articles is simple vandalism. Nohat 07:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not always; see for instance Penis, Clitoris and (of course) Autofellatio. When it's relevant to the article, including pornography might be a legitimate edit (but will always be controversial). Pictures of feces in an article about feces aren't obvious simple vandalism. --cesarb 12:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. This is why I set up a poll which people didn't even take seriously. When linking instead of inlining images in Wikipedia, stools in Feces should be treated the same as genetalia in Penis, Clitoris, and Autofellatio. I think this is an issue where we should best use procedure correctly to show consensus. And, yes, I feel the human stool picture doesn't belong here. Samboy 20:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Samboy decides that people aren't taking his poll seriously once the voting is against him. Eyeon 05:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that; I only said it's not simple vandalism to add that kind of picture to that kind of article, since it's debatable whether or not they are allowed. I avoided even going near the subject of whether or not they are allowed, and whether or not they should be inline. --cesarb 21:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't make myself clear enough. I feel that the image of a human stool should be treated the same as images of genetalia in the sense that we should come up with some kind of consensus when deciding whether to keep or remove the image. In the initial stages of an edit conflict, having multiple editors revert to version A of a page while one editor (and sockpuppets) reverts to version B of the page pretty strongly shows consensus. I still think it is a good idea to come up with consensus via a poll, though. It this still isn't clear, send me a private email and I'll explain further. Samboy 21:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UT

You should agree with yourself on what constitutes a consensus before deciding if the criteria have been met. And perhaps state your definition. Otherwise, it will look like you are fudging your interpretaion of the poll's results to support your own edits. Eyeon 05:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nohat, while I share your frustration, this is a case of borderline vandalism, not simple vandalism, and therefore you cannot invoke that exception to the policy. Please stick to your three reverts. If more are necessary, just send me a message and I'll do it. — Chameleon 12:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still feel my original series of reverts were justified—the bulk of Eyeon's edits at that point had merely been adding this photo to lots of articles—I reverted them everywhere. It seemed to me that adding pictures of shit to Wikipedia articles is on its face the most archetypal kind of image vandalism, akin to adding pornographic photos to articles. However, once the admissability of the reverts was called into question by users other than Eyeon, I ceased my reverts. It's quite obvious that Eyeon is a classic troll and should be dealt with accordingly. Unfortunately, we have taken his bait and he is probably sitting at home masturbating to all the furor he has incited. This will be my last comment on the matter. I'll let the rest of the community sort this one out.Nohat 19:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Votes against the poll itself

This poll smells bad. --cesarb 21:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: This vote was changed from its original context. See [8] for the real vote. Nowhere I said my vote was against the poll itself, and I object to it being included here. --cesarb 12:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how my edit changed the meaning of your vote. If you think it did, then what WAS your meaning? Eyeon 14:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was a "joke vote". Joke votes do not have any meaning. It was not a vote against the poll itself. Your change added meaning where previously there was none. --cesarb 00:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's clear that this poll is becoming meaningless if people are going to tamper with it. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 17:54, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
The poll was restructured after people started voting, and without even informing the ones who already voted. I believe this renders the whole poll invalid. --cesarb 12:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The poll was not 'restructured'; headings were changed for layout and clarity reasons. Eyeon 23:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Forged poll." - MARMOT 22:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sure, MARMOT. Whatever dude. Are you the same MARMOT that said the anus photo "promotes sodomy?" 68.97.208.123 19:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uncategorised votes

What is this poll about again?--Clawed 13:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Who here has never seen a human feces? If this were a medicial encyclopedia then photos of abnormal or pathological feces might be useful, but this is not a medical encyclopedia. Photos of animal feces should be in the articles on the animals. Feces, sometimes called "scat", are in important sign of animal life that are studied by naturalists and hunters. So my vote is no to human feces photos on any page, yes to animal feces photos on their respective pages. -Willmcw 23:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Shall we expand upon the photos?

Where's the steaming pile of horse manure picture? BlankVerse ∅ 11:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's now posted under manure. Eyeon 15:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's good to see the large pile of steaming horse manure added to the manure article, but I was thinking more on the lines of the individual horse plops that I remembered maneuvering around (and occasionally stepping in) during parades when I was in the school marching band. It would be nice to find a good picture of that, plus an appropriate picture to add to the cow pie article. (and now if I could only remember where I saw the picture of the dolphin pooping in a dolphinarium...) BlankVerse ∅ 10:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Such a contribution would be welcome. Don't forget to vote in the poll above. 70.177.90.39 10:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is the human poop "normal", and discussion on taboos

But isn't there a chance someone worried about the appearance of their feces would come here to find a picture of "normal" human feces? I think ideally we should have the full gamut of types of human feces available, at the very least behind disclaimers. This is going to require a lot of work, but I think that we should see this as a work in progress, and that having that information available should at least be our long-term goal. Jarvik 02:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should hope someone worried about the appearance of their feces would a) have had a normal-looking BM sometime in their lives to make a comparison to; and b) speak with a medical professional rather than consult an online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool for medical diagnosis. Besides, as you alluded to yourself, what constitutes a "normal" poop? Certainly not the image in question – that thing is huge. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 03:11, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: I have since reduced the length of the poop by about 30%. Eyeon 15:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should hope that everyone brush their teeth and not beat their children, but what we hope is not what is. Sometimes the taboo against poop is so great that people rarely look at their own feces. The argument that the poop may not be normal is a pointless one. Shall we remove all photographs from Wikipedia, on the grounds that the subjects are not normal? No. We should add information about diversity. If you truly wish to discuss what is considered normal, then let's do so. The image is quite representative: it shows the normal mucus coating, the typical small pieces of dessicated and impacted feces on the distal end, the normal cylindrical shape from a non-strained defecation, normal medium brown color from a typical balanced diet, typical water content and a healthy bulk from good fiber intake. Size indeed varies, but this example is within norms. If you have a photo that you believe is better representative, you are encouraged to submit it. Eyeon 04:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't a feces taboo mean that one wouldn't even look up articles on feces, much less want to look at pictures of it? I would think a descriptive textual description would more benefit people who have some sort of poop-phobia. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 04:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

You're would/could/shoulding again. How much poop could a poop-phobe scope if the poop-phobe hoped no scoop? But on your suggestion, I am adding a textual description to the article. Eyeon 05:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's no more "would/could/shoulding" than the original objection to my reasoning. I'll rephrase, since you seem to be objecting to semantics rather than the actual argument: Someone who comes from a culture that views feces as taboo is unlikely to intentionally search for an article on feces, and is likely to be repulsed by a photo of feces, making the article less useful to such a person. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 05:36, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Someone who comes from such a repressive culture is MORE likely to turn to the Internet when searching for this kind of information, NOT less, because it is unavailable elsewhere. You would deny them Wikipedia as a resource for this, why? Eyeon 05:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to imagine the guy who has a taboo on looking at his own shit but none on looking at other people's. Nah. Another spurious argument hits the pan. Grace Note 08:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you have mischaracterized and dismissed a valid argument. The Internet adds a feeling of anonymity that depersonalizes many inquiries. Therefore, people feel more free to search out information on taboo subjects. Eyeon 09:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The issue you keep ignoring is that anyone can look at their own stools. The picture provides no information that isn't readily available to any human being. Yes, if aliens from Alpha Centauri were reading the Wikipedia, it would be a different story. Samboy 23:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll address that argument. The test of a valid argument is: Can it be applied consistently? Let's see: Anyone can look at their own hand, shall we remove the picture of a hand? Anyone can look at the moon, shall we remove the picture of a moon? Since those pictures, too, provide 'no information readily available to any human being'...shall we remove them too? Is this really a valid argument? No. Eyeon 03:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice piece of weaselling, dude, but the argument was yours: that some people who have a taboo on looking at turds might benefit from seeing yours. This is comprehensively defeated by pointing out the absurdity of suggesting that a person has a taboo on looking at their own shit and not on looking at yours. No one is, I think, suggesting that anyone has a taboo on looking at the moon. The photo on that page does not claim to be informative, just illustrative. Grace Note 05:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are several different arguments on this page. It is not weaselling to address Samboy's argument directly. The taboo argument was raised separately, and it was dealt with separately. Eyeon 14:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the pictures on Moon are pictures that look far better than anything I can see with my eyes. And, yes, my vision is better than 20/20. As for taboos, they are hard to deal with since each person has their own set of taboos; it is one of the biggest flame fests here since it is an emotionally charged issue with no objectively correct answer. I think the ultimate solution for taboos is to change the mediawiki software to allow images to have different flags on them, which will allow some users to, for example, turn off pictures of nudity or torture if they want to. Samboy 06:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a separate effort underway on Wikipedia to include exactly this kind of self-censorship feature, and I would encourage the anti-poop crowd to lend their support over there. Eyeon 14:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please address the 'hand' example. Eyeon 14:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note already did. Samboy 23:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, he didn't, but I'm no longer interested in discussing it with you. You asked for a poll, so you got a poll. You didn't like the results so you try to discredit the poll. Now you engage in a revert war with a newbie and call him a sockpuppet. Shame on you. You're not interested in what other people think. Eyeon 23:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious that you are more interested in stirring up trouble than in contributing to the Wikipedia. You know and I know that Fecologist is your sockpuppet, as is Niglet, and I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with your lies. Samboy 23:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have asked admins to investigate whether or not I use sockpuppets. They have my phone number, and I'm trying to contact the others. Eyeon 23:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since a simple check by someone who can see IPs would prove whether or not they're sockpuppets, which so far as I can tell hasn't been done yet, why don't we refrain from name-calling until the solid evidence is in. --Laura Scudder | Talk 02:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No IP check is being performed. SlimVirgin has said she would ignore the results of an IP check, and she has said she will unilaterally ban me from editing this article for being 'disruptive'. Please see the bottom of the page for her OWN words. I am being denied due process. Eyeon 11:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's official. I have been formally refused an IP check, because asking for one means I probably set up sockpuppets servers all over the world to make an IP check come up negative. In other words, since I said I'm innocent, it's evidence that I'm guilty. Eyeon 03:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you are referring to my email on the mailing list, then you should no that I am not a developer and so have no authority to either grant or refuse an IP check (formally or not). I was merely pointing out that that IP checks are not the be all and end all of sockpuppet evidence. For example two accounts may very well be at the same address and not be sockpuppets because of ISP proxy servers. Likewise it's a piece of cake for the same person to set up two accounts with different IP's using two different dial up ISPs. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 05:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dave, who apparently has the authority, officially turned down the request. Eyeon 05:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Coprophagia, or Why Eating Poop Is Not Always Bad

"re: Coprophagia is the extremely hazardous practice of eating feces." If the person who wrote that had read the Coprophagia article, they would have found out that, for example, "Rabbits, cavies and related species have a digestive system adapted for coprophagia." The line needs to be qualified, or deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 12:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When the page is unprotected, that line could be qualified as follows: Coprophagia is the practice of eating feces; however, some animals with a high-fiber/low-protein diet (such as rabbits) eat their own feces as a normal part of metabolism. Plant matter the animal consumes is digested in two passes, with the product of the first pass re-ingested directly from the anus. After the material is re-digested, the actual waste that remains is excreted and left alone. Jeeves 21:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have unprotected it, go on with that edit. --cesarb 22:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page protected

I've blocked Eyeon and his sockpuppet for a 3RR violation, but I've also protected the page in case more sockpuppets arrive. If any regular editor wants to edit, drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll unprotect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) Bold text

I have no sockpuppets. I asked you to run an IP check and investigate but you refused. I expect niglet and fecologist are going to be hugely pissed off that you disabled their accounts. I had to get another admin to look into it and un-block me. Furthermore, it is outrageous that you would abuse your adminship to lock up and control the content of the article. I am an editor in good standing. I would like to edit. I am formally requesting you unprotect the page so I may contribute. Eyeon 23:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People, please read WP:AN/3RR#User:Eyeon_and_User:70.177.90.39 Samboy 01:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is my IP address. When I forget to log in, my edits get stamped with that. When I go back to sign with my Eyeon ID, I get accused of vote fraud. Eyeon 02:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The other admin unblocked you because the autoblock had extended your block beyond the 24 hours. This was a technical glitch, triggered by you trying to edit, or perhaps just reading pages, during the block. No admin unblocked you during the block period.

No, I was unblocked and editing before the original 24 hour block expired. Check it out. Eyeon 23:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for page protection, I won't unprotect it at your request, but I'll do so if any other regular editor wants to edit. Anyone wanting it unprotected should leave a note on my talk page; if I'm not around, you can approach another admin, or make a request on Wikipedia:Requests for protection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Blocking edits to control content is an unconscionable abuse of position as an admin. SlimVirgin is using her adminship to censor a contribution to the article that she doesn't like. She won't let others edit, and she zapped two newbies. Admins are not supposed to use their authority to interfere in content disputes. This behavior is a hell of a lot more offensive than any photo. Eyeon 00:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you are encouraged to file an RfC on her; there is a special place on WP:RfC for complaints about administrator abuse. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course, once User:Eyeon tries filing a RFC, I am sure a number of editors will come to his defence. Any such attempt will just make User:Eyeon look worse. Samboy 01:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of looking bad. I'm gathering evidence and will file an RfC. Eyeon 01:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest walking down the street with a big sign saying "Kick me" would probably be less time-consuming and will gain you the same satisfaction. Grace Note 04:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New issues since page protection

I thought wikipedia works by consensus; from the vote here [9], 18 agree to have the human shit up, 11 object. Since the majorty should go, what is all the big fuss? And it is a clear-cut, properly structured vote. I'm here to give opinions. Mr Tan 16:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you and it's time for this shit to stop (or restart, rather), however I don't think this would have been nearly as controversial as it was had it not been for the original choice of picture. Even the edited version of what was chosen was rather graphic, unnecessarily so IMHO. I don't care enough to prevent that picture from being used and ultimately I'm not even offended, but perhaps a different photo would be a good compromise. After all, we all know there's a whole lot of shit out there. StopTheFiling 17:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Less 'graphic' means less detail, less informative, less useful, and less reason to have the photo in the article. Eyeon 21:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that poll is bogus. If you look at its history, you will see its structure has changed more than once during the vote (and if I recall correctly it started already populated with some votes from a previous poll with a different structure). I recall also reading complaints of vote alteration on a related VfD, so it wouldn't surprise me if that poll was also rigged. --cesarb 22:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The poll is valid. It was never populated by votes from any previous poll. The entire history of the poll is available for viewing on the History page. Don't try to smear others' opinions just because you disagree with them. I've asked you before to explain how you think my editing a header changed the meaning of your vote, and you haven't responded. Eyeon 22:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Step back, guys. This has been mentioned before, but I feel it's important to remind all involved to step back from the discussion for the moment and examine themselves. You are, and have been for some time, quite literally talking shit. --Psyk0 00:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about we ask SlimVirgin to 'step back' and let the article be edited to reflect the prevailing opinion? Eyeon 00:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Consider that while the majority of the internet probably have no problem with seeing images of feces (or pornography, or whatever), there is a minority that do. Is it particularly validating to our existences to see the images? Do we feel any better becuase of it? Not really. Contrariwise, the people who are offended by such images are likely VERY offended by it. You can't balance out a majority's apathy with a minority's horror in this case. Surely it's our duty to protect those who might be offended from things they don't want to see, while providing an oppurtunity for those that DO want to see that is off the main page? --Psyk0 14:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The majority is not 'apathetic'. Their votes and opinions fill this page. And Wikipedia policy is NOT to strip content to protect offended minorities. [10] If it were, goodbye vagina, goodbye religion, goodbye Hitler. Eyeon 16:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. If you've really nothing better to do than argue adamantly about a picture of poo, knock yourself out. --Psyk0 19:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Consensus query

User:Eyeon has been kicking up a fuss elsewhere about this page being protected. Can the editors on this page, other than Eyeon, let me know whether there's a consensus to start editing again? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The important point here is that there is not a consensus to keep the image out of the article. Therefore, I would appreciate if you could be kind enough to unprotect the article and/or reinstate the disputed image. Thank you. Eric B. and Rakim 21:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has already received a request to unprotect from User:SPUI and she has ignored it, despite her earlier promise to unprotect it when any 'regular' editor asked. Eyeon 21:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(I believe I do not count as an editor on this page) The protection is to avoid a revert war; I'm sure if the page is unprotected the revert war between Eyeon and other users will restart. That's a good enough reason to keep the page protected. (FYI: I was the one who did the first protection, and unprotected later on the request of an editor wanting to add information to the article. The (implied) request for unprotection is above.) --cesarb 22:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No query nece ssary

Another admin has removed the page protection. Eyeon 22:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should note that this is only until any revert war restarts, in which case the page should be reprotected. smoddy 22:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alternate image

File:Longpooart.jpg

After artification.

How about this instead. Eyeon 01:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it might be a little less disturbing to some people. --Der Sporkmeister 01:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kinda silly. LittleRedRidingHood 20:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is rediculous. If the pic shouldn't be shown, it shouldn't be shown. Showing a crappier version of the crap is definitely unencyclopedic. --Phroziac (talk) 20:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How long is this going to go on?

How long is this revert war going to go on? How many times must this article be protected before it ends? This needs to stop. --Der Sporkmeister 01:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's make your question multiple choice. Choose one response:

(a) The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind.

(b) Thank you, Admiral Stockdale. (GRIDLOCK!)

(c) Eleven days long and four times protected. Eyeon 01:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(d) Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey. Eyeon 02:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replacing with text box

{{linkimage|Human_feces.jpg|Here is a picture of something so horrible that the editors have decided that you need to be fully warned of the shocking shockness within. Careful! It's icky!}}

How about a neat little text box. Eyeon 04:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why hide poo? LittleRedRidingHood 20:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)