Talk:Feces/Archive 2

list of 'types of poop' needed

 * 1) is there one or am i the only one who cares,what about other names for poop like 'sh*t Biscuit',Dingle berry,mudd butt,Defication Bubbles...

NPOV
This article clearly is in violation of Wikipedia NPOV poliy.


 * Um, can you tell us why? Or are you just going to say it is. Also please sign your posts. Dramma! 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Animal and human poop on main page
koilpoty

. --Barfooz  (talk) 06:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The log of poo is A-OK. Eyeon 22:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for place your poop in the poll; hopefully more people will contribute to the poll Samboy 23:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Fine, have your shit
 * 1) Polls are evil. --SPUI (talk) 00:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) One vote for inline images. --Niglet 00:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) If it has to be down to a vote... Dan100 21:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) This whole thing is stupid, and I want no part in it. There are rather more important topics needing attention on Wikipedia. Dan100 (Talk) 07:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Okay with me. What's the big deal about that piece of shit? To me, a Human is just another animal, as User:Jong has said on his User page. I do not understand why is there fanaticism going on for a piece of human shit, probably due to religious barriers. But religion, again, is created by man's own ideas! Mr Tan 15:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) We can have it, and it further illustrates the article. 24.232.58.144 11:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This user's only contributions are to this talk page Demi T/C 16:32, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
 * 1) Sean Curtin 03:50, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Articles should not censored for the sake of taboos (if it isn't a page yet, it should be (although probably a redirect somewhere)) JesseW 10:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) If you come here, you should expect/want to see the picture. Also I don't see anything groce about a picture and will not until they invent smelling pictures. Censorship stinks. --MarSch 16:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on, this is an article about feces. And this is Wikipedia. People searching this source for this topic should hardly be surprised that it comes complete with illustrations. Just try and keep the photo below the fold. -- BD2412 talk 17:47, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
 * 1) I think this is pathetic that this had to come to a damn VOTE, but whatever, just keep the kid swimming at the pool if that's your fancy. Mike H 19:13, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Okay. Link them.--EatAlbertaBeef 20:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: We're not talking about removing the picture. We're talking about linking the picture.  Samboy 21:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Seems appropriate to me too. Tuf-Kat 16:31, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) This seems logical to have on this page. Furthermore, it seems logical to move the picture to the top, since Wikipedia is made by and for humans, not birds, rabbits, or any other species. Hence, the human turd's relevance is higher than the animal turds. --Fecologist 22:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious sockpuppet. --W(t) 22:30, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your opinion, but I simply saw the discussion and created an account to take part. It seems any pro-poop vote is discounted in any way possible as a sockpuppet. I have reinstated my vote and will continue to do so.
 * Thank you for voting. The fecophobes will not prevail. Eyeon 22:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Okay, I just looked at the history on this thing and for the record, I am all for poop, animal, human, alien, whatever, so I'm voting yes on poop. However, that image by Eyeon is unnecessarily disgusting, and it looks as if he got it from Rate My Poop or something.  Yes, it is a natural thing to happen, but this isn't the same thing as a flaccid penis -- this is more like an erect penis with santorum all over it.  Just find a different photo and everyone will be happy.   StopTheFiling 00:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I can't see why people get riled up about the human feces image. The other version in which every kind of poo is OK, except for human feces, to ME, very much emits an American right-wing view of the world where everything about the human body is taboo. And the image description was very informative. Thank you, expert of shit. :) Eric B. and Rakim 20:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt it's a right wing thing. Humans have a natural aversion to shit. Disgust is a perfectly natural reaction, that helps keep us away from things that might harm us. That's why human shit is seen as worse than animal shit and carnivour shit is worse than herbivour shit -more likely to contain pathogens. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 05:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point Theresa! Also a very good argument for keeping the image. With the image in place you can yourself experience yourself being more disguisted by the human feces than by the other ones. It is a very good illustration for the biological reaction you described. Who would have thought that shit was such a deep subject? Eric B. and Rakim 21:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) IMO human feces bear a shock value only because there is not much other examples. When we have a collection of feces from various animals, it will become clear that the image of human feces is necessary, eg., for comparison, classification, etc. My vote is to put more shit here. When the pile grows big, it may be made in a separate article, with explanations of differences, etc. Just in case someone thinks it would be nonencyclopedic: it is. This kind of info is useful in forensics, for hunters... er... sorry, I meant, bird sighters. mikka (t) 02:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) This is an encylopedia. Nuff said. Theresa Knott  (ask the rotten) 05:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) The picture provides an appropriate and non-revolting depiction of human faecal matter. It is by far the cleanest piece of crap, I've ever seen. This is not an anonymous vote. My IP is static.80.229.14.246 20:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Don't look away from the poo. The poo is the natural human body process. 68.97.208.123 04:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) The photo should be the same size as any other photo and should be on top of the page. Some people are now trying to make it 75 pixels wide and put it at the bottom; that's stupid. LittleRedRidingHood 20:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Adding my vote. --ThePope 00:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Its totally appropriate to have a picture of feces on the main page. Feces is a natural result of natural bodily processes, and is only going to be shocking to people who have never looked at their own. As for the size, in comparison to the giant rabbit poo, it makes sense to make the human feces a similar size. An An 02:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) It's relevent Dementedd 03:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Animal poop OK on main page, human poop not on any page

 * 1) (Weirdest. Heading. Ever.) I think we can assume that most all readers of Wikipedia will be familiar with human poop, so the photo is unnecessary, and doesn't even need its own linked page. OTOH, not everyone knows what animal poop looks like, so those pictures serve some use. A и D я 01D TALK EMAIL  02:33, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I nominate the above heading for the title of the next BJAODN. -- BD2412 talk 17:49, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Poop? Who is letting six year olds edit? :)

New poll
We should have a new poll, because some say that Eyeon's poll is invalid and refuse to accept the results. So, no debate or explanation in this next vote please; if you want to make an additional statement, then scroll past the voting for 'human poo picture debate.' For the vote, please give your signature only (Four Tildes). The photo should be:

Normal size (200px) and at top of page

 * 1) LittleRedRidingHood 01:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) --MarSch 19:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) DES 1 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
 * 4) Sarge Baldy July 5, 2005 02:23 (UTC)
 * 5) We're having this vote again? --SPUI (talk) 5 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)
 * 6) Serodio 21:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) --Tedpennings 22:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Yawn.  ≈Superbeatles™ 01:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Smaller size (100px) and at bottom of page

 * 1) --Psyk0 13:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2)  Blank Verse  ∅  19:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) Sticking at the top where it is the first thing that people see in the article, especially at the larger size, comes awfully close to trolling.
 * As the organizers requested, please keep position statements off the ballot. Nuances of opinion cannot be tallied and invite rebuttal. The last ballot devolved from voting, to making statements, to general debate, and participants complained that their meanings were misinterpreted. The whole effort was delegitimized and discredited. Instead, there is room for debate below the ballot. LittleRedRidingHood 28 June 2005 09:17 (UTC)
 * 1) Gemini6Ice 2 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)
 * 2) StopTheFiling 17:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Off the page, with a text box link

 * 1) MechBrowman June 28, 2005 21:53 (UTC)
 * 2) 62.253.96.44 30 June 2005 11:31 (UTC)
 * 3) Hoekenheef 1 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)
 * 4) Kfort 5 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)
 * 5) RJC 5 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)
 * 6) Kaldari 6 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)
 * 7) --MicroFeet 01:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Phr (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) --E tac 11:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere on Wikipedia

 * 1) Floopy 2 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)
 * --MicroFeet 01:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Changed my mind. See votes for undeletion.--MicroFeet 01:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Phr (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this poll dead yet?

 * 1)    [ +t, +c, +m ] 03:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Gemini6Ice 04:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Human Feces Picture Debate
If there are any issues that were not fully explored in Talk:Feces/archive1, then lets discuss them here. LittleRedRidingHood 01:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reducing the image to 1/4 the size of the others
A small image will do IMO. mikka (t) 20:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Reducing it to 50px, the size of my pinky nail, is pathetic and just a weasel way of censoring the image. LittleRedRidingHood 20:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, it is 100px, down from 200px. I don't really see what's this fuss about besides being nasty. mikka (t) 22:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Going from 200px to 100px is a 75% reduction of the image. This is not appropriate. 68.97.208.123 22:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think thumbnailing it is better. It's still recognisable, but it isn't as 'in your face' as the larger image was. Also, whoever it was who suggested artification, that seemed to help too. --Psyk0 13:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

solution

 * Shouldn't this be removed as vandalism? LittleRedRidingHood 01:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it really worth de-vandalising the talk page? --Psyk0 13:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. This is not a chat room. People work here. Believe me or not, poop is a serious matter to many: hunters, trappers, zoologists, veterinarians, doctors, bird sighters, etc. mikka (t) 15:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Remove away. --Psyk0 22:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Too late now. It should have been done on sight. Now we have a reasonable discussion. mikka (t) 22:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This was amusing. Don't be so hard on the discussion page. Gemini6Ice 2 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)

"Normal size (200px)" is not really a valid description. "Normal size" should just be "thumb", so the size is set by the user's preferences. Overriding the user's preference by setting a specific size is valid in some situations, but is not "normal". I'd rather just get rid of the picture since I don't see any point to it, but certainly any specific size should be removed unless there's consensus for that size. An alternative to a thumbnail would be a gallery, again without specifying a particular size. Phr (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Trolling
Eyeon, this has gone on long enough. If you continue to troll this page, you're going to be blocked. You're behind all the new user accounts and the anon IPs. You voted multiple times in the last poll and will doubtless do so in any others you try to organize. You've had people running around trying to assume good faith here and on other pages, and you tried to do the same on the mailing list. Be warned that patience is wearing thin. You've had your fun. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Why?
Will someone tell me what the difference is between having it at the top and at the bottom from a censorship point of view? As long as it's included, it should be fine, no? Before, I thought that Eyeon and associated sockpuppets were trolling. Now I am pretty certain that they are, as a reasonable compromise has been suggested. If anyone answers my question with the statement "why censor poo?", I'll know they are, beyond any possible shadow of doubt. So what is the difference to the coprophiles? smoddy 19:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Having it at the bottom, and smaller, makes it less in-your-face. Those who really feel a need to see an image of human feces still can, while those who don't want to aren't forced to; they can read the majority of the article without being disgusted. --Psyk0 22:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't clear. I agree with those sentiments. Why do people object to shrinking it and lowering it?  smoddy 22:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Shrinking and burying the image reinforces the stigma on human feces. It burdens the study of feces with emotional baggage, and unfairly shames the Wikipedian who dares research it. LittleRedRidingHood 28 June 2005 09:05 (UTC)


 * Should there be a re-creation of the Goatse.cx image on the page for it? I don't think so. Visuals can inherently bother a person more than a textual description. I feel that the image that is currently on feces is not too disgusting. It bothers me very little, but I can stomach it. And if I can't, I can easily ignore it since it's small. If it were the main image, it would be unavoidable for a user. Minimizing the fecal imagery does not "reinforce the stigma on human feces"; it simply acknowledges that such a stigma exists. Anal sex should not have an image of two men going at it, and I'm not going to claim that it reinforces a stigma of anal sex. I believe in free speech, but I also think one has the right not to listen to something e doesn't want to. ("Listening," in this case, would be looking at a large and grotesque JPEG or GIF, maybe even a PNG.) You want to use Wikipedia to help chip away at that stigma. I think chipping away at stigmas is an admirable thing, but, unfortunately, Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. Create a web page that accurately depicts the different visual forms of human feces and then make it an external link on the feces page for the curious user. Chip away at the stigma on your own webspace. Gemini6Ice 2 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)

Mikkalai Blocking LittleRedRidingHood
Mikkalai, why did you block me from editing for the past 48 hours? I emailed you and you did not respond, but you seem to spend time on this page, so I am asking you here. On the blocking page, you called me a troll. Will you tell me what I did that was against the rules? Or were you just angry because I reverted an edit of yours? LittleRedRidingHood 04:36, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is worrisome. I have examined LittleRed's block history and I can't find a valid reason for it. Even though I argue the direct opposite position from LittleRed, I would also like Mikkalai to respond. It appears Mikkalai abused his position as an admin to gain an advantage in an edit dispute. Floopy 6 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

To troll:
To elaborate a little on my vote: My personal definition of trolling is doing something to deliberately provoke or offend. As the first vote showed, there was a small majority in favor of having the photo in the Feces article (although I personal think that there were a number of sockpuppets voting on the For side that would lower that percentage in favor to almost 50%-50%), but there was no strong consensus for the photo. On the other hand, there was a fairly large minority that were bothered or offended by the image. That would suggest that to minimize any objection to the image, that it should be made smaller, and placed below the beginning of the article so that it is NOT the first thing someone sees when the go to the feces article. To insist, either through revert wars, or through a vote, that the image should be at the top of the article, in my opinion, comes very close, if not stepping over the line, of a deliberate attempt to offend and provoke those persons who are bothered by the image of human feces. Remember that this article is about all the different types of animal feces, and not specifically about human feces. Blank Verse  ∅ 28 June 2005 05:18 (UTC)


 * Calling someone who disagrees with you a troll, makes YOU a troll. A Wikipedian should be able to participate in the creation of an article without being subject to epithets. Rather than call people names, let's focus on the issue at hand. As I said before, shrinking and burying the image reinforces the stigma on human feces. It burdens the study of feces with emotional baggage, and unfairly shames the Wikipedian who dares research it. LittleRedRidingHood 28 June 2005 09:09 (UTC)


 * Stop it or you'll be blocked again. BlankVerse, the person behind the Eyeon/LittleRedRidingHood account voted several times in that poll, so I'm not sure you can deduce anything from it. SlimVirgin (talk) June 28, 2005 09:26 (UTC)


 * Why are you threatening to block me? I am participating in a discussion. I am so sick of this, Mikkalai blocks me and now you threaten. I am not Eyeon, and HE hasn't done anything to get blocked either. In fact, his edit history says he hasn't done ANYTHING AT ALL in a week. Stop harassing me. LittleRedRidingHood 28 June 2005 09:50 (UTC)


 * LittleRedRidingHood- you know, it's rude to delete other people's comments. (Twice.) (My mistake- was an editing error.) To reinstate what I said before you removed it, I don't feel a fecologist would be too psychologically damaged by the emotional baggage around the fact that other people don't like to see large pictures of poo all the time. Indeed, an expert fecologist would be aware of and comfortable with this information. Perhaps a seperate article, Human Feces, should be created? --Psyk0 28 June 2005 09:42 (UTC)


 * The new software is screwed up. Simultaneous edits are zapping each other. I'll wait to respond. LittleRedRidingHood 28 June 2005 09:58 (UTC)
 * A separate article for human feces is a brilliant suggestion, Psyk0. I endorse this idea whole-heartedly. Gemini6Ice 7 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)

Dont feed trolls
Please ignore the posts of the internet troll. The user will be blocked after the next disruptive edit for 1 year. May be they will grow up then. mikka (t) 28 June 2005 16:58 (UTC)


 * I have asked you to identify which post or edit caused you to block me from participating for 48 hours, and you refused, because you know there was no valid reason. Now, you are afraid that others will see how you have behaved, and you threaten to silence me permanently. It is clear that you used the block in retaliation over an edit dispute, and you will use it again to silence criticism of your behavior. Nevertheless, I will continue to contribute to Wikipedia and I will behave within the rules, because I believe the project is worth it. LittleRedRidingHood 29 June 2005 00:23 (UTC)


 * This is worrisome. I have examined LittleRed's block history and I can't find a valid reason for it. Even though I argue the direct opposite position from LittleRed, I would also like Mikkalai to respond. It appears Mikkalai abused his position as an admin to gain an advantage in an edit dispute. Floopy 6 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

Page Protection
I tried to edit the page but it's locked, without explanation. When will the page be unlocked? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by floopy (talk • contribs) 23:49, 1 July 2005.

Inappropriate
Why are there pictures of turds on this page? That's disgusting and unnecessary. Floopy 2 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)


 * This is an article about turd, my friend. The article of Michael Jackson has pictures of Michael Jackson, which look much more disgusting to me. Just look at this: Image:Michaeljacksonm.jpg. mikka (t) 2 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)
 * Aargh! That picture is disguting!(The Michael Jackson one)


 * Shall we also have photos at phlegm, urine, smegma, santorum and semen? This is not a rhetorical question. If not, why not? Floopy 2 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)


 * I doubt that photos of urine would be useful, e.g., they will hardly help to distinguish urine from, say, tea. Feces, because identifiable from a picture, do benefit from pictures. Unfortunately so far it seems the whole affair looks more like an exercise in free speech than an attempt to add encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not democracy, remember. As for santorum, I thought you knew it was a nasty joke, and your inclusion of it in your list forces me not to take your intentions seriously. mikka (t) 4 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

poop looks like chocloate bars sometimes. and nut fudge clusters!


 * Mikkalai, it is clear that you take nobody's intentions seriously but your own. An examination of your participation in this article shows that you abused your position as admin to block another user's contributions in violation of policy, and when called on it you refused to defend your actions. You are in a poor position to lecture on Wikipedia policy. And in a worse position to lecture on democracy, comrade. Floopy 6 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)


 * I agree that picture of Jacko is nasty looking. DyslexicEditor 07:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I never, ever thought I'd be able download a high-resolution picture of human excrement on Wikipedia. Patriarch 10:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The simplest solution is the hardest of all
After reading that there was a debate on Feces and Talk:Feces at The Village Pump this morning, my spider-sense began to tingle, and I made sure to disable image display before pointing my browser at the page. (Thank goodness for modern web browsers; with Internet Explorer I'd be powerless.)

And what I found, unsurprisingly, was a rather informative article. I still haven't seen the article in its original context with images intact, and frankly I'd never want to. It looks to me like a single poop picture is bringing down a perfectly good article.

In my opinion, simply linking to the fecal images (note the plural; it's probably better to link to all of them rather than a single one so as to forestall accusations of species bias) is sufficient to make this page encyclopedic while eliminating controversy (no pun intended.) I'd do it myself if it wasn't going to be reverted in a split-second, since there seem to be a few really weird characters editing this talk page. It's like watching Robert Brookes II: The Revenge of the Obsessed. (Anyone who hasn't seen the first movie should probably check out the history of circumcision. Good times were had by few.)  --Ardonik.talk* July 2, 2005 21:07 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, and it would be my second choice vote. The deviants can get a good long look when they want it, while the rest of us won't have to barf. The pictures at vagina and anus should be treated the same way. Right now they are spread eagle like a dirty whore. Floopy 3 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)


 * I had this idea before but didn't bother mentioning it other then on IRC. None of the pictures on this page are as horrible as most people claim, but I think the rabbit one is the worst... I agree with vagina and anus, wikipedia should be work-safe. Oh, and lets link to the picture on Meconium also. Who's the "model" for the vagina picture? I still oppose completely removing the images, and it's really stupid to put one picture at the bottom, 1 zillionth of the size of the others. How is that any more useful then a link? It looks like a brown pixel!-- Phroziac (talk) 3 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is, they let anyone edit this thing, no matter how perverted. There really should be a peer review process where we can vote people off. I've gotten rid of the dirty pictures at clitoris, meconium, masturbation, penis and anus. Floopy 3 July 2005 22:55 (UTC)


 * And I've reverted them straight back again (apart from the Meconium one). The human body is not "filthy" or "dirty". Although fair enough, perhaps links to them would be a good compromise. Censorship is not the solution, though. Plus: the masturbation one was a non-explicit line-drawing - about as far removed from "filthy" as you can get. Jez 3 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)


 * The real question is that if you are to consider something safe for work, why should someone at work be looking at articles about feces anyway. 12.174.151.111 15:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole masturbation article should be deleted, it's just a how-to manual on how to play with yourself. It doesn't matter if its a line drawing or a photo, that slut had her hand inside her private parts. Is this really something we want to encourage? Floopy 3 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)


 * It is not our place to encourage or discourage it. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Gemini6Ice 4 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)


 * That's exactly my point. We should not be encouraging masturbation, and that article does. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for deviants, either. Floopy 4 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)


 * It discusses known effects of masturbation on one's health as well as other encyclopedic information pertaining to masturbation. Perhaps it makes the value judgment "it's okay," but, for the most part, an encyclopedia should treat all entries with similar attitude. And Wikipedia does. Urolagnia discusses the ways in which people participate in urine play, and so maybe it says "it's okay" subtextually, but it is not encouraging the activity. Nor does masturbation encourage masturbation. To be fair, I think masturbation should have more information on various religions' attitudes towards masturbation, but that's the only change I'd make. The overall consensus seems to be that the article does not encouarge it. You seem to feel that way only because the article fails to denounce it so one-sidedly as you do. Gemini6Ice 4 July 2005 08:46 (UTC)


 * Someone is a 'deviant' because they masturbate? Seriously, grow up dude. While a Wikipedia article is not meant for preaching, the way you marginalize those who do it is unacceptable.  --70.119.83.163 20:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)SlayerRob


 * Why, friends, do we talk past one another when a simple compromise is so easily obtained? Link to controversial images instead of removing them outright (especially unhelpful if the article refers to them.)  Now, I understand that one man's taboo is normal to another man (and may be a fetish to third, but let's not cater to such people.)  For instance, I would not censor or mask images on the nudity article because they don't bother me personally.  They may bother others, but while we conduct the necessary talks about what the proper threshold is, doesn't linking to the images satisfy everyone involved?
 * Let's stick to the topic at hand: poop. More specifically, the small brown log at Feces (which I regret to say I have now seen for myself.)  Sure, it's a very natural thing, but seeing other peoples' solid waste nauseates me and, I'm sure, a great deal of our audience.  By linking to the last image instead of parading it about, we can make all sides happy.  Not doing so, and leaving the article intact in a read-only article, does a disservice to the credibility and image of our encyclopedia in my opinion.
 * (I expect that those of contrary opinion will now proceed to argue that poop is in fact no different than nudity, and that if images of the one are "censored," images of the other should be censored also. Ah, well.  Disagree away.  And yes, I have changed many a baby's diaper in the past.) --Ardonik.talk* July 6, 2005 06:55 (UTC)

The most obtuse headers are the least informative of all
so let's try to avoid them. 68.97.208.123 3 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to my previous header, I don't see what's wrong with it. --Ardonik.talk* July 6, 2005 06:30 (UTC)


 * I believe his point was that putting an ambiguous or 'obtuse' heading is uninformative for those who are watching the talk page on their watchlist. Something more relevant and succint, like 'Simplest solution: link to the image' is much more useful. --Psyk0 6 July 2005 11:01 (UTC)


 * Alright&mdash;it's no big deal. I'll remember to do so in the future.  --Ardonik.talk* July 7, 2005 07:58 (UTC)

Admins abusing their position
Three admins here are not only blocking progress on this article, but they are also trying to stifle debate on this talk page. SlimVirgin, Raul654, and Mikkalai have all threatened and/or blocked users who have broken no rules. When questioned, they make more threats. I would support an examination into their behaviors. Floopy 6 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)


 * I have started a RFC on Mikkalai's behavior. Floopy 7 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)

This is pathetic...
I don't think there is a single person here who honestly, genuinely believes that the pictures of human feces are necessary and add encyclopedic value.

Both sides in this debate know this is merely an attempt to test the limits of Wikipedia, and that this is just a case of immature people and feces fetishists making weak excuses for including pictures of poo in this article. I'm sure there are plenty of sites on the web designed for people who get off looking at poo, but Wikipedia is not one of them.

Merely because one can include a picture of something doesn't mean that one should. I could create a page full of information on necrophilia, and thats fine, but if I were to post a picture of some guy banging a bloated corpse, that would be going a little too far.

I realise that is an extreme example, but those who are defending the inclusion of the human feces image need to "cut the crap" (pun intended) and own up to the fact that this isn't about what is best for the article, this is about trying to push the limits of what is acceptable on Wikipedia. - Uthar Wynn 01


 * Well said, sir. smoddy 21:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Get this filthy turd-shower off the internet entirely, or at least this website. It annoys me to know that some dirty, deranged, disgusting, demented faggot is getting off over the fact his smelly shit is shown forty-six times a day to people who look up faeces on wikipedia. 211.28.71.14 16:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)JohnnyCakes 29/12/06


 * Thanks. What really needs to happen here is we need to find an admin who agrees that the inclusion of the human stool is just there to satisfy the immature feces fetishists, and is not a legitemate contribution.  These image debates (see the meconium one) are ridiculous and the people advocating the inclusion of these images need to be treated like the vandals they are.  --Uthar Wynn 01 04:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, you've found an admin (yours truly), and I believe there are one or two others as well. Unfortunately (well, in this case anyway), we have no powers to make such decisions.  We can only enforce community consensus, and that seems to not yet be present.  Anyway, cheers, for your support.  smoddy 21:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If you're looking for more evidence of consensus, you certainly have my consent to unprotect the page. I'll replace the turd picture with a link and warning more or less immediately once I know the article is unprotected.  I'm pretty sure this is what everyone wants (except for the weird characters I mentioned in an earlier edit.)  --Ardonik.talk* 06:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Exscuse me, this is not turd, just as gays are not fags and Jews are not kikes, and the picture is not going anywhere. I have already made a compromise by moving the pic down the page and scaling it down. But total censoring for a sole reason that someone might have a weak stomach is inacceptable. mikka (t) 22:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I can understand. Still, human feces is different from other feces. P.S. -I feel terrible typing this. --Defender 911 01:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, Uthar, god forbid anybody disagree with your superior worldview, lest they be considered "vandals". NOT well said, whatsoever, despite what smoddy said.  --Slayerrob 14:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)SlayerRob

Besides, who needs to see a picture of a great big dump to find out what human feces looks like? Just eat some food and wait a while, and then one can examine the properties of human feces first-hand. The human feces picture has absolutely no value and is completely unencyclopedic. --Uthar Wynn 01 21:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

When computers are able to synthesize odors, I wonder what will happen to this article. DyslexicEditor 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Human feces image is now linked
The human poop is now linked instead of being displayed openly. I have no intention of deleting the image or removing references to it from the article.

If you're going revert my change, that's okay, but can we pretty please talk about it here first? --Ardonik.talk* 00:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * There was plenty of talk about this. The image is not in an offensive format and even reduced in size, in order not to dominate the (as yet poor) article. mikka (t) 03:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There was talk about this; among other things, a casual reading of the archive page and the text above will show that the image was disturbing to more than a few people, me included. (Go ahead and insult me now for being a puritan or crybaby; I anticipate it.)  Tell me, how does my revision detract from the article?  I did not delete the image; I did not remove any reference to it.  Is your objection because my revision did not show human stool in its wet and slimy glory?  What principle are you trying to demonstrate by reverting my (in my opinion, reasonable) edit?
 * Mikka, are you beyond compromise on this matter? Under what terms would the linking of the image be acceptable to you?  I must know, because I'm not in the mood for a revert war.  --Ardonik.talk* 03:45, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have already created the compromise: when I joined this silly discussion, the image was lagre and at the top of the page. The only reasons I see for linking the image is if it is of specifically shock purpose or forbidden by law in some countries. And I removed it from the top of the page, since placing it there was placed there for no other but shocking reason.
 * The fact that the image is disturbing for some people is POV, if you may allow me to play some technicalities here. On this base some people will gladly remove all nude and anatomical images. While I wrote here that wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech, censorship on a whim is unreasonable as well. I am not aware of any religion that forbids to show feces, unlike, say, women faces. mikka (t) 15:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The reason for linking the image is simple, and has nothing to do with laws or religion: images of wet, fresh poop are nauseating to a lot of people. What does the Neutral Point of View have to do with it?  What POV am I failing to represent by linking to the image?
 * You interpret what I did as "censorship on a whim." Why?  Did I remove any information from the article?  Was the article somehow less under my edit than it would have been otherwise?
 * Why are you so keenly interested in forcing onlookers see an image up front that they could choose to click on at any time?
 * If I'm not mistaken, now that Eyeon and Little Red Riding Hood have grown bored with their trolling, you're pretty much the only reason the image is still being shown on the page. (I am not accusing you yourself of trolling &mdash; you simply happened to share their opinion for reasons not yet clear to me.) --Ardonik.talk* 00:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * You there, Mikkalai? --Ardonik.talk* 06:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. But there is much more shit to fix in other places. :-)
 * Exactly. The POV is in that human feces are nauseating and therefore cannot be displayed without warning.
 * The image is immediately relevant to the topic, and its moving elsewhere is censorship, just like a leave on the genitals of Eve.
 * Irrelevant. Just the same I can ask: why are you... The answer is ahready given on this page: if you are reading about feces, expect to see them.
 * On a bright side, I finally decided to write a normal Human feces article. After this you will be free to remove the image that disturbs you from the current article. Foy your information, I am not a shit fetishist or something. Im my long and adventurous life I happened to clean pig pens and harvest guano, and I can assure you that human feces are  far from being the worst dirt. mikka (t) 18:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yuck. :-(
 * Well, I have to admit that your solution of splitting the article was a pretty reasonable one, and I see no need to press the issue further. I fully expect the trolling to continue on the new article, though (which I have reluctantly added to my watchlist....)  --Ardonik.talk* 04:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

How about instead of comparing no feces pictures, to a human one. Compare a human one to the tubgirl pic?DyslexicEditor 07:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Urgh... tubgirl is horrible. I saw that one on the internet years ago... Do they actually show the tubgirl pic on the wiki article?!? I dont even want to check... 130.179.39.164 21:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Some actual content: the colour of human fecal matter.
In humans, the brown colour comes from dead red blood cells. Anybody who's had a child or had to change a newborn's nappy will tell you that their fecal matter is green/yellow. This colouration is due to the presence of bile alone. Later, the body starts expelling any excess unrecycled red blood cells in fecal matter. I'll change this if nobody minds. --Kgaughan 17:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I always wondered why babies had green poo. It's certainly refreshing to find interesting information on these pages instead of pointless flaming. Change away :) --Psyk0 20:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Changes: Bacteria vs organisms, excrement
Under fecal contamination, I changed bacteria to organisms, as hepatitis is caused by virus rather than bacteria.

Also, in the related terminology section, there is a direct contradiction. In the first paragraph, it states that feces are incorrectly believed to be a product of excretion. In the second, it states that rabbits excrete feces.

According to both the American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, feces is synonymous with excrement.
 * At some point I came to the conclusion that excretion referred to urine while excrement referred to feces. I think this article is incorrect in saying that excrement is missapplied to feces. (In fact, I think the only correct usage of excrement is to refer to feces.) That said, it is true that excrement is not the result of the excretory system. Rather, it is the result of the digestive system. I think probably the root excr was used to refer to anything that came out of the body before excretory and digestive systems were well understood.


 * Regarding the bacteria/organism thing, some people do not view viruses as organisms. Further, rather than using the all-life-envoloping term organisms I would suggest that the article be changed to say bacteria and viruses. Theshibboleth 09:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

On caption to birdshit picture, please rephrase "public nuisance"
Unfortunately public nuisance is a legal term, please rewrite the birdshit caption not to include this term. (From the Wikipedia entry on this phrase: "To be a nuisance, the level of interference must rise above the merely aesthetic. For example, if your neighbour paints their house purple, it may offend you, but it does not rise to the level of nuisance.") Obviously we don't mean this term in the legal sense...

This talk page stinks
I expected better of you Wikipedia. Klosterdev 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It is accurate with the subject matter, no? DyslexicEditor 22:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * When you edit an article about crap, expect the talk page to being pretty crappy as well :P CanadaAotS 23:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested name change
I personally think that the article should be moved to poop because that is its normal and most common name in the world I kknow it sounds dumb but few people would recognise this easily.-user:Unit
 * Poop is a childish term used to describe feces. Feces is the real term for it. That's like saying we should move Penis to Cock or Dick because it's probably referred to as those more often than penis. tv316 05:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

but those terms are profane and poop isnt.
 * Then move your user page to "Bad Grammar Man" because that's what everyone calls you.
 * PS. Move MY user page to "Troll"

Wow, everyone here sure is afraid of the sight of poop
A year ago there was the rabbit poop and a car with bird poop. Then a debate came about if a pooped in diaper could be allowed. And now I see it's the rabbit and some container for dog poop (with no actual poop). This second picture is just useless. DyslexicEditor 07:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh for god's sake don't start that up again. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * He does have a point though. Klosterdev 23:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Afraid is the wrong word. Repulsed would be the correct word. Lonelyboy 13:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Animal types that don't have a separate area for urinating.
This article is lacking information. I know many animal types don't have a separate area for urinating. Birds, for instance, don't and their poop is whitish--something related to urea. I think only mammals are the creatures with separate exits for feces and urine. Birds, reptiles, fish, insects, etc. only give out feces--or is it called something other than feces? DyslexicEditor 23:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Omifukingawd its frikin poo for cryin out loud.--boo--�

The Microscopic Image
It's been weeks since I added the microscopic image of fecal bacteria and I'm quite proud with myself that everyone has liked it enough not to remove it. I feel that this has helped settle the debate on this page. DyslexicEditor 16:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ... or rather helped to put the shit aside :) - Anonymous 21:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice pic. Viridae 02:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Lord help us
Dear god in heaven people, so many arguments. Viridae 02:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

quite correct
 * And they're all feces arguments as well ;)

Another Image Debate
User ProhibitOnions removed the Human Feces image without any discussion. This issue has already been settled in my view and the image is appropriately placed in this article. I will restore it shortly.

Separately, I will also request that this page be semi-protected due to the continuous frequent vandalism.

Cacetudo 10:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I really dont think the picture is fully needed of human fecal matter... Everyone poops, thus to see poop, one need only look in the toilet... But I wont make an issue of removing it because I dont like to make a stink about issues like this..

I have a suggestion, either two things should occure to make everyone happy... Either 1, the image should be removed, because Human Feces has its own article, and thus really doesent need to be represented here. The second option is to make the image a link, so people can still veiw it from this page, but dont have to be hit in the face with it while scrolling down. Either way, its not censorship as both options still have the pictures of human "poop" floating around Wikipedia... As I said before, Everyone poops, thus to see poop, one need only look in the toilet...


 * Well, let's see what happens in the debate about the image on the human feces page before we do anything here. Also, it helps with the discussion if you sign your comments. Cacetudo 12:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That picture of poo is horrible! And quite funny jokes (whether intended or not) here.

That picture makes me feel kind of sick take away destroy it please. (Glass of water 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Thank you for your totally useless asinine commentary. --Cacetudo 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dog
I put the picture of a dog defecating back. Defecation is a natural thing, why be so prudish about it? AntonioBu 09:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Human
It's just shit. Not porn or violence or profanity, just poo. A thing that everyone does. It's perfectly natural and there is no reason not to include a picture of human poo. Wikipedia is not bowdlerised and something as harmless as poo hardly qualifies as a target for censorship.

SORRY! I didn't notice the human feces further down the page. AntonioBu 09:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You yourself just stated the best reason for the there not to be a reason for human feces... Everyone does it... I dont agree with removing it, but making it a link image would be better.


 * Exactly. Not a single person reading the article doesn't know what human feces looks like, but a lot of people get queasy looking at it (especially other peoples').  Thats not an unnatural reaction either - shit may come out of us, but it's also pretty unsanitary.  It's smell is naturally repelling, probably for this purpose, as nature has a way of telling us when we need to distance ourselves from certain things.


 * Now considering the picture has no educational value, it can only serve to make some readers uncomfortable. Wikipedia is here as a resource.  Nobody, except perhaps some kids with too much time on their hands, would come to this article looking to find out what human feces looks like; likely they'd want some scientific information and the picture only distracts given it's very understandable sensory-association.  By all means, keep the picture in the Wikipedia Commons - it could be useful to somebody, sometime.  But being featured in this article, especially without a link, only serves a very obvious purpose to a select handful of people who are more interested in challenging people than creating a good encyclopedia.  --relaxathon 06:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite correct. I'd have no problem with, say, a picture of human shit if there were some serious reason to show it in detail, such as pointing out symptoms of a disease that were detectable in poo. A picture of an unremarkable stool in a toilet bowl tells us nothing, which is why I removed it from this article (note that I left it in the Human feces article, although I find it pointless there, too).  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 14:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I warn you lot that there was a long edit war over that picture a while back. If you remove the picture you can expect someone to re-add it at some point. Viridae Talk 22:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Images
I think the 'controversial' images should be removed, not as a form of censorship, but as they detract from the article. I was too disgusted by the images that popped up right at the beginning to read anything, I just quickly closed the window. What's the point of this article if it includes images that will cause many people to not read any of it? The images could be under one of those boxes with a "show" button on the right that will expand to show the image.   Like this +Hexagon1 (t) 12:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * bogus photo,its not 4 inches and its not real poop
 * Unfortunately something similar has been tried (see Pearl necklace (sexuality) for an example of what was tried) and although it seems to be a good compromise, it did not solve the problem. The article has been reliatively stable for a little while, the main image that offends people gets removed occasionally by anon editors and quickly reverted by those who support its inclusion. I personally would just like to see this argument settled and I don't see why what you have suggested isn't a good compromise. Although I am perfectly fine with it, it annoys so many people. No wikipedia is not censored but perhaps people could agree to this compromise to stop the arguments over it. Just don't act too quickly - it will annoy too many people. Being bold will not get you anywhere in this case, just perpetuating another round of reverts wars. Viridae Talk 13:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why I asked at talk, instead of implementing it straight-away. If it gets to the situation where I, as a user, have to type  the url of this talk page manually to avoid going through the main article page, we have a problem. +Hexagon1 (t) 13:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Every image is controversial to someone. Powers 14:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But when an image is just annoying to a majority, and unnecessary (we all know what it looks like), why not simply link it instead of having it automatically displayed? Because you're just being an annoying kid.  --relaxathon 21:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, it may not be a majority that is annoyed. Consensus seemed be to keep it last time. Viridae Talk 03:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Human Feces image is back
I thought people warred until they decided to move it to another article. Why make their work all for nothing? It should be removed. Anomo 06:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope the war died out after a while with the image being kept. I would suggest NOT starting it up again. Viridae Talk 12:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not, an influx of new concerned users suggests that many users are far from happy with status quo. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But there will always be people who are unhappy with it. Leave things as they are and you don't have an edit war. (removed all the ridiculous overlinking in the title btw. Viridae Talk 11:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the image should be removed from the page, I think that everyone already knows how human feces looks like. At least link the image rather then displaying it in the article. --Credema 19:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Everyone already knows how _____ looks like" shouldn't be a criterion for inclusion. If it were, we wouldn't have images at tree, Human, eye, or cloud.  Powers T 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe so but - "Does _____ cause users to become nauseated at seeing said subject? Does it detract from viewing the article? Does it add little to no encyclodedic value to said article?" Your examples all answer no to this questionaire, but feces does not. The main point is The image adds nothing to the article. That is the bottom line. A picture of a tree, Human, eye, or cloud all can add encycolpedic value to their corresponding articles, and not gross out users to boot! CanadaAotS 23:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Image idea
Someone get a picture of someone eating poop. It'll spark a massive flame war. Or it could go under an article with people eating poop. I need to read the article. Youknowthatoneguy 02:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)!
 * In Feces and in Human feces I have replaced this disgusting image by a clickable link to this image. Very many people don't like seeing feces or images of it, particularly human. Anthony Appleyard 07:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No censorship because someone "does not like" something. This talk page reaffirmed this multiple times. Next thing, and you remove all images from penis, etc. How about porn stars? Way to go for image warriors. `'mikka (t) 07:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "disgusting" is not NPOV. =)  Powers T 20:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Very many more have discussed this before unilaterally removing that image and have decided that the image should stay. Cacetudo 08:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with displaying a picture of someone eating faeces as long as it is relavant to the article. As we all know wikipedia is not censored for minors or anyone with a weak stomach so the inclusion of another picture or links to sites is perfectly fine Dean randall 17:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There is everything wrong with showing someone eating feces. It makes every normal person uncomfortable because there is a strong instinctual aversion in many mammals, like us, to shitting where you eat and contaminating yourself with feces. That's why cats bury theirs and we flush ours. You can't change instinct, and you shouldn't. Mr Spunky Toffee 00:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

THAT image
That image is offensive. And don't think I have a weak stomach, I have seen donkey-child sex and various other sick acts. But that is VILE. I would love to see what Gillian McKeith made of that one. I am no expert on defecation but that is not a healthy poopoo. Please remove it and replace with a more user friendly image. PS: If you look closely you can see some blood. 88.110.119.0 18:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate to be a stoolie, but don't you realize that no only did you just admit you've looked at beastiality and child pornography, but your IP address is both public and tracable? Not to mention the implausibility of you seeing donky-child sex acts and still being frightened by a picture of a turd.  Lord knows how loud you scream in terror every time you use the bathroom. Klosterdev 23:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys are a funny lot. It's because of things like this I can no longer defend wiki. Why is the poop on a plate? Please let me know who took it and I'll warn others before they dine at their house. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.58.180 (talk • contribs).


 * its not real poop in that photo,id like to see a reference,
 * You people are fucking sick. Hahahahahahaha!  This isn't an encyclopedia, it's a fetish coffee table book. Mr Spunky Toffee 03:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to disprove all arguments for taking pictures out
The feces pictures were never that bad. Here is why Frenulum. Also much less so, anus and Anal glands.

I think all the animal feces pictures should be put back. Anomo 09:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Poop on a plate? Must be a joke.
Seriously, somebody's having a laugh putting that in. Since the poop is not in its natural habitat, I'll take it out. Mr Spunky Toffee 15:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Have a closer look, that is nto a plate - its s toilet bowl. Viridae Talk 00:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to read the description on the image page, you would know that the picture depicts a toilet bowl (whether "natural habitat" or not is irrelevant). I've described the reasons it looks the way it does elsewhere. Also, you should read through the consensus reached on this talk page and elsewhere before unilaterally removing this image - we've been through several evolutions of discussion/reversion before deciding that the image should stay within the article. Cacetudo 08:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You should have told me it was a German toilet and that your poop was on that shelf out in the air, reeking. I noticed you say you live in Central Europe, so I'm guessing you're in Germany and defecate on those wacky German toilets. I don't care about some so-called consensus. That's just a way to go against the spirit of Wiki and freeze an article into one form for a long time. All you have to do is beat some user over the head with your consensus and intimidate him. I don't agree with the photo, and I think it's stupid and ugly. Everybody knows what shit looks like, and honestly, that shit makes me think you need more fiber and vegetables in your diet. Again I say, sir, everyone knows what shit looks like. Tell us the grim details. Did you wipe before you took that photo? Did you have to wipe standing up and throw the paper in the garbage, stinking that up too? Did some Fraulein come into the W.C. only to find you, pants down, photographing your own droppings and scream in terror? You should give some photographer's notes on the talk page, now that would be interesting and informative. Mr Spunky Toffee 23:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: We need a couple of strong, healthy logs floating proudly in a North American or Commonwealth toilet. This is, after all, the English Wiki. Someone should take some Metamucil and take some photos. We could have a photo gallery of poo at the bottom of the page or in Wiki Commons, linked from this article. I just dropped a couple of healthy brown submarines in my American toilet. I eat a lot of veggies, and I'm not anemic. They were beautiful, but I am camera-shy. You should visit Dr. Kellogg's Sanitorium and get your colon in order, Cacetudo. Mr Spunky Toffee 00:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ROFLMAO. 83.217.175.193 11:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S.: Let's try even harder to break taboos and show a picture of a man with his pants down taking a picture of his dump with a woman watching him in horror! Mr Spunky Toffee 00:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure these comments are really all that helpful. By all means, feel free to find a better image if you'd like, but I don't think you're going to get far arguing that any article (except maybe child pornography) is better off without an image than with a completely free-use image.  Powers T 01:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Shock value as noncensorship?
First, let me explain how I came to a Wikipedia article on feces: I was on a forum writing a post about the etymology of the phrase damn straight. I then commented that the etymology of other obscenities is even more interesting, citing shit as an example. I searched Wikipedia for faeces to check if that was indeed a correct spelling, and I was also interested in gleaning a little encyclopedic information about excrement (I do have a pathological curiosity, after all). Frankly, though, I was not expecting to see an actual photograph of a turd, and yes, I was disgusted as almost anyone would be.

I'm going to play psychologist (because I've studied it in depth) and postulate that most of the people (if they are not just sockpuppets) defending the picture being in the article are not defending it out of some noble passion for free speech and opposition to censorship; they really just get a kick out of shocking people. Still, policy is nothing if it is applied arbitrarily. The question becomes is is removing the photo really a matter of censorship? I say it is not.

I remember attending an informal debate at a college free speech club. A few Libertarians joined the fairly liberal bunch, and most people didn't know how to refute their points even though they felt they were wrong (as a matter of values). I realized the problem was one of control more than anything: The Libertarian "invaders" were controlling the debate because we had unwittingly accepted their basic assumptions! Not that any of us really believed these axioms; we more or less were arguing as if they were true. We really couldn't defeat their arguments if we were working within the framework that monetary value is the best determinant whereas many of us actually believed human dignity has a higher priority.

No one would call it censorship if a picture of shit were removed from an article about trees because it would be irrelevant there. A photo of feces is not really relevant here. It adds no encyclopedic knowledge to the article while disgusting more than a few who would rather keep an intellectual distance from the subject at hand. This disgust is qualitatively different from the offense a fundamentalist Christian might take if Wikipedia contradicts parts of the Bible. It may be someone's opinion to say a picture of feces is disgusting (my opinion, for one), but there are scientific theories to support disgust at excrement as nearly universal rather than something culturally conditioned. Simply, people who eat shit are a lot more likely to get sick and die and thus not pass on their coprophiliac genes.

Of course, it is also true that occasionally doctors and sanitation workers need to deal with shit, so maybe a photograph of feces should be somewhere in Wikipedia for that purpose. A suitable compromise would be to provide a link to the photograph from the main article for those who really need to see what human excrement looks like. The rest of us can just use our imagination, all right?--NeantHumain 08:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If a photo of feces is not relevant on an article about feces, it becomes impossible to justify just about any picture on any article. How is it not relevant?  Powers T 02:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Grammer
The article suggests that feces does not have a singular form which seems to suggest that feces is plural. On the contrary, feces is a mass noun, like water or money, for which it would not make sense to have a singular. Feces refers to what kind of substance it is, not how much or how many of that substance there are. Substance is also a mass noun, which is why that last sentence didn't make sense.
 * I hate to have to ask this, but have been wondering for a while...isn't that supposed to be spelled "grammar?" -Kukini 00:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Unauthorized move?
Someone move this article back to "Feces" PLEASE! The term "Nigger Poop" is clearly inappropriate. --141.213.178.11 02:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is sick!
Come on, please, remove this damn picture! It makes me sick and - believe me - ENCYCLOPAEDIAS SHOULDN'T MAKE PEOPLE FEEL SICK! There are zillions of pages in the internet, where you can admire all possible sorts and species of poo, but for Christ sake don't put shit in an encyclopaedia!

It's unnecessary, disgusting and informationally empty.

OUT WITH THIS DAMN PHOTO! Please. Llnoba 16:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of photos on Wikipedia that might make some people feel sick. Image:Lesymuralccsf.JPG, for example, might make some people feel sick.  But that's a subjective judgment; it's a violation of our NPOV policies to remove content based on subjective opinions.  Powers T 14:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And you really honestly think that there is a similarity between a kiss and a piece of shit? I don't believe you. I think that you actually have no rational reasons to include this picture, but you persist on keeping it for the pure pleasure of shocking, because of stubbornness or - which seems most probable - just because, as an exercise in "how many absurd deviant ideas can a man plant in Wiki using seemingly proper arguments".


 * BTW - the notion that feces are disgusting is far from being subjective, as it is deeply rooted in human biology, psychology and culture (except of course the coprophiliacs). I think that two simple polls would suffice to remove this photo out of Wiki. One: "Do you think that Wikipedia should disgust people?" Two: "Do you find a photo of human shit disgusting?" I believe that in a day or two we would get a strong and natural basis for removing this damn thing. OK for freedom of speech but pushing it to absurd limits - just because it's possible - is immature.


 * Someone sometime through this grotesque discussion was damn right saying he was absolutely positive that no-one actually, honestly in his heart thinks or feels, that this particular photo is useful in any perceivable way. I think the same: just calm down, take a sip of coffee, look one more time at this beautiful graphic (soon to be Featured, WHY NOT?!) and answer one simple question: "Is there any possible rationale for including this photograph in an encyclopaedia, being still aware of its cultural heaviness?" I mean, breaking taboos is alright if it brings some good (like the famous yet shocking picture of a naked Vietnamese girl badly burned by napalm); but if you break a strong taboo just to show people how a poo looks like... hmm... do you catch my drift? Llnoba 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe what Powers was comparing, above, was the reaction of some people to the two images in question. There may or may not be a similarity between a picture of a kiss and a picture of a stool, but that's completely irrelevant to the argument. What is relevant is that seeing a picture/illustration of two women kissing may make some people feel sick. Understandably, the same may apply to the picture of a stool, but that is not a reason to remove it from an article to which it adds something useful. Try applying your line of reasoning to the pictures in the Lesbian or Bear community articles and see what happens.


 * Now, since you brought up the subject of polls, have a look here (relevant, although referring to a different article) and here (pertaining to the image itself; scroll down a bit). If you want to have another one, by all means, go ahead and arrange it, but I believe the majority of people will disagree with you, as has been the case several times in the past - in this article and several others. Let me assure you that this issue has been debated, redebated, and resolved - for now, anyway. Cacetudo 10:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Believe me or not, I got it right that the emphasis was on people's reaction, not on the pictures' content. And it was precisely what I meant: stool is almost universally thought to be repulsive, which applies NOT to kissing women. BTW, if a community would agree that a picture of two women kissing is disgusting, I'd be for removing it or putting behind a link. I just thought it's more or less obvious that a) a picture of human feces is disgusting and b) an encyclopaedia should NOT be disgusting. Thus my line of reasoning seemed to me quite simple and safe.


 * Since, as you say, there were many polls and the picture is still on, either a) a picture of human feces in not generally thought as being repulsive or b) an encyclopaedia is widely regarded as a proper place for disgusting pictures. I'm sorry for Wiki community, that's all I can say. Llnoba 11:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect it's primarily a), although it should be amended to "This picture of human feces is not generally thought of as being repulsive". The photo is clinical in nature, not sensational.  A different photo might generate a different response.  Powers T 14:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith on my part. I am nothing more than a strong believer in the principle that Wikipedia is not censored.  It is true that I don't find the picture particularly disgusting.  It is, perhaps, unsettling (at least the first time it is viewed), and I would indeed probably be disgusted by the same presentation were I to encounter it in real life, but the camera provides a measure of separation.  Likewise, this is not a photo of feces smeared all over a person's body (for example), or a photo of the act of elimination; it is, in fact, fairly clinical in nature, and likely on par with what one might find in a medical textbook.  Regardless, my intent is not to shock, despite your certainty as to my internal thought processes; it is merely to inform, and to ensure that any article that can reasonably be illustrated is.  Powers T 14:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Understood. It seems that the threshold of disgust is different than I thought.
 * BTW, it came to my mind, that it'd be interesting to know if standard medical textbooks containt photos of human feces. Do you - or anyone reading this - happen to know that? And sorry for "reading your mind"; i'm cool now; it's just my writing was initially protest-oriented. Yuck. ;) Llnoba 18:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Powers' categorization of the image above. To myself and to an independent observer, it appeared that someone had defecated on a piece of fancy china.  I assume that this was produced in a toilet, but that device hanging off the bowl looked like some kind of fleur de lis or other ornamental decoration that would appear on a china dish.  My point is, if you must be as dogmatic as possible on this issue, then the substance should be presented on a plain white background, and the image should have some actual analysis - e.g., Type 4 on Bristol Stool Scale, what not... -- Barfooz 03:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you misinterpreted the image. You're welcome to find a better one, but until that's done, it's the best we have.  Powers T 15:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's making me feel hungry. Is this normal?- Amorwikipedia 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is feces "disgusting", "sick", "gross" - I mean EVERY CREATURE DOES IT. It's a fact of nature. When you think about it, hair is disgusting too. It's dead cells pushed out of your oily, sweaty little head. And yet we as humans parade around with this crop of recycled old body garbage proudly hanging around. Kisses, DISGUSTING! Only through years of adapted culture has it become socially acceptable. Really, you are exchanging saliva and actual particles of food, not to mention millions of bacterium. And you are sucking on this, swallowing it. Sounds gross, huh? Fecal matter is just food, gently used. Encyclopedias need pictures of natural body functions. There are such things as doctors, you know. Ever heard of E. Coli? You get bloody diarrhea. If it weren't for pictures, doctors would not be able to recognize fecal abnormalities at a glance, ergo they would not carefully analyze it for the FATAL food-borne pathogen. I think article and picture are perfectly sensible, and those disgusted by it are disgusted by themselves and all of the creatures of Mother Earth. Mooski Magnus 04:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The pic
If someone doesn't know what shit looks like, I doubt they'd be using the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.160.103.141 (talk • contribs).
 * Not everyone's looks the same. Powers T 14:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So? If I can photo my own poo, why should I see another guy's? 213.114.118.22 17:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because an encyclopedia article should describe and illustrate its topic. Powers T 14:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

the poop cooking on a plate
Why is there poop that looks like it's just been cooked in an oven on a plate. It looks like it came out of a stove and there is a little bit of smoke over the poop on a nice clean plate like someone is having it for breakfast. Get rid of that. It's totally inappropriate. No pictures of poop should be on wikipedia, especially poop getting ready to be eaten. It's disgusting. Lonelyboy 02:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Try looking at the image description page. It Explains All. Powers T 15:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's just nasty. If you open up any other normal encyclopedia, you won't see a big picture of crap on the page if it is talking about crap. I actually think it is inappropriate too. My friend told me his teacher's got upset with him and thought wikipedia was some sort of ridiculous scatty joke page when he visited this page at school Lonelyboy 13:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a normal encyclopedia. Many encyclopedias don't include an image for every topic because of space constraints.  We try to do so where possible, because we don't have space constraints.  In addition, I bet if you open up a medical encyclopedia, you will indeed find images of stools.  Finally, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors -- there's a disclaimer at the bottom of every page that says as much.  Users use Wikipedia at their own risks.  Powers T 15:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It may not be a normal encyclopedia, but it is still an encyclopedia. Why is a picture of this subject needed?  Are there similar pictures of urine, or diarrhea?  This is not about censorship- it is about maintaining a standard for an encyclopedia as a reference tool- not as a place where people can post pictures of their own bodily waste.  The picture needs to be deleted.  You seem like the only one fighting for it to stay. 24.248.9.162 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly is unencyclopedic about a picture of the article's subject? Human urine indeed has a picture, as does penis, vulva, and numerous other subjects that some people might find distasteful.  I guarantee you that Wikipedia is far from the only encyclopedia to include such images.  If you really feel this picture "needs to be deleted", by all means -- nominate it for deletion.  I'll even give you a link: WP:IFD.  Have fun!  Powers T 14:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry; it's on Wikimedia Commons. You'll have to go here: Commons:COM:DEL to request deletion.  Powers T 14:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a wikipedia policy that you might find useful when thinking wheter or not that picture needs to be there WP:DUH! 75.3.204.100 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats not a policy, thats an essay.. Viridae Talk 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Common undigested foods found in human feces are seeds, nuts, corn and beans, mainly because of their high fiber content."

What is the basis of this statement ? The passage of some nuts and seed including corn kernels intac through the digestive system without being digested, is caused by the outer shell of those seeds being impervious to digestion in the stomach by acid, bile etc and has nothing really to do with the fiber which they may or may not contain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.7.225 (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

just include a link to the poop so that people who don't want to look at it don't have to - I bet it is preventing real editing by people just because they don't want to deal with the picture nonsense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.159.49 (talk • contribs)

I say that if they are looking at an article about poop, they should be prepared to see poop, and they probably don't care about seeing poop, because they are the ones who looked it up. If they look it up and are repulsed by poop, that is their problem.

So if somon is looking at an article about pornography or any other article about somthing that is graphic they have to look at pictures of it? --E tac 12:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Rename
From the article "The word faeces is the plural of the Latin word fæx meaning "dregs"." That being the case should this article not be called Faeces? I was nearly wikibold and moved it but thought I might get 2/3rds of Wiki dropping on my head for that one... Jcuk 15:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously does this need an image
There is no point to having a pic, if you need to know what it looks like eat some taco bell and wait an hour. Why do you think we flush the toliet when we are done? So whoever uses it next doesn't have to look at our crap thats why. --E tac 12:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Who wants to look at poo, and who doesn't know what poo looks like? Seriously, if you do want to see poo, go to http://www.ratemypoo.com Schizel

Good point. Besides why would feces be on a plate? <font face="century gothic"> K a  mope  ·  talk  ·  contributions   01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I wanna look at poo. :-( Klosterdev 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion is complete shit (pun intended)
In haiku form, no less. Seriously, guys.

Faith in project: low.

i agree you are aguring about poo !!!- chris

~  Flame vip  e  r  Who's a Peach? 01:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well put! ~Crowstar~ 01:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage
Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it still about the Poo?
First, some of you people want to put the poo image up. Then, you wan't the poo image down, now you want to delete it? Seriously. Why are we talking about freaking poo? Just leave it up. It's not vulgar. It may be slightly disgusting to some viewers, no one is offended, are they? This is wikipedia, and i believe that any article w/o any image in it is incomplete and should be regarded as a stub article. Any image of poop is ok. STOP TALKING ABOUT POOP! Masterhand10<font size="-1">(Talk)(Contributions) 15:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
Can we not have any pictures? I am curious to see feces from around the globe! Henners91 11:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hobby
I collect and analyze excrement as a hobby, I have several photographs of excrement that I could post. I think you would be amazed at the different consistencies, colors, and textures prevelent in my photographs. One shows the stool of a man with leprosy, another shows a stool after eating too much corn. The pictures should not be thought to be disgusting but rather an educational tool. I always heard that Wikipedia goes out of its way to educate the public here is a perfect time to back up such claims. God Bless.JJAshfiel 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If there should be a pic, put those upNeopetslovette 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Where are the pictures?
I have no idea what feces looks like. Put some pictures in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.35.149 (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Seriously, did you not even at least read the index for this talk page? There will likely be no images... until SOMEONE becomes mature enough to find an appropriate picture. I'm almost tempted to go find a paper encyclopædia and scan a pic from it to demonstrate its "appropriateness." Daisen¡i 15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Its absurd that there are no pictures of feces, whether human, bear, bird, or Matian. &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 19:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures redux
Ah, you people make me laugh. Good times. I'm sure the above comment is a troll. However, we do not need a picture of human feces here for the following reasons (all of which have been stated before, but perhaps gathered here for the first time):


 * We all see human feces almost every day. There can be no doubt about what the substance looks like. (Also, if you don't look at your productions, you should, at least from time to time. Odd colors and/or particularly offensive odors can be early indications of a variety of medical conditions).
 * The vast, vast majority of people do not like feces. People are posting photos of pet cats on the internets, not poops.
 * Most importantly, there can be no questions answered and no information gained by such a photo.
 * The appearance of one's feces varies depending on food eaten, and a variety of other complex factors. You would need hundreds of fecal photos to capture all the variations.
 * No information about feces can be gained from a photo or diagram, unlike the genitalia photos at penis and vagina. Those photos serve a high purpose, which is to allow people of one sex to educate themselves about the equipment of the other in an academic, informed, realistic manner (as opposed to fumbling about in the dark).
 * The article text about feces, on the other hand, is valuable, because most people are not aware of the chemistry of their colon. That is why people would type 'feces' or 'defecation' into the search box in the first place!

An earlier user commented on whether people would want to see photos of phlegm, semen, or necrophilia. But as always, we have to consider case-by-case.


 * 1) Everyone has phlegm, we all know what it looks like, a photo gives no information (same arguments as for feces), but the gross-out picture would distract from the valuable text of the article (e.g., the chemical composition of phlegm, why we have it, how it is made).
 * 2) A photo of semen, on the other hand, could be invaluable to a curious female. Where else is she going to find out just what this critically important substance looks like, and why? Knowledge is power!
 * 3) Finally, illustrations of necrophilia would be useless -- first of all, what do you learn from an alleged necro photo, and second, how do you know the partner is really a corpse? It could be a doll, papier-mache, etc.
 * 4) Before you try and make a connection with the pictures at anal sex, note that those are selected paintings from many years ago. They too serve a high purpose, which is to drive home the point that the practice is as old as the hills, and even the glorious Roman emperors did it.

Thus, no pictures of feces here. However, if you can dig up a 9th-century painting of a prince or pricess straining on the chamber pot, that could be worth including on grounds of "artistic license".

Respectfully submitted. 24.95.48.112 05:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

correction to coloration sentence
Currently, the article states: "Its brown coloration comes from a combination of bile and bilirubin, which come from dead red blood cells". Whereas this may hold true for bilirubin, bile is a product of hepatocytes in the liver. I propose changing "come" to "comes", indication that this clause refers to bilirubin alone.

Evlshout 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

a simple solution
If the poop page offends you people so much, why don't you just stop reading it? I mean, really.

yeah! this guy is freaking right! Just because 1-2 of you dainty types can't stand the sight of poo, dosen't mean everyone can't. Let's just leave it up and if you hate poo, then look away.

ps. how do you unprotect an article?

It's fun to be freaking right! And I have no idea how to unprotect the article. I guess the administrators do it. By the way, I'm not a guy. I'm a girl. Gray94wolf 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC) The preceding unsigned comment (the one right under "A Simple Solution") was signed by Gray94wolf 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Masterhand10<font size="-1">(Talk)(Contributions) 04:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The contents of feces... So what are they??
I looked up feces to find out what does poop actually contain? Obviously it contains wast products our bodies no longer need. But what exactly is it?? I think this article should contain this information.208.59.170.83 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MinnesotaButch


 * Me tooNeopetslovette 17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There should not be a picture of feces in this article
Other encyclopedias don't show pictures of feces in their discussion about feces and neither should we. Seriously, what does this add to the article other than people complaining about it. All it seems to add are complaints, nothing else. Since it's only adding complaints which are definitely not a good thing, it should be removed. Voortle 15:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Idea for a non-gross picture
Use a dried horse turd. Those look plain and don't look gross. SakotGrimshine 08:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Great idea. It solves the issue of the article looking plain without any illustration and has more encyclopedic value - everyone knows what human feces looks like, but the same may not be true of horse turds.  So, anyone have a good horse poop picture?-- Kubigula (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My parents used to have horses decades ago but my parents got old and the horses died of old age. Actually, human feces sometimes looks different.  For instance the guy who uploaded the pic of his feces to commons, well the feces looks like cat food and is shaped like he came out of those machines that make frozen yogurt. Sometimes human feces has peanuts or corn in it. In my case, I eat a lot of salsa so mine is orange-brown (on the oranage side) and really odd looking -- gross, too. I also have only a webcam and so I can't take it way out to a ranch. SakotGrimshine 15:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article looks much better now. 24.196.115.179 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No synonyms....
isn't this the page that used to have all the synonyms like "Drop the kids off at the pool", and "Negotiate the release of the chocolate hostages?" I know i saw that on Wikipedia somewhere unless it was deleted for being innapropriate.
 * This article isn't for adding lists of synonyms of feces, especially unreferenced ones made up in school one day. — M o e   ε  15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Horse feces
That picture of horse feces is simply appetising.

LOL! HAHAHAHAHA! Masterhand10<font size="-2">(Talk)(Contributions) 06:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Horse feces?!?!?!
AWWWW C'MON!!!!!

Horse Feces? That bullshit! (no pun intended)

what makes a pic of horse poop(or rather manure), better than a pic of human poop on a plate?

SAME THING!

Someone should put the Human Poop on a Plate back up.

LOL!

Masterhand10<font size="-2">(Talk)(Contributions) 06:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)