Talk:Urination/Archive 1

Archive 1

Drips?

Might be an idea to include something about post-urination drips and drops in the pants.

Lol no. 98.238.188.211 (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Micturation not unrination?

A physician who is also an amateur grammarian told me that urination is the process of producing urine. The process of disposing of it through the urethra is micturation. Any commenents on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.169.149 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 4 July 2007

I really don't think so. Micturition includes the process by which fluid from the nephrons travels to the bladder. A3camero (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC) (3B Biomedical Sciences at University of Waterloo)

Doctors can be wrong, and frequently are. Even if he's right, changing the article would only produce confusion, would obscure knowledge instead of sharing it.

What I find really compelling, however, is that anyone would identify himself as an "amateur grammarian".

--63.25.236.17 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Male urination while having an erection?

I had an argument over this at school (I say a male can do so) and came to Wikipedia to see if it's possible. I don't know, maybe I missed something, but I can't find anything on this page. I think something should be provided, but it would need evidence to support it and I don't know where to look - and I've been looking. So maybe someone could do that, I don't know. Just thought I'd suggest it. - Esoteric18 17/03/07

Depends just how big an erection. When the sponge tissue in the penis becomes engorged, it flips a valve in the urethra so that semen can't get into the upper urinary tract.. but as the boner subsides, urination becomes possible again, although it often starts to trickle or spurt intermittently.

I've urinated with an erection before. Its easy, and typically causes you to lose your boner. DurotarLord 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

How about the morning chub pee? Sallicio (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

As DurotarLord stated above, there is a switch that flips, but it's not when you get a "boner". The switch, being the internal urethral sphincter, is not closed by erection as stated but rather ejaculation. If you can pee and ejaculate at the same time then send me a message, we'll publish and get famous (maybe not too famous).Orlandoturner (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A male can do so... I've had urination while having erection many times. I like the picture of the penis on Nandusuka's page. Mine is bigger and thicker, uncut as well. it is easily possible Anonymuos of washington —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.39.27 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Female urination while standing

I think disgusting thinks takes place in wikipedia, but i think that part "female urination while standing" is digusting with no real meaning. I've never read some manual like that and i think that is absolutely nonsence to say "turn vagina that and that way..." this is more than disgusting. --85.70.245.86 22:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (kaja.running.cz)

How is this "disgusting?" You do know words like penis, labia, and vagina are perfectly acceptable and proper terms for body parts. If this offends you then just stop logging on, because women can pee standing up if they're so inclined and they know how... Orbframe 01:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I can pee standing up and I have friends who can do it and there's nothing wrong with it! Just stop whining about it. You can't avoid the truth! -Unknown

Actually, I found this piece of the article very helpful and practical, and probably wouldn't have thought of it if I had not read it here on wikipedia. Do not assume that because a single individual isn't mature enough to handle an idea like this that it's not an acceptable idea. --Anonymous

Personally, while I think they can, I think the key point would be that women cannot direct their flow of urination as well as men can, which is why they do it sitting down. It's confusing why this is being argued about so much. It's common sense, men have a tube they can aim, and a smaller opening.

I never even knew it was possible for women to pee standing. It's amazing. -Someone

• That's not the point. This is an article that should be treated professionally, not as some magazine article or something open for opinionated discussion. Please use the talk page for the article itself, not the topic it upholds. Thanks. Colonel Marksman 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I still remember this one chick i knew who could pee standing up. we were all 10, and when i went to go pee in the woods, she followed me, picked a spot by a tree, unzipped her jeans and peed onto it. I was like "WHAT THE FLYING BUCKETS OF POO?!" She had mad skills though. Not only could she pee standing, but she could do it with nothing other than her jeans zipper unzipped, and she was only 10! it was weird though... DurotarLord 19:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Some younger girls have urine streams that go more forward and would make this easier. Sometimes they struggle with getting the correct position on the toilet to get their stream to go down in instead of going up over the seat or through the open between the seat and bowl resulting in mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.242.74 (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed small problems

I think this article need a re-write. I fixed the capitalization, and some spelling. Adam850 04:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture of female urinating

Old (previous) discussion

I think it would be fine to have a picture of a female urinating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.161.134 (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.39.32 (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Two issues here the first is the most obvious does this picture follow Wikipidia Guidelines? This does show female genitals and is a the type of picture shown on urine fetish sites. Wikipidia is not a porn site. The second issue is based on the questionable assumption that this type of picture is ok. If you are going to show a graphic demonstration of female urination would it not be best to show the most common way females urinate i.e. sitting on the toilet? 02:49, 25 April 2006 (FHU) Of course this image is inappropriate, I've removed it. I'm no prude, but c'mon this is an encyclopedia! If anyone can't see that this image is wrong here then they've been looking at too much porn too long. Furthermore, NO picture is required for this article of any sort - everybody in the world pisses, and knows exactly what it looks like. Who do you think reads this? Aliens? Molluscs? Graham 11:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I do not agree that everybody knows what it looks like. Many people are prudes and have only a vague idea of how people of the opposite gender does it. That said I agree that no picture is required as the article explains it well. 03:33 26 April 2006 (FHU) I think there should be a picture. Not a porny picture but just a picture. Love, Ralph. Why? Please be precise. Graham 10:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Some people might not know how it's done and would like to see it. , Ralph. In order to show it correctly you have to show genitals and for females some form of bottom nudity and that would be porn like if not porn. Maybe a link to a diagram would do? 01:27, 1 May 2006 (FHU) I just want a picture. -Unknown, assumed to be 'Ralph'. Then please avail yourself of the many thousand that are freely available elsewhere on the internet. Wikipedia is not a porn site. Graham 05:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Many of them are not free. 74.135.75.172 17:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Regarding this issue from a random user's point of view, I see no reason why such a picture should be removed. There are plenty of "porn-like" pictures used in Wikipedia, depending on what you want to accuse as being porn. The defecation article shows a cow doing what cows tend to do, the articles about genitalia offer quite explicit imagery of the genitalia, etc. Being as genitalia are used in the act of urinating, it's not inappropriate in itself. Of course, Wikipedia should not use pictures that are specifically used for pornography, as the purpose is not to cater to individuals who are into that sort of thing, but to educate the public. You can easily say that everyone knows exactly what it looks like, but that's not true. I've known many individuals -- gentlemen well in their 60s, even -- who, due to social taboos and what not, hadn't the slightest idea how women urinate. If you are so against having pictures of human genitalia, please remove all articles related to sex and the human anatomy below the waist. Otherwise, try to be a little more mature. While it isn't pornography since it does not include sex, it is fetishism involving sexual organs and fluids in their proximity. That 'people might not know what it looks like' is a pretty ridiculous concept. How hard is it to imagine the direction in which gravity sends liquid? 11:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Not ridiculous at all. Many married couples close the door when performing this act. I was an adult for several years before I knew that urine did not exit from the vigina. That being said a link is still the best course of action 12:52, 3 September (FHU) Ya'll are conservative communists. --Kaizer13 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC) If any picture is to be added to the article, it would be better to use one that shows the medical aspects of urination. A diagram of cut-away genitalia showing the path of the exiting urine, and any muscles involved would be a good diagram toinclude. If there is going to be a picture showing actual urtination in action, in order to minimise it's pornographicness, the picture should ideally show the genital area in action, and under no circumstances show the head or breasts of the urinator. Also, the urinators should not be tattooed, peirced, nor wearing any item(s) of clothing. 194.109.21.3 20:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC) . . . That itself is nudeness. for minimum exposure, you can bleep the base to the middle of the reproductive organs so that 10-yr-olds who come here don't post messages like the above. Picture taken out due to the semi pornographic nature of the picture (genitals thrust out). Also link to porn site taken out in female urination section 69.114.117.103 18:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC) (FHU) it seems another picture of similar nature has been added, should it be removed? Smackdat 05:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC) It will not matter because the pictures will be put back up anyway. If we are to use pictures it should be a set showing different methods such as a male urinating in the urinal, a toilet, a female using the regular method, hover etc. What would be better are good old boring textbook type diagrams. 69.114.117.103 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC) (FHU) got it, i'll look for some diagrams or something to replace the current pictures 156.34.190.108 02:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC) The fact that visual representation of urination has even become an issue here underlines the link between the inflexibility and irrationality of social taboo. Those who are determined to prevent this aspect of human experience from ever being represented by arrangements of coloured dots on a monitor would do well to ask themselves precisely what it is they think they're safeguarding. Surely the suppression of such innocent and fundamental data is incompatible with the notion of encyclopedic learning. The Wikipedia entries for eating, diving, running and walking are all accompanied by pictures. So are the entries for death, nudity, penis and vulva. If Google Image searches on 'urination,' 'peeing,' and related terms retrieve porn sites in larger measure than anatomy or physiology sites, that suggests a systemic social inability to come to terms with this topic more than it suggests the illegitimacy of all attempts to investigate it. I have to withdraw my objection to the pictures being displayed. The pictures are consistent with other Wikipedia pictures shown of genitals. I had not investigated these before making my objections. My objection was since this was a basic human anatomy article not an article about a pornographic subject I wanted diagrams which is consistent with the way printed encyclopedias have handled it. While I still wish that Wikipedia handled human anatomy the diagram way the reality is otherwise. In a articles about a pornographic subjects I do not have these objections. Indeed in the Urolagnia article I used a link to graphic video as a cite. 69.114.117.103 06:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (FHU) Ok. It's ok to post a picture of a female urinating on this article. That makes it fair enough to post a picture of an adolescent girl posing nude on the child pornography article. Colonel Marksman 03:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC) It's more than okay to post a picture of a female urinating on this article! You know why? I'll tell you why: Because this article deserves it. --63.25.236.17 (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Posting that picture for one would be clearly illegal. And that picture would be a misrepresentation of child pornography. A better argument is that the pictures that have appeared here and in other articles primary purpose seems to be to titillate not educate. But as I said above at this point it we are trying to close the barn door after the horses have left 69.114.117.103 09:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU) The reason it would not be 'fair enough' to illustrate an article on child pornography with an actual photo of an underage subject is that any potential model would be deemed, by definition, too young to consent to such posing. This objection clearly does not apply to an adult model who consents to be photographed urinating, any more than it applies to an adult model who consents to be photographed for purposes of illustrating pornography.

I'm going to try and add a photo if I can, how females urinate is not clear and was not initially clear to me, it is not pornographic but even if it were it were it would not matter as it is informative.

If clearly many people are confused on this point then it is not acceptable to allow a foolish taboo to stand in the way. Aether22 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I got this feedback on my wikicommons userpage: have always wanted to know how and where that happens from. thank you. i have tried to look here and other places for this. thank you agian. Aether22 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote "Photo you added to Urination#Female_urination seems a bit much. How does it add to the quality of the article? Recommend you discuss at Talk:Urination. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)"

I believe it is educational, many are unsure of where the urethra/urine opens up and text does not really cut it, some things you just have to see to appreciate. I do not believe the image is obscene or pointedly pornographic not that that would be a reason to remove it.

Even adult females are unsure of just where it happens and as long as it can clarify a mystery I believe it has every reason to stay. I do not believe it is healthy to find the human body offensive and the stream of liquid does not change that much. Aether22 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Image_policy#Rules_of_thumb Do not place shocking or explicit pictures into an article unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for that article. Gerardw (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not shocking, not sure of validity of the term explicit but there was (if you look in the talk history) a request for a long time for precisely such an image. The value this image has far outweighs any objection by people easily offended. Aether22 (talk) 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.130.163 (talk)

I believe that the picture is ok. It's not explicit or pornographic, and it is related to the article. I have found that a lot of people ask: where the urine comes out in a woman?. Also, Wikipedia is NOT censored. Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED--Juancdg (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would add that the image fits with other articles dealing with human sex organs. Penis, testicles, vulva, labia, clit, pubes, mons pubis, etc have photos, even human anus, ejaculation and precum has photos. (or even videos) and that is not the end of the list.

To those who try and remove this image, can you explain why in light of the above you believe this (perhaps highly) informative image should be removed when the others mentioned are clearly there to stay? And when you know very well that Wikipedia is not censored to appease people with certain beliefs/sensibilities? Aether22 (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be more sensible to have a diagram instead? That way we avoid the possibly offensive photograph of the act while preserving the educational value. I agree that there is a benefit to having an image but in the interests of Wikipedia’s reputation a diagram would be less offensive to those that are easily offended.Noosentaal^(talk) 13:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, (sorry to interrupt) I think we should head over to the talk page for Defecation to discuss something simliar. Superjustinbros. (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone can put a picture of a man in the paragraph above it to even things out. It seems like a more even distribution of images... - -N.B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.193.91 (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Took out line in Clothing Designs

Took out the line that stating that some people like to urinate in their clothes often. This is is covered in the link to Urolagnia in the fetishes paragraph 69.114.117.103 05:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (FHU)

Male urination photo

I'm totally amazed that you folks have gone on at length about the pic of the urinating lady, but there's not one comment about the dude wearing a black glove to hold his penis. strange. very, very strange.Buymeapony 03:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Forcing Urine?

Not exactly important but does anyone know what muscles control the forcing of urine through the urethra, as in when someone is trying to urinate quickly, people have the ability to force the urine through,its just i have no idea how this would work through muscle contrac,tions nothing included about this in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hemansx (talk • contribs) 16:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

All i know is, when i try and force it to come out to fast it burns... DurotarLord 19:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's probably the abdominals, next time you force yourself to pee fast, put your hands on your stomach and you'll feel the abs contract. -DancexwithxmexXx

The notion that females are any more dependent than males on "gravity" to assist in urinating or in 'clearing' the urethra suggests that ignorance is no impediment to posting, as Sample #1 at the following link confirms: http://goldenpassions.com/protect/galls/s118192/pee-clips-1/pn.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.123.29 (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand and agree with what you were trying to say, but if you take a second look, you might notice that sentence is all screwed up. The porn clip does not confirm that ignorance is no impediment to posting, which is what the sentence technically says. --63.25.236.17 (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(??) The sentence says exactly what it was meant to say, and it is correct. Anyone who thinks that women need 'gravity' to assist in urination is ignorant of the matter, yet precisely this 'gravity assist' claim is made here. Any clip that shows the claim to be false therefore confirms that the poster's ignorance was no impediment to his having advanced the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.28.30 (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I forgot to warn that the above link is to a 'porn' site; but those who are willing to set aside social taboo for a moment might conceivably learn something about the physiology of female urination that the contributors to this article either don't know or have greatly obscured. I'm not trying to take issue with, or assault, anyone's social sensibilities; I just don't think such sensibilities authorize us to talk nonsense about physiology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.30.23 (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Same story here. This is supposed to be an example of 'female ejaculation,' but the model is obviously peeing... and easily defying gravity (warning: porn link): http://galleries.freecdgirls.com/galleries/gallery/angela-stone-squirting-masturbation.htm

And to furnish the final, conclusive proof: http://grunf13.adultbouncerhost.com/298/AB.htm?pid=35337&ptype=R (Note: whether one calls this 'porn' or not, it is nevertheless a unique kind of anthropological evidence. It is outrageous that relevant evidence should be ruled inadmissible--and people kept in ignorance to such an extent that so-called encyclopedic 'information' resources are reduced to spouting myths--solely because of social taboo.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.204.69 (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

GET RID OF THE MOVIE

the Reindeer urinating is disturbing!!! and there is no need for it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhart54comz (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 June 2007

I liked it (don't ask me why) can show me where it came from? 10:34 Nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.148 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I created it. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How about a movie of a female woman uninating? We got a picture, so why not a movie? Superjustinbros. (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Cow Urination

Do we need a picture of a cow taking a piss to make Wikipedia an excellent encylopedia. No we do not. Pictures should illustrate and add to understanding - every living creature knows what we are talking about when we mention urination - we all urinate. A diagram of how the urinary tract works:ok; cow pissing: irrelevant Kunchan 16:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, everybody needs to watch a cow piss once in a while.

Second of all, I'm not too sure I agree with you when you say, "[E]very living creature knows what we are talking about when we mention urination". I have been asking my cat Steven, for years now, to please only urinate in the litter box. But he simply refuses to listen. It's almost as if he doesn't speak English! Hmmph. I'd like to watch a cow piss on him. --63.25.236.17 (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Male Urination" section.

I'm editing the following paragraph:

When a man is done urinating, he will usually shake and/or gently squeeze his penis to expel the excess urine trapped in the opening of the foreskin or on the glans. This is known as "milking" the urethra. A common trick in expelling excess urine is gently pushing on the area behind the testicles (perineum). [citation needed]

First of all, shaking and squeezing the penis is not either known as "milking the urethra". It's known as "shaking and squeezing the penis".

Secondly, this "common trick" of pushing on the perineum? A BLATANT LIE. Maybe the contributor himself does this. Maybe he knows several other guys who have picked up the technique from him. Maybe one million men in this world of seven billion perform this trick. But it ain't common. It's way too much work for the average man.

My other concern in this section is the idiocy following the above-quoted paragraph. Do we really need to provide detailed instructions on how a clothed man can access his penis? I'd like to axe that whole paragraph, bur considering all the debate this article generates, I'll leave it for somebody else, or at least wait a while. --63.25.236.17 (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There aren't even seven billion people in the world, let alone men. Idiot. 75.68.123.139 (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the history of urination?

Roughly when did urination begin and how did it spread throughout the world to become such a popular bathroom passtime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.116.215 (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

....., it began when God made the urinary track?--24.224.26.233 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Terms

Is the series of terms at the beginning of this article really appropriate? There are a billion slang terms and maybe a few would suffice but I'd prefer if this article was more physiology/anatomy-based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A3camero (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Warm Water Effect

i have experienced that when my hands feel warm water (in the shower, washing dishes, etc), it seems to make me feel a need to urinate. in popular culture, i have seen references to boys inserting the hands of sleeping friends into cups of warm water to get them to urinate in their clothes while sleeping (a south park episode is the only instance that comes to mind right now). i came to this article hoping to see some information on this phenomena. anyone know? Macenblu (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This section of the article is basically silly. Particularly the conclusion: "Nevertheless, it may be helpful for people with paruresis (inability to urinate in the presence of others, such as in a public restroom)." How in the heck is this going to be helpful to someone with this ailment - are they going to take a warm cup of water with them into a public restroom (if they weren't already self-conscious before, this should do it) or perhaps stick their hand in the toilet bowl...In any case, this whole paragraph sounds like original research or the written equivalent of someone talking to hear their head rattle. Of course, this could apply to much of Wiki in general.Jmdeur (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made edits to try to fix that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Females avoiding sitting on the toilet

"Some females prefer to not sit all the way down on a toilet seat, to avoid contact with the toilet. This technique is known as hovering or squatting. These alternative choices are sometimes made because of perceived or actual unsanitary conditions. However, the resultant loss of accuracy often increases the presence of urine on the toilet seat and leads to a positive feedback loop. This approach could even be considered an example of the tragedy of the commons."

This is a very funny example of a positive feedback loop but maybe it's a bit silly? Anyone want to remove it? Dangles1989 (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Should we mention the fact that needing a pee can cause an erection in males?

It's called morning glory and I think you'll find a lot of guys get it. I should know, i shared a dorm with 7 other guys at school. I'm surprised your article doesn't mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.157.15 (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As usual find reliable citing for it put it in 69.114.117.103 (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the morning erection is caused also by a boost in testosterone that is produced in the morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.130.163 (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Talking About Urination

I've removed the lines referring to the UK children's euphemisms ('tenny' etc). The claim that these are in common usage is incorrect. Possibly they may have regional use and/or are now obsolete; possibly these may simply be exclusive to a particular family or community. What is certain is that they are not in regular use or nationally well-known (I've never heard of any of them and as a nurse, I get to hear a great many of the sayings) and as there was no citation to back up such claims, I've removed them. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Terms vs. Talking about urination

These sections (as well as the first paragraph!) similarly contain alternates to the word "urination." It seems like they serve very similar purposes. Should one be removed or edited? Apollo reactor (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Infants

The section In infants, voiding occurs involuntarily (as a reflex). The ability to voluntarily inhibit micturition develops at the age of 2-3 years, as control at higher levels of the central nervous system develops. has no cites, neither has the american pediatrics' publication that this clearly cites. On the contrary, there is a whole lot of cases against that "fact": http://www.diaperfreebaby.org/, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464264/

This section should be revised or removed, as such it promotes the use of diapers in even older children.

84.251.120.90 (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Appropriateness of photo

There has been discussion of whether this photo should be included in article. Please see Talk:Urination#Picture_of_female_urinating 23:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My suggestions: The issue is how to balance informativeness with avoiding the understandable discomfort some readers of the page might feel. I believe it is informative and not pornographic, that it does add some useful information to the article, and that people who come to an article with this name can reasonably expect to encounter material of this nature, so I would support keeping the image. On the other hand, I think that it would also be very reasonable to decrease somewhat the image size (pixels) in the thumbnail, which I think would make it a bit less "shocking" without obscuring information. Also, it seems to me logical to include a male photo as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

While I don't have a big objection to having the thumbnail a bit smaller (I did try to make it hidden by default at one point), I don't really see that as consistent. If you go to Smegma you will see a quite large image, ejaculation has a thumbnail of a video the same width and precum has not one but two larg thumbnails. Aether22 (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that your points are quite valid, and I do suggest keeping the image. I guess that, when trying to be considerate of different persons' differing sensitivities, it is hard to be consistent. But if we agree about making the image a bit smaller, then that seems to me to be a very reasonable solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree but only if energetic edit waring continues at a swift rate. (it's been a few days since it has been changed) The question then is how much the image can be reduced without losing much of it's value. It may make more sense to present a cropped version (keeping the important parts the same size) and have an uncropped version once people click the link. I suspect that though a cropped version would not logically seem less offensive (as it is not thy or grass that anyone of objecting to) I suspect it would make it easier to ignore. Incidentally I probably won't be the one to reduce the thumbnail size as I don't really know how. Aether22 (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Any objection to changing the picture to black and white? Same information but less provocative? Gerardw (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of "be bold", I reduced the image size, so see what you think. While I was doing that, the comment about b/w came in; my opinion is that it would be better to keep color and reduce size, but that's subjective. I do not think that cropping would do anything to reduce the objections. Feel free to make further changes to the size -- you do it by changing the "px" number that I added to the template. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Readers can still see it full-size by clicking on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The reduction in size seems to have been reasonable and not lessened it's usefulness. (although I doubt much more reduction could take place without doing so) I do not believe that removing colour would be fair however changing the urine to clear (or clearer) would be easy if that would lessen objections (Geradw?) and urine can be clear if you drink enough water (and don't take B vitamins or consume beetroot etc) although it would be less typical. note: it's Aether22 and this and other edits by me are not an attempt at sock puppetry as was claimed, I just failed to realize I am not logged in. 121.98.130.163 (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that de-coloring the urine would be useful. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of the picture. If we need pictures like this on Wikipedia, I think we're all in a sad state. Just my opinion. Ched (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would we need it here, hmmm, well if people are unsure and curious of just where females "make water" then we would need it, so in that case the 'sad' part you are referring to is either curiosity or a lack of show and tell on womans part. (and for women a lack of mirrors and lights in a toilet, note that many women are clueless on this matter) What I believe you mean to say is that you find the picture offensive and you value your hangups over the female body or urination over education. I think that is kinda sad personally. Aether22 (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an open RFC. If you don't want the "C" ... don't "R" one. I might have liked the picture when I was a teenager, but there are pics4guys.com sites, so I just don't see an "Encyclopedic" need for pictures to show me how someone takes a piss. No need to guess at what "I meant to say", I said what I meant to say. I enjoy ... ahhhh... exploring the actual (r/l) item in question. And no need to feel sad personally for my "hangups", I am quite content with my thoughts and opinions. I value the female body and education both quite highly, it's just that I don't need pictures like this to tell me how women pee. An article that describes electricity is sufficient, I don't need to actually hold both leads of a wire to understand it. Just because I might "have" a playboy magazine, doesn't mean I leave it on the coffee table next to the encyclopedia for my daughter or mother to see. I didn't come here saying "Take the picture down", I don't believe in censure-ship. I simply feel that discretion is a more mature approach to education than the "In your face" tactics. I wish you all the luck in the world with your article (and your pictures), I really do. I was simply responding to a request for comments. So again, don't feel sad for what you think I meant to say. I know I'm older than some, and my viewpoints on life have changed over the years. If I run into any of the "women who are clueless", on how they piss "make water", I promise to provide them a link to the article. Ched (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully our viewpoints will be in agreement in other articles. I regret that I just don't share your viewpoint on this one, and I look forward to seeing your contributions in the future. Ched (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not personally request it, however that is not to say I am not interested in feedback. I think you may misunderstand the point of the photo. It is not 'How to urinate', but where the urine comes from, many men and some females simply do not know and some believe it comes from the vagina not above it. I would also add that even many pornographic images of urination are not as clear at illustrating the placement of the urethra as this photo is. I have already had one user thank me because they had been curious and unable to find the answer previously.Aether22 (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Na, it's not that I didn't understand the point. And I admit you provide good points. It's just that I'm of a conservative nature (from a world long long ago, and far far away ... LOL). I realize that I've quickly fallen into a minority opinion on many issues. Oh, I keep up on most of the technology and all, and I believe we are all equal and such - I guess I just joined Wikipedia so that my viewpoints would not be forgotten any sooner than necessary. There are a lot of good things that can be said of the days gone by, and I try to co-exist in a different era, but I don't have to always agree - I'm content to state my thoughts, allow others to state theirs, and go placidly through the noise and haste that is today. It's a good picture for the point it makes, it was just my personal opinion. - Ched (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I'm glad you've gotten positive feedback on your contributions, that's always encouraging for an editor. Ched (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... I hate being put in that position, but someone else apparently agrees with me. I felt it was only proper to revert their edit however since it doesn't appear that this discussion was closed yet. Please note that this doesn't change my opinion, only that fact that I think proper proceedure should be followed. I also posted to the IP talk page. Assumed to be Ched ... yep .. sorry, I forgot to "sig" Ched (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess we can both appreciate each others opinions here, and if other articles on Wikipedia did not set a precedent I might side with you. Sorry about being a tad agressive earlier. And thank you for restoring the image, that shows real integrity to the process. Aether22 (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent). With 2 editors here (in this section) supporting and 2 opposing, it's kind of a toss up. However, factoring in the following reverts by different editors [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] the community seems to be leaning towards removal. So I've taken it back out for now. Gerardw (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem on the "tad aggressive". All editors tend to be protective of their own viewpoints. Appreciate that it remained civil, I've have seen many places it didn't. I try to do what's right, by the rules as I understand them here. I personally won't revert more than once (except for vandalism), and trust that all things will work out for the best in the end. Thanks to all for the interesting conversation. I'll quietly bow out now, and hope all editors reach an agreement they can accept. Ched (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad the image is back for now, but I changed it back to the smaller size. I think that got lost in a flurry of edits. I want to take issue with what Gerardw just said. Please note WP:RFC which states that RfC's are not votes. It's policy here that the outcome should be based on discussion and the validity of arguments, not on counting the numbers of comments on each side. I came here in response to the RfC and offered what I think are some valid reasons to keep the image, and now I'm going to watch this page. Please spell out reasons to delete, and let us discuss them, rather than just deleting (and also let's all comment on the content, not the editor). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessary and the same information could be conveyed by a diagram. Gerardw (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Tryptofish but I changed it back to the 140 pixels because though I appreciate the idea of trying to make it less offensive I believe that doing so not as part of mediation but after a removal would only encourage further removals so that the image would soon become too small to be of use, I'm not saying I object to it's reduction by 10 pixels significantly, but I'd only agree to it if Gerardw agreed to give up removing it without even presenting an argument. As for arguments Gerardw made above, pictures in some cases simply do not convey as well as a photo and some diagrams are hard to read. If there was an graphic representation that was of the same view and equally clear then it could be considered however I know of no such diagram.

Furthermore the use of such diagrams are only in use in a minority of Wikipedia articles generally involving sex acts and for anatomy photos are the norm.

I may also point out that in my opinion it is highly informative and hence is necessary to correctly educate WP's users and that if you want you can easily remove any meaning from the word and declare that almost nothing is necessary. It isn't necessary for people to understand this but if informing people of things they want to learn is the goal of WP then it isn't necessary to remove this informative image because some people are easily offended. Personally I don't understand the reason for any real offense/shock however as every man and boy looks every time he urinates (or should) and most don't find the vulva offensive, I do understand Chad's sensibilities but he recognizes that there is value in the image even if it goes against his idea of decency. Aether22 (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not conservative or religious in any way, and am for removal of the image for the reasons Ched gave in his or her second reply above. I don't have much (I said much) of a problem with Aether22's images in the Masturbation article (though I don't feel that those real-life images are needed), but I do not feel that the image he added to this article or the Sexual intercourse article are needed. Having some of these images, such as the one he proposes for the Sexual intercourse article, is sort of like proposing that we have a real-life image of a family sitting around a fire in the Fire article; I simply do not see why an image like that would be needed.

That said, I do feel that the picture Aether22 added to this article seems to really add to it more than his pictures to the Masturbation article or his proposed one for the Sexual intercourse article. It's just that I'm more for their removal than I am for keeping them (and am not for keeping the proposed image for the Sexual intercourse article at all). The Anal sex article, for example, serves just fine without a real-life picture of the act. And I do feel that a real-life picture of anal sex in that article would add a pornographic feel to it, no matter what. Flyer22 (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

From having spent time in defending this image I have researched other related subjects to make my case for this one and other the last few days have begin weighing in on those that seem to be inconsistent with what I otherwise observe to the the standard for such subjects.

I do concur with Flyer22 (serious what the the odds on the 22 thing?) that this image adds to it more, the others I simply believe images should be present but there is no real argument to be made for them being significantly educational as there is here. BTW having an image of sexual intercourse on the sexual intercourse page would be much like having a photo of fire on the fire page, of which there are many, now if it was a campfire page it would seem odd to not have an image of a campfire if one could be obtained. Aether22 (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, Aether, about the 22 coincidence and the campfire thing. True, true. It's just that, in regards to sexual activities, I don't see a need for explicit sexual imagery with real-life pictures when drawings can do the same thing. Why don't I feel this way about a picture of a real-life fire? Well, a picture of a real-life fire does not come off as pornographic or in a way that would distract from the educational feel of the article. While having a picture of real-life sexual intercourse may not distract some readers from the educational feel of the Sexual intercourse article, it would surely distract many others, as is even witnessed by some of our editors who object to having such provocative pictures in certain Wikipedia articles. I am not trying to censor Wikipedia; but am merely thinking of the best interests of these articles, which I gather you are as well. We just have differing opinions on this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Then does that mean you perhaps reluctantly believe THIS image should stay? Since there is currently no image showing this besides this one (atually I would note that is also true of sexual intercourse in any detail however there is no mystery there), now personally I have 2 issues with a diagram in this case if there was one (besides the belief that photos are more professional than paintings and diagrams in most cases) first is that most likely a diagram would not be a clear, secondly however diagrams (especially if not sourced from a medical text boox) carry less weight that a photo and many might question the accuracy if it disagrees with their assumptions. (I might add that the vulva & vagina is quite complex form and accuratly showing it's 3D form is difficult in any detail) I would note that though I do not find the sexual organs of the human body to be disturbing I do find images of death and sketetons or skulls to be disturbing, but I am not going to go to articles in wikipedia to remove these likely present images, I just plan on staying away if I can, just because I have a hangup with something does not mean that those who are more level headed around that issue should be deprived of quality images. Secondly while I would not want to see Wikipedia become full of porn if an image resembles pornography because it shows the same subject as pornography then there is no way to make it not look like porn of some class. Aether22 (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"A picture of a real-life fire does not come off as pornographic" Tell that to a pyromaniac. Many people have fetishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aether22 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel that photos are more professional than paintings and diagrams in most cases when it comes to sexual topics or even the human anatomy in general. I mean, when I go to a doctor's office, I'm more likely to see a painting or diagram on the wall of sexual or human anatomy topics than a photo of it. And I don't find the human body disturbing, nor was I saying that about other people (distracting does not automatically equate to disturbing; and I was speaking of distracting in taking away from the professional feel). And, no, I don't have any hangups about this. But, yes, I reluctantly believe that this image should stay. You've won me over regarding this image. Flyer22 (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly an unencyclopedic image for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it's obviously commercial in nature, and probably a copyright violation. Nandesuka (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Several points: First, I want to explain to Aether that I didn't mean anything about 130 versus 140 pixels. I was just doing it quickly from memory, and mis-remembered the number, and I had no intention of rewarding the deleters. But I agree with you that 140 is better. Second, I think that Gerardw's point about a diagram may be a good one, and one that would be easier to evaluate in the specific, rather than in the abstract. So, if someone wants to create and upload a diagram as an alternative, I think that it would be quite reasonable to compare the photo and diagram side-by-side and come to a reasoned decision as to which one is more appropriate to use here. However, I don't think we have the diagram yet, and so the discussion is about the photo for now; a corollary of that fact is that including the photo now does not preclude replacing it with something less controversial later. Now finally about Nandesuka's statement that the photo is commercial and a copyright violation, and consequent deletion of the image, I do not understand that at all. Looking at the image's main page, the GFDL license looks to me to be in order, and I cannot detect any sort of commercial message within the image, so these claims appear to me to be untrue. If I am wrong, please explain clearly. That said, I think this most recent deletion is getting to the point of an edit war. I would like to revert it and restore the image, but I am not going to, pending -- please! -- some consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Even more shocking than the photo is that this discussion is still necessary. It will be nice when Collaborative filtering technology advances enough to enable every user to customize every Web site according to his or her preferences. No one should have to see any image they don't want to see, and neither should any user who wants to see something be restricted by someone else's delicate sensibilities. The whole point of having personal computers is to give each person the ability to shape their own sensory environment. Collaborative filtering will someday let software predict which images are likely to shock a given user, based on the user's reactions to previously viewed images. (The basic idea being that you can group people by their similarity of taste, and use mathematical techniques to detect patterns of similarity in large datasets that record the rankings that large numbers of people have assigned to large numbers of objects.) In the present example, some people will be bothered by the File:Female urination.jpg photo, while others would like to see it. One size does not fit all. This problem is much larger than Wikipedia, of course, as it also includes E-mail spam, which would probably go away once computer users organize themselves into powerful collaborative filtering networks. So basically my point is that no good answer exists to the question of whether File:Female urination.jpg should appear in the article. At the moment, the photo is reachable from the {{Commonscat}} template at the bottom of the Urination article, since a duplicate image exists on Commons: File:Female Urination.jpg. However, it looks like someone is trying to delete the photo from Commons. --Teratornis (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I agree in a broad sense with Teratornis, but for now, we have to deal with the issue at hand. I am concerned about the allegations of commercialism, and any editors who feel that it is "obvious" had better explain that or I and others will conclude that the claims are without merit. And, in the last little while, both Aether (as an IP, not logged in) and Gerardw have been mutually reverting. This kind of edit warring will get us nowhere, so, please, stop it! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is no consensus. I've already documented that lots of editors are talking the image out. I'll agree not to edit again with regards to removal as long as Aether22, logged in or not, agrees to the same with regards to putting back it .Gerardw (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and Wikipedia does have rules. One is that it is not censored, and it also has a goal to educate. As such Gerardw is reluctant to discuss the issues being aware that the only 2 arguments he has are "I'm sensitive to this" and "so are others" and since these arguments are pretty much considered to be irrelevant by the rules or indeed by logic (let's not forget that this IS an article about urination) as the image has notable educational value and no other image to replace it with yet.

Also as for consensus and leaving out those who have been unclear about their ultimate view on the issue we have 13 or 14 for the image (i lost count) and 5 against, First FHU and Flyer22 both reversed their objections and defended it and were counted as pro, Graham made an objection to a different image, he may not have had the same objection to the current image but either way his argument is clearly false "Everybody knows how it works", Another said Ok sarcastically but the argument consisted of "if this is Ok so is a photo of child porn" and is clearly another false argument, Gerardw's (sensitive soul, his toilet must be a mess if he never looks), Chad, a weak objection since he eventually recognized the value of the image (a good image for the point it makes) eventually and replaced it, admitting that his sensibilities are from a bygone era), and finally the commercial image argument above which is false. Therefore I will replace the image as the consensus and rules and logic is for retaining the image. Aether22 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely include - maybe just because I'm gay, but I have never understood how girls pee, and this photo just completely demystified it for me. Sorry some people don't like nature, and are frightened by it when it educates, but perhaps try Conservapedia. David Shankbone 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Aether22, I'm on the same side of this as you, but you don't help when you make personal comments about other editors' toilets. Now let me say, calmly I hope, that David S. makes a very compelling point (in my opinion) about how the image can provide useful information. It seems to me that no one comes to this particular page if they don't expect to find material about, well, urination. I can understand how many people who are acting in good faith and are not in any way hung-up would find this image unpleasant, but why would they come to this page if they do not want to get information about this topic? Also, I think that it is a good thing that the image is "below the fold," by which I mean that, upon coming to this page, one has to scroll down before encountering it. Taking this together, I just find it difficult to imagine how anyone could come upon this image on this page by surprise, and, for me, that makes the logic come down on the side of keeping it for its educational value. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not shocked in the least that this discussion is still necessary, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Aether22, your incivility is uncalled for. Wikipedia does have rules and WP:CIVIL is one of them. Obviously we have different WP:POV and I've never disparaged your motives or arguments. You started by violating both 3rr and sockpuppets rules; I've never called into question your statement that you were unaware of them at the time.

I've already cited the relevant policy Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Rules_of_thumb See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines#When_possible.2C_avoid_images_that_are_likely_to_offend, which notes There is no way to interpret this other than subjectively. You state you want discuss but reject discussion with those arguments are invalid. In considering the viewpoint of the community, it's disingenuous to discount the multiple editors who have come by and reverted the image. Gerardw (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Aether, I agree with you on the photo, but I agree with Gerardw on the civility issue. Please temper responses; these users have valid concerns about the photos, we just disagree. But their point of view is as valid as ours. --David Shankbone 01:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on! It was obvious I was making a joke, but mainly a point, I do not expect that you don't look when you pee and therefore you likely see it every day, I am your your toilet is clean, I don't know how you can be offended by that, I would appologize but i don't know what I would be apologizing for, making a joke or making a point.

• But let's get to the heart of the matter, Wikipedia is not censored and this image is indeed demystifying for many as it was for David Shankbone, but it is not only gay men who are ignorant on this matter and indeed it is not only men as I had an adult female who saw it comment, she can't be the only one. Removing such an educational image from an article due finding it offensive is directly against policy and any removal of it is entirely invalid full stop. There is only one person currently commenting who values censorship/prudity over genuine education and that is Gerardw. Oh and Gerardw, it says: Images relating to some topics cannot be informative without also running the risk of being offensive to some. However, when deciding between two equally informative images, the one which is least likely to offend (or is likely to offend the least) should be used. When there is only one image the WP not Censored rule takes effect.Aether22 (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's embarrassing, but true: well into my twenties I thought girls peed out of their butts because they sat down. I pictured a fleshy tube, something like a proboscis, that would shoot out of their butt when the time came. When I learned that's not how it worked, people never really wanted to "discuss" the ins-and-outs. This photo, for the first time, cleared it all up in one glance. <sigh> I'm 34. I also believed in jackalopes until I was 15. --David Shankbone 05:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Though much younger, I do remember thinking that babies were born out of the buttox because I had seen my little sister naked and I knew there was no way a baby was going to come out of her tiny vagina (and as she is a lesbian I guess I was probably right). I have for this reason wondered if I should try and put a photo of a baby being delivered on the birth article, or at least a damn good image. Check out www.iusedtobelieve.com for a fun read. Aether22 (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For the information of editors here, Aether22 has been blocked for a week. I originally thought I might try to intervene, but Aether22's behavior was sufficiently marginal that I don't think it's worth it. However, if there is a consensus here that the block was improper or excessive, given that this article seems to have been the focus of alleged improper behavior, I'd be happy to assist, ping me on my Talk, I might not see replies here. --Abd (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as it is understood that this action is because of incivility to other editors, and not because of the image itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Why exactly is the image still on the page? I do understand that Wikipedia isn't censored, but this is just taking it too far. Wikpedia should not be a medium for the editor to express his exhibitionism— his erect penis on one page, a close-up of a gaping vagina expelling urine on the other. I'm all for sexuality, but this is a move to satisfy a fetishist's thirst than to educate people. While were at it, why not show a picture of scat porn or fisting. (2 Girls 1 Cup anyone?) How far is too far, really. Orane (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF, in a nutshell, is "comment on the edits, not the editors". None of us know the motivations of the editors behind the edits, so it's pointless to comment. For instance, I estimate that I illustrate roughly 3,000-4,000 articles on the English Wikipedia alone, including controversial body and pornography topics, yet I have never placed a photo of myself on an article even though that was, for a time a popular misconception. Point is, we are here to educate, and that's what we are doing. Urination is a natural function, and that because you find it icky doesn't mean you should be denying the others the opportunity to learn. Some people don't like gays and would prefer to see any photos of men kissing taken off. Muslims might prefer to see no female ankles, or to have all photos taken off public nudity. This hardly seems to be the line, and the ethos of this community is pretty clear: unadulterated knowledge. People shouldn't be surprised to find what they are looking for on articles about scat porn or fisting or 2 Girls 1 Cup. The idea that people would go to these articles and be outraged to see and learn about their topics is somewhat silly (and funny). Find the topic disagreeable? Don't look. WP:CENSOR, etc. --David Shankbone 07:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, as indicated on my page, I'm all for dudes sexing it up. I've been to pride parades, my gay friends have taken me to gay clubs, I've supported them, transvestites, lesbians etc. For me, sexuality is a beautiful thing. It's also a private thing. I wouldn't want to walk through a park and see two dudes having oral sex, just as how I'd hate to see a woman going down on a man in a public place. Some things are simply too vulgar for people of certain ages. I'm not worried about me. But Wikipedia is a commercial entity that is used by various people from all walks of life, and to be honest, I'd hate to see my little sibling coming here and being exposed to such vulgarity. A dad can have a talk to his son about "the birds and the bees", but to fuck a woman in front of his 12-y-o son is vulgar and inappropriate. To learn about pee is great. To click on an article and seeing a woman giving what seems to be golden showers is totally different. Orane (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

See also, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines#No_vanity_images. Also listed on the same page is that illustrations are preferable to photos. We can find drawings/illustrations to replace the current one. Orane (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You completely missed the point that you don't know that it's a vanity photo, and without proof, you violate WP:AGF. If you want to start a crusade against graphic images on here, good luck with that. You should probably speak to User:Privatemusings for advice. He'd love to have some company - he's pretty lonely, especially after his countless efforts to institute a policies that have gone down in flames (you can check out his contributions to see). P.S. - there's a photo of a nude, pre-pubescent girl with a crack over her vagina on Virgin Killer. --David Shankbone 07:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC) --David Shankbone 07:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do this. Don't resort to this. I've never spoken to you before, but I've come across your work and have admired and respected you/it.

But I digress. You are also completely missing the point about where I'm coming from. I'm not a crusader, nor do I attempt to be. As you said, it's all about education. I support sex education. But there also is a line about how you teach, whether you want to admit it or not. Picture a child hearing a term and not knowing what it means. He comes on Wikipedia to find out. What's better? Illustrations as they would appear in a book? Or an arm elbow-deep in someone's anus? (again, I'm a sexual pluralist, so I personally have nothing against the act). This is a vanity photo, if you ask me. There are plenty of illustrations that can be used. Orane (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you again or get into it, but I just don't think this photo is all that bad, for my own reasons that I stated above. We have far worse on here, was my point, and the people who have crusaded are shot down over the issue. It just doesn't tend to be where the community is at. Fact is, most men don't know how women pee (I can't prove that - it's an inkling), and I find the photo educational. I respect your opinion, as I do the other opposers, and I understand it. Just...be careful not to get burned out if you decide to make this an issue for yourself. We lose a lot of good editors that way, who don't intend to become crusaders, but fall into that trap. There are some things we all don't like about Wikipedia; for many, the graphic imagery is one. --David Shankbone 08:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, a woman certainly doesn't pee by using both hands to part the labia. It's a less obtrusive act, I'd assume. I understand where you come from too. Actually, an article called "Thinking Sex..." by Gayle Rubin talks about how "morality crusaders" stifle sexual expression, and how people need to be more liberal in their thoughts about sex. And I agree. We need education. But you and I diverge on the methods people are to use to educate. For the record, I do know how women pee lol. First saw it in a Biology text book at age 13. Provided the same level of info as this image. Anyway, I'm done too. If I'm revered tomorrow or after, I'll just leave it at that. Orane (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Orane: please do not delete the image in the way that you did; although you stated in the edit summary that the consensus was to do so, that is not true. Edit warring in this way is inappropriate. As David already pointed out, you should not assume the intentions of the editor who contributed it, and you have no evidence other than your own opinion to support it. You bring up the issue of a diagram instead of a photo. As was already discussed above, this may be a valid point, but the issue is not before us at the moment. When a diagram is provided, we can choose between the photo and the diagram, and the diagram may well prove preferable, but for now the choice is between the photo and nothing. An awful lot of the comments just above are not really relevant: the fact that one editor already knew about the subject and doesn't need the photo to learn about it does not invalidate the considerable case made above that other readers would find it informative and useful. All the mentions of other pages (by all) serves only to be inflammatory, but does not help clarify the case here. The motivations of editors participating in this talk, or what parades they've attended, are not relevant; the substance of the arguments is. I think an awful lot of the lengthy talk up to this point indicates that those who want to delete the image just feel that it is too graphic and distasteful, and I think that that view has some validity. But I think the correct way to decide this question is to balance that concern, over a graphic image, against the arguments that it provides useful information for many readers, and is on a page, "below the fold," where a reader would come expecting to find material on this subject. I really have yet to hear a rational argument that the graphic concerns override the arguments to keep the image. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ when you say "motivations of editors participating in this talk, or what parades they've attended, are not relevant". If someone fails to understand the reason behind my stance, and accuses me of being a moral crusader (not in so many words), then I do have to make it clear that I'm liberal and I'm not being prompted by conservativeness. I just feel that this photo is vulgar. The average woman doesn't even pee like that, with the hand distorting the labia, vulva, clitoris etc. Here is a picture, which is educational, appropriate, tasteful, and labeled (aha!). This isn't. Orane (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can understand how you would feel a need to defend yourself. However, another editor was wrong to criticize you personally, as opposed to criticizing the logic of your arguments. When you, in effect, took the bait, you were wrong too, ie, two wrongs don't make a right. My advice would be to simply deny being motivated as you had been accused and then move one, not to get drawn into an irrelevant and distracting discussion about your personal beliefs. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello good people. If you look back to the early part of the first RFC, you'll see I was here over a week ago, left my thoughts and moved on, so I'm not really new to the room. After watching all this talk about the picture, one more thing came to my mind (feeble as it is). That thought is that I've always looked at Wikipedia as an educational tool. As such, I've wondered - if your child (or grandchild in my case) asked about urination - would you want a person to drop their drawers and show them this item graphically? I guess that is how I would think about what should be, and should not be included with a wikipedia article. Just a thought, have a good day - and carry on. Ched (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ched, and thank you. My reaction is that I would not want an adult to walk up to a child and expose herself (of course!), but, on close and calm examination, that is not what we are doing here. There is a big difference between an adult confronting a child this way in real life, and a small photograph appearing at this place on this page. Although I would also hope that parents and grandparents would take some responsibility for overseeing what their young children would be looking at when accessing the internet, and discuss it with them, it seems to me that children are more sensible than we tend to give them credit for, and they are very curious and want to learn. Distaste is at least partially learned, and I do not think a child would be psychiatrically harmed by seeing this photo. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi tryptofish, how you doing today? You make some very good points indeed. In fact it is largely your ability to approach the matter in such a mature, logical, and well thought out manner that encourages me to continue the discussion (rather than just leave it alone). I guess my concerns are that with the rise in popularity of Wikipedia, a lot of schools and such are encouraging the use of the site. To be honest, I didn't even realize until recently that many of the topics available existed. One link leads to another and such. While I'm not here personally to view things like pearl necklace, and the others - I understand that some folks have an interest in it. I did when I was younger as well. My concern is that I would hate for Wikipedia as a whole to be viewed by anyone as a "good place to get stuff". If the community decides that the picture should stay, I won't argue with it. I understand my voice is only one of many. And as an aside, I did think the block of Aether22 was excessive. Well, anyway, appreciate your time and thoughts - hope all goes well, and remains civil here. Best to all Ched (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind words! I appreciate that, and I appreciate the cooperative, rather than the all-too-often confrontational, work among editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Tell me again, pending the lack of consensus, the default condition is supposed to "in" as opposed to out -- the way it was prior to all this starting January 7? Gerardw (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a very valid question. My thinking has been that, over the last (oh, I'm losing track of how many...) edits, each time that the image has been deleted, the editor doing so has made the deletion without giving a substantive reason for doing so: copyright violations, which have never been substantiated; dislike of the image, without any justification in the talk here; or no explanation at all. That seems to me to be edit warring and irresponsible. So, when I've seen what I felt was an inappropriate deletion, I reverted it. (I'm not the only editor to have done so, and I can only speak for myself, but I think that other editors who have recently restored the image also reverted deletions that I would have reverted.) Now, you have raised a point that is reasonable, which I think is the first time anyone has done so in the recent series of edits. Therefore, I am not going to revert you at this time, but rather talk about it here. Now, that said, I think the case for a "default" either way is unclear, which is not the same as saying that you are right. There's a real danger here of having a never-ending edit war of mutual reverts, which is why I'm refraining from reverting you -- and I urge other editors not to revert you either, not yet. Is there a "WP:" policy that governs whether the pre-existing version is the default? If so, please cite it here. I, and others, have made points above in defense of the image; can you respond to those specifically and in a reasoned way? If so, please do so. As it is, by my count, the arguments you have for deleting the image are that (1) the image is graphic and potentially disturbing, and (2) that the article was without the image, before the image was added. In my opinion, those arguments do not outweigh the arguments to include the image, but I want to give you an opportunity to respond to that. If you cannot, then I think that it would be reasonable to revert you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I've taken a look at policy, and while this may not be a definitive search, what I find suggests that the argument that we should go back to the pre-image version as a "default" is not correct; rather the "default" is whatever version reflects the weight of reasoned argument. See the discussion of "consensus version" at WP:BRD#Discuss, and also see WP:Don't revert due to "no consensus". But if you find policy that points otherwise, please show it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Aether22 here, Ok, well I'm a bit confused, I just did something I did not expect to work (revert when acc is blocked), I did it as a test not expecting it to work and it's done so I hope it isn't against any rules. (I would undo it but that would just look strange)

My block (which is for I think entirely invalid reasons) was according to the notice on my IP also, but not so as clearly I have edited the page.

Why did I add the image back in? Because Gerardw (who has made almost as many revisions as I have, and at the start I had no idea there was a limit) changed it back but asked for discussion on the issue of which default should be, some very able arguments were offered for the image being included if no absolute consensus had been reached and after a long time no one had any argument in the other direction.

Here are my own views, sorry if partly repetitive:

1. Because the image should based on WP policy be included as WP is not censored, and the image is quite informative with no alternative yet available, no WP policy has been identified that does not support the image. 2. Many more users have commented for it being kept than removed. 3. Because if the image is not present then how will the issue ever be resolved as without the image being present no one new can weigh in for or against the image, where as the images presence amply finds those for retaining it and for censoring it.

BTW the reasons stated for the block: Copyright vio (it's baseless untrue speculation) IP? Sock puppetry (seemingly for comments under IP, however the only comment under IP since the first ban is one where I say that it is Aether22, that can't possibly be considered sock puppetry) and disruption which in this case simply means the Admin didn't like the image I believe. BTW I have never tried to break or bend any rules and if anyone does not like what I do in a serious way then tell me rather than blocking me, blocking me with a vague description without any warning is wrong. "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." Again if posting from IP when an account it blocked is wrong I apologize, I have not seen anything stating such but I don't plan on doing anything more until my block is lifted in a day or so.Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's try and reach an agreement, it should be clear this image isn't going to stay away, it's also seems doubtful that objection will suddenly dry up. On one side many people are finding the image objectionable before even thinking about it, most are removing it without any real reason stated. (as fountains of boys urinating are common the reason for this objection would seem likely to be exposing the vulva? Indeed I imagine that if the stream were removed it would not help) On the other side we have a clearly informative image, likely more educational than the vast majority on WP and WP is not censored and has many images of vulvas. An attempt to find middle ground was made with a reduction in size but clearly that has not worked. An indication that a greyscale image would likely be acceptable was made by Gerardw but Tryptofish disagreed. (colour versions would be available by visiting the image) A comment by Orane suggests that perhaps labeling the different parts of the vulva/vagina could help.

Let's all be reasonable and stop adding/removing this image as that is not going to stick, let's try to find a way it can exist in some form that has a lower level of objection, ideally Wikipedia would have some kind of content filter or at least an ability for some images to be hidden by default but for better or worse that option does not exist.

I would encourage those with an issue with this image to look at ejaculation and precum or smegma and then claim that this image is out of line. In fact maybe the difference really is a strange kind of sexism. (I'm serious, vagina monologues anyone?) Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I actually see what you mean with the smegma and precum articles. So, right now, I'm iffy. Orane (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Journalist/Orane had a really good idea [[6]]. Let's use this one [[7]] Gerardw (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's very good that we are talking about a possible constructive middle ground! Now, please let me ask a question, and please understand that I am really asking because I don't know, and not that I mean any kind of irony. Please help me understand what makes this newer image better. As you know, I've been thinking of this issue as one of finding a balance between, on the one hand, providing useful information and, on the other, not having an image that could be disturbing to readers. The new image is still a pretty graphic photo of female external genitalia, and from what I can see the differences are the presence of an anatomical label of the urethra, and the absence of a urine stream. How much does that really reduce the shock value? Again, I'm really asking that, no irony intended. It seems to me that a (maybe nitpicking) argument could be made that some information value and relevance is lost by not having the urine stream, since this is an article about urination, not about female anatomy. So I'm wondering how much we gain, and how much we lose. (Any point in discussing putting the urethral label onto the other photo?) That said, I also think there's an excellent case to be made for just coming to a compromise and moving on at last. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the photo from Gerardw is a good idea, the article is Urination; not vulva. The urethra is not visible as it was in the "controversial" photo. Removing the urine stream is not good for this article because as the article said: ...is the process of disposing urine from the urinary bladder through the urethra to the outside of the body. In my opinion, the picture should be returned, because it explains where the urine comes from and it is relevant to the article. The image belongs to Aether22 so it is NOT Copyrighted as the admin. Nandesuka has stated. Remember, we try to enhance Wikipedia and its contents and that's my humble opinion.Juan D. (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think the Gerardw photo is at all useful for illustrating urination. You can't see the urethra. See my commentary below regarding why we should revert to the Aether22 photo. Gillyweed (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I think we can find a more representative photo. Peeing is normally a hands-free activity for women. This image therefore significantly misrepresents the activity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I was going to give someone else the chance to answer, but since no one has and you clearly want to attract an answer I'd have to say the value of an image that represents how a female usually urinates in western culture (sitting of a toilet) would be entirely worthless as everyone who will see this article (probably EVER) knows how that goes, where as this image is highly informative. No it does not represent typical urination however it does represent natural outdoor urination as indeed even the text explain something almost identical to this image. If you are so sure that there should be a useless typical image of female urination then I am sure you will find an image on commons and you can add it above the current image for balance. Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I had hoped that we had reached consensus on this and could now move on, but I want to say to WhatamIdoing that I agree with Aether22 that the purpose of the figure is not to show posture, but rather to show functional anatomy, which is what is needed to address readers' questions. Please note that the article already includes this caricature, and so I think that an additional/alternative photo would be of little use. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Everyone knows how peeing works. That photo is just pornography. 72.147.39.28 (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The photo in question has been gone for probably a year. --Tryptofish (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Chinese singing lesson?

An editor just added a supposed Australian slang term of "Chinese singing lesson," and I cannot figure out whether that's a well-crafted prank or a legitimate edit. Can anyone vouch for it? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Woops! I should have looked first, am answering my own question: [8]! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected

SInce Aether22 has continued to edit war over 'his' image while not logged in, I have reverted his edit and semiprotected the page. This should not discourage vigorous discussion on this page or good-faith editing by established editors. Nandesuka (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Above, Aether22 claims that he simply tested to see if he could edit as IP. Since his IP wasn't blocked this time, he could. However, he successfully made an edit on another article a few minutes before. He could possibly have avoided sanction if he had simply reverted himself (that's actually a very good way to start discussion when you expect opposition, see WP:BRD), and if he hadn't taken advantage of his new-found "freedom" to dive into discussion here. He's now been blocked for two weeks. I've discussed this at length on User talk:Aether22. This isn't relevant to the image itself. Carry on, folks.... --Abd (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus about the picture

Hello everyone, I've been following this article and I think that this has gone too far, so why we don't start a consensus about the picture. I think that user/admin. User_talk:Nandesuka blocks to User_talk:Aether22 for the simple reason that he/she doesn't like the picture and considers it unencyclopedic. I've read this at Aether22's page: Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute so, where is the Freedom of speech here?

I want here to people who disagree with the photo, give to us real reasons on why the picture should be removed . Remember Wikipedia is not censored and I'm opposed that an admin. can do what he/she thinks instead of making a consensus with other editors here at wikipedia.--Juancdg (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been holding back on getting into the debate. However, today my ten year old son asked me where does a woman's urine come from? He knows where babies come from, but was unable to figure out how the female urethra and vagina were put together. I thought for a moment and then said that I would find a photo on WP which while was contentious showed the mechanics of female urination perfectly. I admittedly wondered if I was doing the right thing and then remembering that a picture is worth a thousand words, I went through the article history and found Aether22's oft deleted photo and showed it to him. He looked at it a moment and then I asked him if he had any questions. "Nope, Dad. That shows it perfectly. Thanks." And off he went and built a new bridge out of Knex. I'm really wondering what we are all hung up about. Put it back I say. It is anatomically accurate and incredibly useful for educative purposes. Gillyweed (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

can we remove the picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indecency2.jpg and put this picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Womanpeeing.JPG instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnwoman2 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that this could be a good idea. The picture been requested for deletion and it does not show the "act" of urination.--Juan D. (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to give my opinion, I think the picture should stay, as should a similar picture of male urination if one is provided. Due to the fact that Wikipedia is not censored and the fact that it is illustrative, not pornographic, it should remain. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the article because no one opposes right now. I agree with Theseeker4; if a male urination photo could be provided, we can add it to the article. But we need images that are not copyrighted.--Juan D. (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've accepted the image in the article. But could someone label it? It's actually something I'm going to start requesting, so that the images look more professional and, most importantly, educational. Orane (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Even if it's not unanimous, we do have what is considered to be consensus. I also agree that adding a label of the urethra to this photo, and adding a male photo, would both be useful things to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I'm unblocked. I would be surprised if the average 7 year old girl, an only child raised by a single mother would not know that urine comes out of a mans penis and can suitably imagine how it would work (assuming she was aware of the penis).

This is in stark contrast to female urination where according to at least one female I spoke to the only way even she could directly know is by seeing another female urinate or grab a mirror when peeing while squatting (a bit of an act).

I'm not against the addition of such an image but it will offend some and draw more critics of both photos.

However a photo of a peeing fountain would suffice. Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that's a good point about a fountain to illustrate males. Is that a desirable option? The images at Manneken Pis seem to me to be too "far away," ie, not showing enough detail, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is at a nice high resolution so a tightly cropped version would show more of the "action", although it may still not be quite as clear as desired it would probably suffice due to the lack of mystery, really you just need something to illustrate it against the female urination to balance it, there are other if less famous peeing fountains. Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I have been blocked 3 times over this image I am reluctant to make this small change, but will someone please undo the latest revision where it points the the version on commons? Since that version faces possible removal where the wikipedia version does not. (images can be deleted at commons and remain on wikipedia just fine) Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is not a haven for copyright violations that were deleted at Commons. If a file is deleted as a copyvio at commons, that is enough reason to delete it on en.wikipedia. Nandesuka (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me please step in here. First, I want to say to Aether22 that I will make a personal commitment to you that I will watch this page and make sure that no one does anything to delete the image, from the page or from its source at Commons, unless they can come up with a valid reason, and a valid reason hasn't been given yet. (I suspect that other participating editors feel as I do, too.) Using the image via Commons is just as good, in terms of how it appears on the page here. Second, I would like to ask Nandesuka to please help me and other editors understand what you mean when you keep referring to copyright issues. I certainly could be missing something, but I don't see any problems with copyright with this particular photo. I've asked at this talk a couple of times for clarification, but haven't gotten a reply. It would certainly help if you could explain to the rest of us what you mean. Thanks, everyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Came here from RFC. I think the pic is informative. Therefore I support it being here for the moment. If we can get another photo that is as illustrative and hasn't been so heavily edited then that would be much better though. Note that the uploader said "I know why this is being said I think, the fingernails have some funny chroma and that is because I photoshopped out the nail colour because I felt that doing so would make the image more suitable and I "cut" the nails (Maybe I should improve on that), I also changed the saturation, tint, brightness and more to make the image look 'cleaner' since I felt that a more aesthetically pleasing lighter image would be less offensive. I also added the grass to give a reason for the squatting, a natural setting for such an activity. This is only a portion of the editing that has taken place....he looks like a professional model I would note that her shape, both buttox and vulva have been changed." I don't think this is ideal for an educational pic.What is disturbing is the human-centricness of this article, if I am allowed to make up such a word. The first sentence seems to start by assuming the article is about human urination. I am no expert here but I will try and help here with some animal info and maybe rewording to be more inclusive in the near future. Regards 91.67.129.173 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC) - that was I Thehalfone (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone has deleted the picture file, based on a claim of copyright violation. It has never been clear that there ever was a copyright problem. I would like to have an explanation of the reasons for deletion. Perhaps there are valid reasons, but at the moment, there is an appearance of censorship. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the record of the deletion process: commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Female_Urination.jpg. I'd like other interested editors to take a look at it, and assess whether it is valid, or whether an appeal is called for. Apparently, the problem had to do with Aether22 not submitting a model permission form, which does sound like a valid reason, but I'm still very uncomfortable about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not censorship to delete photos of clearly dubious copyright status. It's responsible editing. Aether was given every chance to establish the provenance of his photo, and he made no attempt to do so. The only "appearance of censorship" is in your implications that those trying to establish the photo's provenance have anything other than the best interests of the project in mind. At no time have those objecting to the photo (on copyright grounds) objected to the subject matter. Rather, the form of the photograph, the lighting, the makeup, the chroma fringe, the complete lack of any standard photographic metadata, and the submitter's disingenuous (and in places, simply unbelievable) response to the commons deletion discussion all combine to indicate that this is a commercial image that has been appropriated and presented with an improper license. To be frank, I don't see how anyone could look at the circumstances surround that photo and decide that it wasn't a copyvio. To me, at least, it is as plain as day. Nandesuka (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for providing a detailed reply, which does help me to understand much better than I did before. I guess for editors (including me) who are not as expert in digital photography, some of the things that were so self-evident to you were not as easily detected for us. I have to agree with you, at least in part, that through so much of this, the submitter of the image has been his own worst enemy, and that there really is no objective basis for seeking to undue the decision that has been made about that particular image. But please let me share with you, in good faith and in the interests of the project, some of what has made me and maybe others uncomfortable. During earlier talk here, I and others expressed concern that it was not obvious (to us, at least) that there was a copyright violation, and didn't get until just now your helpful explanation of the evidence. The lack of explanation tended, understandably, to breed suspicion. In fact, the nomination for deletion of the image was made based on being "out of scope," not copyright. That sounds like a claim that the subject matter was considered by some as objectionable. The Commons editors decided that the "out of scope" claim was not correct. The record shows that there was then discussion of the absence of a model consent form. Clearly, that form was not provided, although I can easily imagine how the model might not want to be identified online, and I think that one Commons editor was probably correct in saying that the form was not needed, because the model cannot be identified from the photo. That leaves the copyright claim. Although I can imagine that an amateur photographer could, in absolutely good faith, have naively decided earlier that the original file was no longer needed and deleted it (in which case there would have been no wrongdoing at all), I agree with you that the submitter did not exactly inspire confidence that there wasn't a worse explanation. Therefore, in conclusion, I cannot really disagree with the decision that was made, but I think that there has been an appearance (an appearance, not necessarily a reality!) of editors who lost the argument on this talk page, throwing everything at the wall at Commons until something stuck. Please understand that I am not saying that as an accusation in any way. Rather, I am spelling it out in the spirit of learning from what didn't work as well as it might have, and doing things better in the future. I hope that you understand it in the spirit that I intended. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Animals

I just added a bit about animals. Lots more to do. I am slightly worried about having put "This, together with differing physiology, diet and other factors influence the characteristics of urine and urination." Maybe it is OR. I will change it now - I have thought of a more noncommital phrasing. I think the causal link is obvious but I guess it's better to find a citation first. Thehalfone (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Female urination

The article states that some females use one or both hands to focus the direction of the urine stream. How is that normally done? 212.251.179.34 (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

holding contests

a holding contest is a contest in which female contestants see who can hold back the urge to urinate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.216.107.49 (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not noteworthy, and I also reverted the prescriptive and unnecessary material about holding back. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation Section

Could some sort of disambiguation section, or perhaps just a link to the wee class of proteins. A link to wee1 would suffice, the protein is often written in textbooks just "Wee." I would do it myself but I'm not that proficient with the editing procedure. Dominicwood1988 (talk) 20th May 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

Done, thanks for pointing that out. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Photographs

I observe that two photographs that were contained in this article have been removed. They were properly removed, as they invaded the privacy of the children depicted, and should not be restored. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. -->David Shankbone 16:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is really an issue about lack of model consent, then that should be brought up at Commons, and the files removed. With respect to this page, I too agree, to the extent that the images really did not add much useful information, although I would disagree with one of the edit summaries, that described them as pornographic, which they were not. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(material deleted --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

It seems we all agree that the photographs don't belong here (or anywhere else on Wikipedia), so I don't know that it's useful for us to argue about precisely what adjective should be used while removing them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Brad and David, I agree. Whew! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The "pornography" edit summary was made by an WP:SPA of a banned editor, and perhaps says more about what that editor considers to be a sexy image than it says anything about the photographs. That said, kids are kids, and we should immediately be removing any illustration that shows them in any state that would embarrass most adults. The nuances of Expectation of privacy should not apply to children, IMO; but adults are fare game in public as they should know better. -->David Shankbone 16:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree fully. I was just pointing those things out. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Photographs yet again...

Recently, I have disagreed with another editor about images in the male and female urination techniques section. I disagreed with the addition of the male photo, and with the consequent reduction in image size of the female anatomical sketch. The reason I think the size of the female image matters is that, if too small, one cannot read the anatomical labels and see the urethral opening, in what is a somewhat dim image (see also extensive talk earlier). I have corrected that in the present version. I have left the new male photo, although I think it should be deleted. That is because it really doesn't show anything other than a urine stream and the back of a male person. One sees nothing of the actual physiology (to put it a bit euphemistically!). When we previously discussed female images, the consensus was that we have to balance concerns about possible offensiveness against the value of providing information. I ask here, what information is provided? Does the photo show anything that everyone does not already know? I think not, but I'm starting this talk thread to see what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

First, let's deal with the size of the female image. Images can be clicked on to be taken to a bigger one for closer examination. So that point is moot. As to the male image, it certainly does provide an example of what this article is about, urination, from a male human perspective. Granted I would like a close-up image of a urine stream coming out of a penis head but until we have such an image, we have to make do with what we have. There was no male human image in this article, I wanted to balance the images in the article and this was the best free image found on Commons for this purpose. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we disagree. About "So that point is moot," images should still be legible without the need to click and enlarge. And about "There was no male human image in this article, I wanted to balance the images in the article...," that really does not answer my question about what information does it convey, that everyone doesn't know already. But I'm quite willing to leave that photo there so that editors other than us can react. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you really want that question answered I'll do so: None of the images convey any information that everyone doesn't know already. Do we really need images and videos of goats and reindeer pissing? Who doesn't know what a toilet looks like? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm saying that in the context of recent talk specifically about what to include or not in the way of a female image. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that you changed the image to the Grey's diagram. Thank you very much for that thoughtful solution. I think that actually does a much better job of addressing both of our concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I still have an issue with the goat image and the reindeer video. Not a big deal but I don't think they are necessary. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly what is the point? That image does little to clarify it anyway, you can't see what is being pointed at and being a sketch it lacks the veracity of a photo. I doubt anyone confused about the matter is going to really "get it" from that sketch. 121.98.130.163 (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, then how about this? Take five photos: one of a woman peeing in a toilet - not from the side or back, but from the front, so as the urine stream is visible - then one of a man peeing in a toilet - from the side, so as everything can be seen; one of a woman peeing outside standing up, again from the front, with nothing obscuring the view; one of a woman peeing outside squatting; and finally another of a man peeing outside. Then, they can all be uploaded - unaltered - to Commons, and we can decide on which ones will be included in the article. In this way, we have options. We can put them on the article at will, indeed we can even blur/pixelize them if we need to. The important thing for now is that they get onto Commons. Editing123 (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom - Public urination?

"It is common to find both men and women urinating outdoors in Africa, Vietnam,[29] Laos and Cambodia,[30][31][32][33] and sometimes also in United Kingdom, because of lack of toilet facilities.[34]"

This quote implies that public urinary is "common place" in the UK, which it.. isn't. Looking at the source (34), it was a couple of youths in an estate somewhere.. that doesn't mean it's "common in the United Kingdom".

You could find a similar source for any country in the world, it doesn't give it any authenticity.. TigerTails (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, at least partially. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Another photo

File this under "here we go again", I guess. A couple of days ago, a new photo was added to the female urination section. I've been undecided about whether to keep or delete it from the page, in light of past history (above). Some days have gone by, and I thought I'd raise the question here, in talk. As before, I'm no fan of censorship. But this time, I feel like the photo is more about the woman, dressed as she is, and less about illustrating the physiological process. I also feel it's less needed since the addition of the Gray's Anatomy figure. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

An IP has now reverted the image without an edit summary. History: diff and diff. I'm not going to interject myself by restoring the image, but I continue to be interested in whether other editors would actually like to discuss it responsibly. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Culture in Germany and Sweden

As I read, the links that are referred to here is not talking about urination sitting down is the culture in these places, they are just talking about men being encouraged to sit down now in our modern times. Actually, they are not saying what the article is claiming. 84.202.200.41 (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreover it is just not true that german men sit to pee, probably swedish don't as well. There is only a small group of women, such as students in a shared apartment, trying to enforce the "sitzpinkel"-rule and so some sensationalistic journalists claim now "sitzpinkeln" is common practice. The referred link [13] is doubtful. The relevant lines should be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.177.199.133 (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, thank you. If anyone feels the material should not have been deleted, please feel free to revert me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Dont delete photos

DO NOT delete the photos put at the top. they are good and fine the way they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.171.0 (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

man urinating at beach photo.

That photo IS SHIT AS. Please stop putting it on. The photos that are currently on are better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.171.0 (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I do think that the photo is a little too small and indistinct to properly illustrate the article. Unfortunately, most of the photos you have been posting are totally unrelated to subject at hand. If you stick to posting on-topic photos, it is less likely that they will be deleted. Uncle Dick (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have restored that photo. Calling it "shit" and justifying the others as "good and fine" is not valid reasoning. There is not need for gratuitous images to be put here. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the photo of the woman is better. While one may argue that the photo seems to illustrate nudity more than urination, the beach photo also seems to illustrate the beach scene more than urination. Alternatively, a more relevant photo could be taken and uploaded instead. 20 2.156.14.100 (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be receptive to considering other photos. I appreciate that the beach photo is not particularly illuminating, but the same could be argued, in a different way, about the nude woman. At a minimum, the photo of the woman would need to be cropped to focus on urination, and not the rest of her, to be appropriate here, and one would need to balance it with an accompanying male image. But ultimately, I think the Grey's Anatomy images lower down on the page serve that purpose adequately. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the German wiki page here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miktion they have some much better photos. I don't know how to edit them myself, but I particularly like the statue! It is neither gratuitous nor with too much focus on another area e.g. nudity / beach. (87.194.144.173 (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

That's an excellent idea—thanks! I'm going to move the statue up to the lead, replacing the beach photo, and replace the statue with a Rembrandt etching. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Urination vs Micturation

The term urination is used incorrectly in this article. Urination is the formation of urine from the kidneys to the bladder. Micturition is the actual act of releasing the urine. These terms are not synonymous. Please use the correct term if you want properly educate the public :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.27.198 (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We would need sourcing to back that up. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

vids from goats and others

do we really need the vids, how they peeing? doh...-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I AGree. Not Nesacary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.190.6 (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Spraying in multiple directions

How is this not addressed? Having an erection is the main cause, but sometimes your dick is just simply a dick for no reason and oh, you've pissed on your ankles.

Dried semen can definitely cause that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

photo request

i want to request a photo to this page

File:Public female urination.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.237.146 (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC) one vote from me for this photo that shows how a female urinates whilst outdoors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.156.31 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Urination Frequency

\The bladder takes about 7 hours to fill up. add to article --85.12.88.17 (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. The length of time that a bladder takes "to fill up" depends on a variety of things: the amount drunk by the owner during a given period of time, and the ability of said bladder to expand and contain a given amount of liquid, to name but two factors. For proof, visit a bar and consume a few beers, then a few more. It will take less than three hours to do that, but the urge to piss will be present. The suggestion that any bladder takes about (or exactly) 7 hours to fill up seems to ignore both those factors. So do not add any such thing to the article. 74.226.105.231 (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:PERENNIAL

There is some difference of opinion about a photograph, yet again. Please take a look, for example, at Talk:Urination/Archive 1#Appropriateness of photo, and the archived threads that follow it. Do we really need to start this discussion again? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the edit summaries re-instating the image. Do you have any statistics of how many human females, when urinating outdoors, take off all of their clothing to do so? Of those who do, how many are in the presence of a human male holding a camera? Something tells me that this photo is not really about showing the reader information about either the squatting position or about urination without facilities. Whatever, not worth reverting about. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've swapped in another photo. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

...which has now been deleted. I'm not going to revert the deletion, and if someone restores that image, I won't revert that either. But if anyone restores the earlier image, I will revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Social factors

I was watching a film with a small group of well-dressed, apparently well-educated men and women sitting around a banquet table. A man arose, continuing to speak, opened the sideboard, and (without exposing himself!), relieved himself in a container that he somehow knew would be there. I was quite surprised, not realizing that this was ever acceptable anyplace. The topic of film conversation, I think, was Bonaparte. The venue seemed to be Britain in the 1820s or so. Sorry that I can't name the film. Student7 (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Urination in Sex

I have tried to add this section to the article, but it has been deleted twice without explanation. I think it should be included

Main article: Urolagnia

Urolagnia (also urophilia, undinism, golden shower and watersports) is a paraphilia in which sexual excitement is associated with the sight or thought of urine or urination. Some participants may drink the urine; this practice is known as urophagia, though uraphagia refers to the consumption of urine regardless of whether the context is sexual. Urolagnia enthusiasts may participate in urolagnia as part of a domination and submission scene, though not all sexual activity involving urine is so. These activities are often described with the slang terms golden showers, water sports, or piss play. As a paraphilia, urine may be consumed or the person may bathe in it. Other variations include arousal from wetting or seeing someone else urinate in their pants or underclothes, or wetting the bed.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY STYLE. And I'm a bit amused by the juxtaposition of this argument, with the one at the top of the thread above, that goes to pains to point out that there is no pornographic aspect to the images discussed there. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by citing WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY STYLE. Happy that you are amused, but don't understand your argument.93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This page is primarily about a physiological function. It's reasonable to mention how this function is involved in pornography and paraphilias (and it's worth noting that I actually expanded what it says when I reverted the lengthy section, relative to what the page said before), but having an in-depth discussion of it is UNDUE. Instead, we have urolagnia et al., so having a brief summary with links to the main pages is appropriate use of Summary Style. As with the images, the WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate that the material needs to be added here because you feel that linking to the other pages is not sufficient. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, this is mentioned only as something that is depicted in pornography. Given that this is a common sexual act, this is a bit weird, and counter-intuitive!93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A "common sexual act"? If it were so common, you, and others like you, wouldn't be so fascinated by it. You are the exception that proves the rule, IOW it's not that common as a sexual act, and when depicted it's usually classified as fetish porn. When it's not "a sexual act", it's just a normal activity which isn't usually depicted with images, even in medical textbooks, and is usually considered a private act in most societies.

Are you suggesting an improvement to this section (if so, please provide the wording you'd like to see added, with RS), or are you just airing your opinion? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo of urine leaving a man's penis and a woman urinating

I have added File:Male Urin - DSCF7654.jpg. It appears to me to be a straightforward foto, with no pornographic element, and I believe it belongs in the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point to WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, especially

Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals.

I have added another image in line with the suggestion above File:Miktion.jpg. I think it is a straight forward image, with no pornographic element. File:Miktion.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me suggest that you take a look at #WP:PERENNIAL, just above, and then follow the link from there to the archived discussion. Editors have had this kind of discussion before. Again and again and again. In the past, the consensus has been that the Gray's Anatomy images cover this need. If you disagree with that consensus, please explain what additional information the reader derives from the photographs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated, having read the two long discussions on the issue in the archive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Urination/Archive_1#Appropriateness_of_photo and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Urination/Archive_1#Consensus_about_the_picture both of which show a consensus to retain existing photographs of male and female pissing. The last comment I can see on the subject is "An IP has now reverted the image without an edit summary. History: diff and diff. I'm not going to interject myself by restoring the image, but I continue to be interested in whether other editors would actually like to discuss it responsibly. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)" While I am happy to discuss it, I would be grateful if you would present your reasoning for removing the images, since your previous arguments seem to favour retention, and from the archives, it seems that an anonymous IP editor removed the images without discussion, and in contravention of consensus. I found no serious discussion about replacing photographs showing urination with anatomical diagrams of body organs that do not show urination seems to have taken place, indeed you yourself argued in favour of retention of images throughout most of the discussion. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Both photographs have been removed by Anthonyhcole "Unnecessarily offensive. Add nothing to the reader's understanding.)"

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Urination/Archive_1#Consensus_about_the_picture the following appears "I've been holding back on getting into the debate. However, today my ten year old son asked me where does a woman's urine come from? He knows where babies come from, but was unable to figure out how the female urethra and vagina were put together. I thought for a moment and then said that I would find a photo on WP which while was contentious showed the mechanics of female urination perfectly. I admittedly wondered if I was doing the right thing and then remembering that a picture is worth a thousand words, I went through the article history and found Aether22's oft deleted photo and showed it to him. He looked at it a moment and then I asked him if he had any questions. "Nope, Dad. That shows it perfectly. Thanks." And off he went and built a new bridge out of Knex. I'm really wondering what we are all hung up about. Put it back I say. It is anatomically accurate and incredibly useful for educative purposes. Gillyweed (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)".

93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:00, July 21, 2012‎ (UTC)

IP93, stop the edit warring. I left a warning on your talk page. You have already violated 3RR and will be blocked shortly if you don't stop immediately. I suggest you follow WP:BRD, which isn't written BRRD. Don't even think of attempting to restore your edits until a consensus has been reached. If it goes your way, then great for you. If it doesn't, then walk away. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I got rather irritated that Anthonyhcole deleted the images twice, without joining the discussion.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I know all about irritation, but don't let it get you to edit war. When your edits are reverted, stick to discussion until consensus is reached. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just hated those photos so much I couldn't help myself. They're very, very amateurish. The lighting, composition, cropping, detail are terrible. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Low-quality images are better than no images. It seems we might have better images, but those aren't included either. I'm for including the most educational, clear, and relevant/non-porn-looking pictures possible. — Ian01 (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I was here when the archived discussion took place. The cherry-picked comment from that discussion dates from a time when there was no illustration at all of what the female urinary tract looked like. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Prehistory? There were illustrations of the female urinary tract in my school biology books, and I think everyone has been aware of their existence.87.194.46.83 (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Images

I have found someone who will make images. I have no idea what they will look like. I suggested naked figures, equal scale, airline safety brochure style. Any other suggestions? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, because it depends on how we would use them on the page. I'm guessing from what you said in the RfC section just above that you are thinking of substituting the new images in place of the statue images in the lead. At least in principle, I like the statue images better. The female one was added very recently, and the one thing I see as a problem is the very obvious mismatch in size between the two photos. That could be fixed pretty easily by cropping the male photo, to make both photos similar. If we would just do that, I'd be quite happy with that, and I'd probably prefer not to have to deal with discussing a whole new direction. Please also keep in mind that we have a perennial issue with drive-by replacement of whatever is in the lead with stuff that's chosen just for "lulz". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. The mismatch probably can't be solved with cropping. The scale issue remains. Also, the dark colouration makes it hard to see. And, the one above the other has an obvious problem.

A clear, black and white line drawing could really do the trick. Let's see what the artist comes up with. I will post them here at talk, or, if they're really great, boldly swap them in. The last debate was different. This would be about which set of images is better. I suspect that there will be not be a 50-50 split in opinion, and it will be easy to decide. But who knows? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not fotos? they would show more information, and are available. Censorship?87.194.46.83 (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Urination in Art

For some reason this section has been deleted without discussion, or debate. It should be reinstated, and improved. Sources such as [[9]] and [[10]] look promising, and I think it is obvious that a reference should be made to Duchamp's urinal, and Warhols piss paintings, and a link to Body_fluids_in_art.87.194.46.83 (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Those are good points. It wasn't so much a lack of discussion as a lack of awareness of the material (see just above). But with this new information, there's no reason not to add material back. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Piss Christ also comes to mind. However, we should consider distinguishing between "urination in art" and simply "urine in art". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Urination and Execution

Suggest adding the following text from urophagia - is well referenced, and represented an otherwise unmentioned use of urination.

Execution

Pathan women in the North-West Frontier Province (1901–1955) of Pakistan during the Anglo-Afghan Wars used a method of execution involving urine, Pathan women urinated into prisoner's mouths. Captured British soldiers were spread out on the ground and fastened with restraints to the ground, then a stick or a piece of wood was used to keep their mouth open to prevent swallowing. Pathan women, taking turns one at a time, then squatted and urinated directly into the mouth of the man until he drowned in the urine. This method of execution was reported to have been practiced specifically by the women of the Afridi tribe of the Pashtuns. 80.57.81.114 (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This sounds interesting, but I see at Urophagia that some of the sourcing is contested. It would be helpful if the URL links would go to the exact pages being cited, instead of just to the cover of the books. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

References

water sounds promoting urination

In my upbringing and experience sights, sounds, and thoughts of water in motion can cause someone to experience a greater urge to urinate. Does anyone have a reliable source documenting this phenomenon? -- Frotz(talk) 10:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No mention of either form of diabetes

I find it really surprising that this article does not mention either form of diabetes. Increased rate of urination is - along with loss of weight and increased drinking - one of the three classic symptoms of diabetes mellitus, whether Type One or Type Two. Just having excessive rates of drinking and urination can be a symptom of diabetes insipidus. Does any one think that references to both of these diseases should be made in the article? It would certainly make a lot of sense to me. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. With a link to polyurea. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Animals

I'm concerned that the new material about non-human animals is WP:UNDUE. Although I agree that the material should be covered here, I think it should be a shorter WP:SUMMARY STYLE, instead of the many-sectioned taxonomy. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The many sections, with barely anything in them, are completely unneeded. Jarble, the editor who added all of that, does this often -- makes unnecessary subheadings. If a topic also occurs in non-human animals, we should also have a section about that with any of the following titles: In other animals, Other animals, or In non-human animals or Non-human animals; only having it titled Animals gives the impression that humans are not animals. There are, of course, times when the section will need to be divided into subheadings; single-sentence paragraphs or a paragraph made up of a few sentences is not one of those needed cases. As Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs states, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading..." I don't like seeing a section divided up into subsections when the subsections barely have any text in them; such formatting often makes an article look much longer than it actually is, as is the case with the Animals section Jarble created. All we need is one section summarizing this text, unless the section requires some division (as in "divide when needed"). If there were an individual article about urination among non-human animals, then we'd of course have an even shorter summary and direct readers to the main article on that for the in-depth details.

I suggest asking Jarble to comment here about the Animals section he created. And since this article is also currently tagged as being within WP:MED's scope (and even if it was not, there can sometimes be a medical issue regarding urination), you may also want to contact them about weighing in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to reduce the number of unnecessary sections. Jarble (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have condensed several of the short sections, so the article will hopefully be easier to navigate now. Jarble (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I trust, therefore, that you won't object if other editors shorten it further. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If the article is to be shortened, then the deletion of reliably-sourced information should be avoided, if possible. In general, I consider the deletion of reliably-sourced information from Wikipedia to be counter-productive (although this is a matter of much controversy among inclusionists and deletionists). I still think it might be possible to word parts of this article more concisely, without removing any reliably-sourced information. Jarble (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking especially about shortening the parts that are already tagged as "citation needed", as well as finding ways of saying things more concisely. This isn't about WP:AFD (where inclusion and deletion are typically discussed), of course. My concerns, instead, are about WP:UNDUE. Also, since I think we have other pages that focus on some of the material, WP:SUMMARY STYLE is applicable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with these deletions by Tryptofish; I agree similarly for the reasons I stated in the following edit summaries two days ago:[11][12]. It should go without saying that not everything about a topic is always going to be mentioned in an article; not even most of the time. Covering every aspect, the ones that require due weight, is more important. Whether or not more, or specifically a lot more, should be mentioned about whatever topic is a case-by-case matter. Also for the record, I feel that the current size of the section (seen in that first diff-link I provided) is fine as it is. But I also don't object to Tryptofish cutting it down a bit further. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll be guided by that, in terms of how far I should go. I'm not sure when I'll get around to it, so anyone else should feel free to go first. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

There's only two citation-needed tags. The rest of the tags are further-explanation-needed tags...and one clarify tag. That's another thing I disagree with Jarble on, because it's usually not clear what he feels needs clarification (though he sometimes leaves a note within the tag about what he wants clarified) and because the sources themselves usually don't clarify further. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to explain what needs to be clarified wherever the "clarification needed" tag is used, but I'm not sure which tag I should use for statements that require additional citations (if the statements are already cited). Jarble (talk)

I wasn't aware that you use the WP:Watchlist feature, Jarble. Since you weren't contacted about this discussion, it appears that you do. Either that, and/or you check talk pages without a watchlist having brought it to your attention. Flyer22 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I changed the heading to include the word "other", per above. Such a heading can also be seen at WP:MOSMED. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

An update for archive about the Other animals section. Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of urinating woman and man??

I mean, do we really need those? for christ sake...Sevendigits (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a perennial question at this page. Just as often, we have complaints that there aren't photos. Up close. With a lot of detail. So, it could be worse. In fairness, previous discussion on this talk page has indicated that some editors feel in good faith that not everyone knows exactly what the process looks like for the opposite sex. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Opening poster is indeff. blocked as sockpuppet of a troll. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bulbo-WHAT?

"Urine remaining in the urethra of the male is expelled by several contractions of the bulbospongiosus muscle." Um, on what planet? Urine remaining in the male's urethra is expelled by shaking the penis furiously. How could a muscle contraction shunt urine forward through a tube? This article seriously needs to mention "the shake" and the role it plays in male culture. It mentions piss shiver, after all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

did you read first? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbospongiosus_muscle Ernest Ruger (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

What??? So piss flies everywhere? It's the same muscle you use to hold it in. The couple of squirts you hear after the long stream? That's what that is, in case you were wondering.

That doesn't eliminate the 'urine remaining in the urethra' though. Again, how could it? It eliminates the last bit in the bladder.

The bulbospongiosus muscle is the musle that contracts during ejaculation or when the glans of the penis is squeezed. It does involuntarily contract during urination expecially towards the end to expel the last bit of urine out of section of the urethra that it surrounds, at least for me. I would suggest that it be mentioned in the article. It is a rather important aspect of male urination as a failure of the phenomenon to occur could lead to the problem of post-micturation dripping, which could cause stains and odors in one's undergarments. 24.158.225.15 (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Urination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150630031326/http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/node/255611 to http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/node/255611

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The section on Standing versus sitting or squatting

I have moved to this section some information about standing versus sitting/squatting with some Dutch references, which came from the Wikipedia article on "toilets" where it was included in too much detail. I can see that this information and one or two of the references are already here, so maybe what I moved here could be merged with the existing text to avoid dublication or even substantially shortened.

About whether men tend to stand and women not, one should not forget that the situation is different in some Muslim countries and some developing countries. E.g. in Muslim countries, urinals are not that common at all and many men prefer squatting as it may lead to less splashing of urine. I find many of the Wikipedia articles are written through the lens of the US. So don't rule out that there could be quite a bit of variety in the position used for urination. (I am currently trying to collect this kind of information and inlude it in the article on urinals and squat toilets.EvM-Susana (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thats right also in many european countries there is the trend for boys/men to sit to pee at home and to squat outside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.150.152.231 (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Do you have any references that we could cite for this statement?EvMsmile (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Experience of urination

"In females the need to urinate is felt in the lower abdomen region when the bladder is full."

Um, I had peed a minute ago, and-as well as the above- I felt the need behind my clitoris and behind my labia minora. Sort of more as a tingle behind them, rather than a pressure. Do other bio-females experience this? If so shouldn't we add this in?

I don't think we need to go into that much detail - unless you have a reliable source to cite.EvMsmile (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The section on techniques

I came to this article anticipating an article with a good, accessible yet scientific explanation of urination, and I was not disappointed. But I was amused at best by the undue weight given to a section on human urination techniques. "Men tend to stand, women tend to squat or sit." That should really be the end of it. Yes, it can have pictures if you must, though the ones of a man and a woman pissing into sanitaryware are not very illustrative, nor even very good pictures and thus better ones are required if they are required at all, but seriously, a whole screed of text devoted to how a man and a woman take a piss? Yes, we are not censored, but, seriously, get over it already. Keep the sentence, but lose the undue weight! Fiddle Faddle 08:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that stuff has long seemed to me to be either WP:OR or too obvious to include, for a long time. Please feel free to do some mopping up. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait and see what reaction we get. I'm tempted to remove the entire section on the basis that there is no value it adds to the article at all. Fiddle Faddle 17:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There's not much talk here, so I just went ahead and did it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In the interests of demonstrating the consensus, no-one objected, and I support the edits reducing the section substantially. Fiddle Faddle 19:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

And I've done quite enough editing of this page for now! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the section is an appropriate length/level of detail the way it is now, maybe even could be trimmed a bit further, but I do want to note something in case anyone can give proper attribution: the phrasation in the section about women seems to suggest or imply that a device is required for women to urinate while standing - or at least to do so cleanly. I believe this is inaccurate. Let me give two (unsatisfactory) sources and an explanation in case anyone actually has a further interest in the precision of this section. Warning, too much information ahead. I am by no means suggesting that the level of detail here be added to this or any article, just noting so interested parties can take and summarize whatever may be relevant if/when reliable sources are produced/found/vetted.

- I remember reading, in either a Wikipedia article itself or a source article for one (I apologize for being unable to remember or locate the specific source), about a degreed Japanese sociologist's skepticism regarding the common idea of social taboos surrounding nudity being native to Japanese culture as opposed to an amalgam of US cultural influence and a general social mixing in the confusion following the isolationist era. The point of this admittedly tangential observation is that in this article, he cited accounts of earlier periods in the country, where women were said to work the rice paddies with their kimonos tied up around their waists, and even to commonly step between the rows to urinate while standing before returning to their work. Numerous other, far less formal sources have cited standing urination as an uncommon but consistently present occurrence in eastern parts of the world. I think that cultural convention and situational convenience are contributing factors in the western view just as much as anatomy.

- http://stand2pee.com/ I don't know very much about source requirements, but I imagine that this does not at all qualify given how the entire website is mainly an advertisement for a product. If someone were to use the product and publish an article about the results of the 'training', maybe that would constitute an acceptable source?

- A suitable process has been described to me or read by me a few different times. The overlap between this knowledge and scientific publications is, as far as I know, nil as of yet, which is not particularly surprising. However, in an informal capacity and for any talk page browsers wishing to conduct further research, this is the basic process as has been consistently described to me: the ends of the index fingers are symmetrically hooked around the sides of the labia majora, between the clitoris and the urethral opening. The middle fingers are then hooked around or pressed against the labia minora in line with or slightly above or below the urethra. All four fingers are then, to different degrees, moved upwards, outwards (one side from the other) and anterior...the precise degrees and resultant positions obviously somewhat dependent on individual anatomy...until the urethral opening is a) pointed in a position conducive to urinate 'cleanly', b) flush or slightly protruding from the surrounding skin with nothing in the way of the stream, and c) subject to appropriate vertical and horizontal tautness to produce a single stream without scatter. It may then necessary for the urine to be expelled within a certain range of rate and pressure to avoid, well, splatter. Some conscious control over urethral dilation, whether natural or acquired, may also be necessary.

In case anyone actually has read all of this apprehensively, I'll offer some brief reassurance. I trust that in time some very bored anatomists will get around to verifying and noting all of this one way or the other, so let me assure you in the meantime that I have no plans to edit this or related pages, engage in long-winded arguments on the talk page, or lobby for inclusion or changes of information...much less start any edit wars. Unsurprisingly, my abnormally extensive informal knowledge of this obscure topic is the result of being a neurotically obsessive undinist; I probably do not represent a neutral or reliable party for editing purposes. 172.111.133.30 (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sketch of urinating female replaced

I have replaced the sketch of a urinating female with a better one (I think). Someone else had previously removed the image and someone else re-inserted it. Reasons why I thought the other image was not ideal: it showed the female fully naked (unnecessary for the purpose of showing urination); it showed the woman peeing forwards, not downwards (not realistic), it showed the woman touching her vulva while peeing (also not realistic, as this would result in getting urine onto one's fingers). I think this other image of an artist is better and more realistic. EvMsmile (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with all your reasons here. Whether the female is fully naked or not is irrelevant - what matters is how clear and informative the illustration is. It shows a front-view of her peeing, but it's consistent with her peeing at the same angle as in the Rembrant picture. And it does not show her touching her vulva. It shows her arm resting on her leg. I'll revert to the diagram, but I'm fine with replacing it if you can find something that is *clearer*, not something which is purposefully obscure like your replacement image. Amaurea (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I still don't like the image and I have searched for a better one on Wikimedia Commons but it's really hard to find one. I assume we don't want a photo of a woman urinating (there are lots of those on Commons)? I just don't find this sketch very realistic. Ask any other woman if this is the posture she takes for urinating? I wouldn't squat like that, i.e. forward peeing instead of downward peeing. Also what "credentials" does the creator of this image have? I'd rather - if anything - take one out of a reputable medical textbook (but then they probably don't make them available as open source). - I agree the one that I had found was also not quite ideal; I liked it more, found it more realistic, but it's true it was hiding the "anatomy" of the woman - so at the end of the day it also comes down to personal preference. EvMsmile (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The section on male erections and urination

Seriously considering losing this section, newly added, even though it is referenced. Rationale? WP:NOTHOWTO.

Thoughts from others, please? Fiddle Faddle 14:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind too much either way. I didn't add it, I just moved it. I guess the references are perhaps not great. Perhaps it could be modified to explain a bit more the physiology behind erection + urination at the same time? Could perhaps also mention if it's painful / uncomfortable for a male? Is the human body "designed" to normally do only one or the other, but not both? I am asking this from a woman's perspective - perhaps it's all very obvious for males. EvMsmile (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a How To guide. We are better off without it in my view

The overall physiology is simple. There are valves that make urination difficult anyway when the male is sexually excited. This is presumably to ensure semen is transferred during mating rather than urine. Merely having it point in an amusing direction is not the real issue. Fiddle Faddle 14:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is suitable because the majority of the section describes the phenomenon, while the so-called how-to sentence seems to flow into the rest of the paragraph in an informative/encyclopedic way. Grootwoord (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

We are not a training manual to tell gentlemen with erect penises how to urinate. Fiddle Faddle 16:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Removed excessive detail on street urination in Paris

I have removed this content which was recently added in one big edit (copied from another Wikipedia page perhaps?) and which I consider as too much detail about urination in Paris for this general page on urination. It - or parts of it - can perhaps be moved to the page on urinal, pissoir or public toilet. EvMsmile (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

In full view during the day, urinating is frequently performed by men in Paris. "Pipi sauvage" is the French name for the frequent practice of street urination due to the lack of toilets. Local male Parisians are the culprits of public urination. The problem of urinating led to the "incivility brigade". It has reached the extent that the urination is labelled as "public health problem". Urination, spitting, garbage throwing and sexual harassment against women are major problems in Paris. Public urination is not acceptable for women while men are freely allowed to publicly urinate in Paris. The name "urine sauvage" has been given by the French. The smell of urine in alleys and metros is a common smell for tourists and it was done for a long time in Paris. A feature showing instructions on urinating in public was shown on Le Grand Journal French TV. The smells of urine plague the metro of Paris and the urination frequently occur near signs and lampposts, giving the name "land of the pissoir" to France. Public urination is a habit of French men in Paris. Streets, metros, and alleys are all plagued with the odor of urine in Paris. "Why does Paris smell like pee?" was the top question performed by googlers who came across the travel site Flashpacker Family. The public urination issue is unrelated to tourists. Public urination has not been deterred by measures such as fines and building of new toilettes. Metros are plagued with urine smells in Paris. The issue of urination extended in the past to the times of the monarchy and the people were undeterred by anti public urination measures set by the king. Unlawful public urination continues to be practiced by Frenchmen even though Paris has public restrooms. 1,800 tickets were issued in 2008 because of urinating and 1,200 tickets were issued in 2007. Sidewalk cleaning by laborers has not gotten ride of the smell which plagues Paris. The parks, metro, and streets are all subject to urination. Tickets are issued by the "Brigade des Incivilités," which has eighty eight people participating in it. Paris streets are plagued with the torrent of urine and people have been unable to wash them away with hot water, deodorant and disinfectant. Public urination continues unabated despite the presence of new urinals open for use. 1,100 tickets were issued in the first half of 2009. Fines for public urination are in place and no cost urinal are available in an attempt to stop the public urination in Paris. Public urination has been committed by a majority of local men of Parisian background and is a local norm in Paris. Social bonding between friends may be created by group public urination in Paris.

Add a picture of Jeanneke_Pis for gender equality

Add a picture of Jeanneke_Pis for gender equality reasons on main article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1838:20:2:0:0:5A83:1842 (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per snowball clause. clpo13_(talk) 19:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Urination → peeing – More common name. 99.101.56.68 (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TONE Reify-tech (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose same disruption as this. Is it half-term already? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose purely disruptive suggestion. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Urination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/ask-the-expert/ask-the-expert-horse-behavior/flehmening.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308000149/http://www.effem-equine.com/Waltham%20-%20Horse/behavioural_aspects/the_natural_horse.html to http://www.effem-equine.com/Waltham%20-%20Horse/behavioural_aspects/the_natural_horse.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Urination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/clinical-guidance/Overactive-Bladder.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530003904/http://www.suhaibwebb.com/ummah/men/standing-and-urinating-in-islam/ to http://www.suhaibwebb.com/ummah/men/standing-and-urinating-in-islam

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Urination without facilities

Seems a bit one-sided. Why mention the Hackney Carriage Laws, but not for example the law in Belgium where women, unlike men, could not be charged with indecent exposure for urinating in public? Men, not having to squat down to urinate, were considered to have enough opportunity for urinating discreetly, while women couldn't always avoid "exposing themselves".

Not sure about the relevance of some sources. Does a blog complaining about men peeing in public really supports the statement that it "tends to be socially objectionable for females in most customs"? Ssscienccce (84.197.178.75) (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it could do with a revision, and that it wouldn't be controversial, so please feel free to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC - Should this article be illustrated with photographs of urination, or just anatomical cross sections of the penis and vagina?

Should this article be illustrated with photographs of urination, or just the anatomical cross sections of the penis and vagina File:Gray1142.png and File:Vagina-illustration.jpg? For example File:Male Urin - DSCF7654.jpg and File:Miktion.jpg Previous discussion is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Urination/Archive_1#Appropriateness_of_photo and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Urination/Archive_1#Consensus_about_the_picture . 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes Photographs convey information that it is impossible to convey verbally that aids understanding of the article. There are no current images in the article that illustrate the process of urination. Previous vigorous discussion showed a consensus in favour. Images were present in the article until removed without discussion.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Initial thoughts: Yes. I'd like to see a clear, good modest-sized thumbnail photo of both male and female human urination "below the fold" (lower than the typical user's first screen view). If anybody uses the word censorship in this discussion, I'll scream. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry - was about to post WP:NOTCENSORED includes "However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content". I am not sure how this relates to shrinking and hiding images, but it is their total exclusion that I am opposed to. Are you happy with File:Male Urin - DSCF7654.jpg and File:Miktion.jpg ?93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• IP93, it's not a matter of censorship, but of "how" to do it best and tastefully. Not everyone has a penis fascination. There are better images to choose from:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_male_urination

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_female_urination

• Brangifer (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you in favour of including photographs? If so which ones do you suggest. I think that it would be best to show a penis and female ureatha urinating, but I welcome alternative suggestions and have no particular attachment to File:Male Urin - DSCF7654.jpg and File:Miktion.jpg.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite partial to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Urin.jpg , in terms of lighting , sharpness, composition. Almost all of the others, including the three you're suggesting IP, are total, amateurish crap. (Just my opinion.) And we need something at least as good on those parameters for woman urinating. The ideal would be genuine studio-quality anatomical photos of man and woman under the same lighting.

IP, check out Pregnancy. A while back there was a long debate, culminating in one or two highly-attended (including many influential veteran editors) requests for comment, over whether the article should include an anatomical photograph at the top of the page. Consensus was to include such an image, but below the fold. I think we can safely rely on that case for guidance here. But you're entitled to disagree of course. I'm just pointing you to the way the community went then. Some of the discussion is in this archive but it went on for six months or so before that (in earlier archives). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think this RfC could well be closed, and I would suggest that there is some over-thinking of the issue by those discussing possible photos. We currently have two images, a drawing of the human male urinary tract from the Gray's Anatomy textbook, and a color drawing of the human female external genitalia. I think the WP:BURDEN in this discussion is on the IP, to explain what additional information the reader could get from adding the photographs. Do the photographs tell us anything about the anatomy or physiology that the current content does not? Does showing a stream of urine add any informational value? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• No I think Tryptofish is right. I've been persuaded by his/her's, Andy's and Brangifier's arguments here, at WP:ANI and elsewhere. Though there is some small added educational benefit to high quality photography over drawings, the added value is undermined by the significant offense it will cause many readers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm just asking: would it be justified to close this RfC? Does it really need to continue? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed the RfC as a disinterested third party editor. Consensus to exclude the photos has arisen. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 20:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

female urination

Why does the article advise women to "put your legs together and lean forward" because it "helps direct the urine downward"? I'm a female and I've been urinating all my life and I never put my legs together, that's just asinine. The urine goes downward anyway if you're sitting. It never goes up! It's called gravity, people, look it up, there's a wiki for that, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scroblachoir (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it worth to mention that women urinate at a higher flow rate than men? It is well known and i guess there are publications out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.177.171.142 (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. It probably won't happen, though, unless someone actually tracks down such a source. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the article shouldn't be telling complete strangers how to pee anyway. I'm a dude, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how-to book. --72.230.135.196 (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Urination in Sex - RFC

At the moment urination for sexual pleasure (Urolagnia or Water Sports) is covered only in the "Depicting urination" as something that is featured in pornography. I think it deserves its own section, but it others argue that it is something that only happens in pornography and should not be encouraged, or admitted.87.194.46.83 (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is above (I am the IP editor there). My suggested text was

Urination in Sex

Main article: Urolagnia

Urolagnia (also urophilia, undinism, golden shower and watersports) is a paraphilia in which sexual excitement is associated with the sight or thought of urine or urination. Some participants may drink the urine; this practice is known as urophagia, though uraphagia refers to the consumption of urine regardless of whether the context is sexual. Urolagnia enthusiasts may participate in urolagnia as part of a domination and submission scene, though not all sexual activity involving urine is so. These activities are often described with the slang terms golden showers, water sports, or piss play. As a paraphilia, urine may be consumed or the person may bathe in it. Other variations include arousal from wetting or seeing someone else urinate in their pants or underclothes, or wetting the bed."

87.194.46.83 (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm an involved editor, and you can see my views on this question above. The posting editor has also initiated similar RfCs at a couple of other pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• The involved editor has expressed views opposing some of the following - the inclusion of pictures of human penises to the phallus page, and the penis page, including photographs of urination in the urination page, the inclusion of photographs of urination on the watersports (BDSM) page, urination being mentioned in the penis article, and sexual pleasure as a use for urine. Where he has opposed adding inappropriate sexual images to relevant pages, and inappropriate sexual behaviour to articles about sex organs and bodily functions.
• This is a universal encylcopaedia of knowledge. There are clear instructions at the top of this page on how to configure your browser to avoid seeing images, so those who wish to self-censor can do so. Knowledge here is not meant to be censored to be like a child-friendly prime-time national graphic tv programme, and yet censors seem to have had a good job here at wikipedia.87.194.46.83 (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I guess you are talking about me, but I don't remember having commented at that many other such pages. And in fact, you are mischaracterizing what I have said in archived talk at this page. I'm aware of WP:NOTCENSORED, but I'm also aware of WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Aware of, or have read WP:UNDUE? What exactly do you mean by referring to it? Just citing guidelines is not helpful. That said, it seems to refer to the inclusion of doubtful opinions rather than provable facts. Do you question that urination is involved in sex? At the moment there are sections on Urination without facilities, Alternative urination tools, and Talking about urination. What makes Urination and Sex so WP:UNDUE that WP:NOTCENSORED is not breached?87.194.46.83 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Do you question that urination is involved in sex". Not usually, it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Alternative urination tools aren't USUALLY involved either, and yet there is a section on them here. Please explain how WP:UNDUE is relevant to your reasoning.87.194.46.83 (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Support It's icky, but the Urolagnia article indicates that it's not an insignificant aspect of the subject. It's certainly big enough so that UNDUE does not apply, in my view. So where? A top level section is too much. The Social factors section is a bit strange in this article as it contains the Alternative urination tools subsection. That could use some reorganizing. I think Urolagnia could be a subsection Social factors, and we could consider renaming the section to Society and culture or something. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and tone the suggested paragraph way, way down, and shorten it a lot. We're not censored, but hey, this is a family joint. The main article can contain all the details. Would that be a fair compromise? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, we do discuss it briefly in Urination#Depicting urination. And my argument has nothing to do with ickiness. What more needs to be added to make a WP:Summary style treatment that you would regard as due weight? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Urination#Depicting urination bit sort of stumbles onto the icky thing at the end. It isn't the subject of the paragraph, art and pornography is.

I think due, is its own subsection, or at least its own paragraph. That's seems fitting. Take out the ick factor, and compare to how we treat other subjects like umbrella (Umbrella#As_a_weapon_of_attack, which could use the addition of the poison-tipped spy assassination bit). Content about all the significant aspects is encyclopedic, and the icky thing seems to be a significant aspect. The ick factor seems understandably to magnify UNDUE, so, keep the bit short, with as little ickiness as possible. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's something we can work with. (But, again, please hear me when I say that I'm not talking about ickiness.) Actually, the section on "Depicting" is pretty sketchy, referring simply to the lead images before a sentence about pornography. Perhaps depiction in art is what is "undue" here. Should we, perhaps, delete the sentence about the two statues, and change the section header to "In sex"? I don't think we need to make a paragraph as long as what the IP proposes, but how detailed should it be? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts and responses:

• Change social factors --> social and cultural factors or something. This would broaden the scope and could invite some international content. There are probably some cultures out there with some interesting takes on the whole thing.
• The issue with the Depicting urination subsection is that it needs more substance to show that it merits a subsection. Now it just seems fringy, and makes the two statues bit seem undue. So, yes, unless there's more in art, I think changing the section header to "In sex" is a good plan. There, we would have the icky thing with the porno mention. I suggest we take the IP's paragraph, chop it in two, and tone it down.
• We could start a Facilities section, and move Alternative urination tools subsection into that. Also, some of Urinals subsections can go there too, with "...People who are affected by paruresis, or "shy bladder syndrome," ..." staying behind in the newly-titled subsection Shy bladder syndrome.
• Aside: Where can we find an illustrator. Ideal would be to replace the very black and mismatched statue images with side-by-side line drawings in the airliner passenger safety brochure style.
• I can't believe I'm involved in this. I hope nobody I know is checking my contribs. I started with the Babies and toddlers section and it got watchlisted. Now I'm stuck. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Scratch what I said about Umbrella#As a weapon of attack needing the poisoning thing. It's already there and I must have been reading the wrong line. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean about not believing how you got involved. I responded to an RfC a couple of years ago, and I've been here since. You've raised a lot of ideas that go beyond the scope of the RfC, so I'll leave those for further discussion, but I'll boldly go ahead and create that "In sex" section. My interpretation of toning down the suggested paragraph may be a bit more aggressive than what you had in mind, but nothing is final. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to boldly enact any of the points I made above that you agree with. If you don't I probably will. As for the toning down: way, way, way, way, way down is fine. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Feel free to, um, mop up. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Very funny. :) Mopping.... Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sure it's better. Please revert or further refine. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Have done, added a reference to the oxford dictionary too. Think there should be something about womens fear of urination during sex, and need to urinate after - cleansing effects of, short ureathra, infection, as is quite often in womens magazines, but hard to find a good source.87.194.46.83 (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Protected page edit request: Fix subsection headings

Please add level-4 headings (=====) to the subsections listed at Anatomy and physiology > Disorders > Experimentally induced disorders. Thanks. TZYX (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

they are already level-3 headings but they don't show up in the table of contents as it's been collapsed for easier reading. EMsmile (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Woman pee.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Dis-ambiguation header

Related to the dis-ambiguation header of this article, does Wikipedia have an article about the different kinds of sounds made by bells?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Georgia guy, I don't understand what you are getting at?EMsmile (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Look up tinkle in a dictionary and notice what it can mean. Georgia guy (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: Maybe we need a disambiguation article for tinkle then? Would you like to set one up?EMsmile (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

No evidence that urination expresses submissiveness

In the introduction it says that urination is used by some animals to "express submissiveness". I don't think there is justification for this to be so prominent in the article.

It not elaborated on anywhere in the article. Additionally, the source which is supposed to back up this claim is a 600 page book, The Behavior Guide to African Mammals: Including Hoofed Mammals, Carnivores, Primates, and no page number is provided. I looked through this book using the index and table of contents, but I could not find any evidence to back up the claim.

I propose that if an adequate source cannot be found, the claim that urination expresses submissiveness should be removed from the article.

--2600:1700:87D0:9D00:3D5E:5200:AFA2:20BF (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

Remove 2 occurrences of the phrase "or express submissiveness" since this claim is not supported by any sources. 2600:1700:87D0:9D00:CCA3:EDB3:204B:73AA (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This is actually well covered by the cited book. For instance Immature indi- viduals may even urinate in this attitude (submissive urination). There is also coverage of other submissive urination and urination on demand. Thanks for making me read about a bunch of mammals peeing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

"Tinkling" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tinkling. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 3#Tinkling until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Haram confusing

The page currently states...

> it is haram to urinate while facing the Qibla, or to turn one's back to it when urinating

This is confusing to me (non Muslim), it is haram both to urinate while facing or with ones back to the Qibla, so.... you have to be... side on? 2407:7000:9DA2:8800:E577:5EDA:6B78:4E44 (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Grammar issue: incorrect use of the conjunction "but"

The conjunction "but" is used in the sentence "In Islamic toilet etiquette, it is haram to urinate while facing the Qibla, or to turn one's back to it when urinating or relieving bowels, but modesty requirements for females make it impossible for girls to relieve themselves without facilities." According to the Cambridge dictionary "But is used to connect ideas that contrast." While it is no doubt true that Islamic tradition requires female modesty, this does not stand in contrast to the compass direction one is facing. However, simply substituting a different conjunction is also problematic. This would imply that female modesty while urinating is an issue specific to Islamic culture, which is not the case. Perhaps this part of the sentence should be moved to another part of the article addressing differences in male and female urination.

72.201.118.17 (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

References