Talk:Reuse of human excreta

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CBothSides, Urihc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Milorganite
No mention at all... it is a lawn fertilizer made from composted sewage sludge in Milwaukee. Huw Powell (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no need to mention this particular product (brand name) on this page; instead people can find it when they read the section on sewage sludge, then go to the main page there, and then to biosolids where it is mentioned as one example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosolids#Examples EvMsmile (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Needs a reference to the profit potential of re-used excreta
I didn't find an obvious place to insert a paragraph about the re-sale potential of excreta, or to introduce the term "sanitation economy." Where do others think this could be inserted? Here's the reference: https://news.trust.org/item/20170919145350-bovq7 PlanetCare (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe a new section with the standard heading of "costs" to go just before "society and culture"? EMsmile (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Costs is a standard heading, but that might be misleading. The "costs" associated with re-use of excreta? I guess that could work if we also bring up the "savings" associated with using excrement as fertilizer (as they do in China). I don't have the references for that kind of thing, but maybe other editors would add things to that section.PlanetCare (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I have changed it to "Economic considerations" - would that capture it well? It would be great to build up this section further. There is a lot of talk about the "value chain" and there is no doubt that some income can be achieved from the sale of fertiliser or other products. Usually it not sufficient to cover the entire cost of the sanitation system but nevertheless it could be an important income stream.EMsmile (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional references
User:Kku you questioned why I had deleted the new references that were recently added. I looked through all of them and am of the opinion that they are not well researched nor particularly valuable. They are probably found by a really quick Google search but not by focusing on most recent, useful, and reliable source results. They also didn't include URLs which makes it harder to check them. - I also changed some of the sentences so that I could delete the "citation needed" tag, either by using one of the existing references or by deleting the content if it didn't fit (e.g. part of it was copied 1:1 from the article on manure which is not needed. If there are particular references that you think ought to go back in, let's discuss. I can also search for more up to date references on particular statements if you think that further references are needed for some statements. EMsmile (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick reaction! In fact, I chose to reintroduce 2 of them. Please have a look. -- Kku (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had seen that and made some comments about them in my edit summary after your last edit. One of them is just a blog post in a golf website. The other one is from 1995 - there has been heaps more urine fertilizer research done since then, so I am quite doubtful that it's an important enough reference that it's worth citing. I know some people doing research on urine reuse as a fertilizer so I will check with them. So I would say both of them are not that great but if you feel they should stay in, then OK by me for now. Will revisit when I hear back from those colleagues.EMsmile (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with the name change from excreta to human waste
I don't agree with your name change for this page, User:Velella. How could you simply do this with a discussion at all? Or did I miss the discussion? "Reuse of excreta" was the right title and is the term commonly used in all the relevant literature. If anything, you could have changed it to "Reuse of human excreta" but with a discussion first please. The term "human waste" is controversial because it implies something negative, whereas excreta is the correct term to use. Can you please revert your change and point me to the discussion about this name change if it happened somewhere and I missed it? EMsmile (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * in addition, the article is not just about human excreta but also about animal excreta, so your name change is also wrong from that perspective. EMsmile (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * you have even changed the wording in the title of the reference! That's wrong. The WHO Guidelines from 2006 do NOT have this title: WHO (2006). WHO Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Human waste and Greywater - Volume IV: Human waste and greywater use in agriculture. World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland. If the WHO guidelines from 2006 (13 years ago) use the wording Excreta, then isn't that sufficient evidence that this is the term used in practice nowadays? EMsmile (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Gosh, now I realised that you have changed the titles of all the references. What a mess. I am going to undo that change now. EMsmile (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am going to change the name of the article back to "Reuse of excreta" unless there are many objections here or unless people point me to the place where a discussion took place about changing the article name to "reuse of human waste". I think the publication by WHO in 2006 is a landmark publication and their terminology should be used for "reuse of excreta". EMsmile (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I do have an objection. I am most surprised by the reaction to what I thought was a most uncontroversial change from a euphemism, mostly used in the US, to the normally used term used in the rest of the world.  have quite happily edited Human waste without a qualm and there aren't many of us editing in this topic area. Although "excreta" is now in wide usage as meaning anything that is produced by a body, the precise definition is "that material that is excreta" i.e produced by a cell or organ. This includes matter such as sweat, tears, saliva, most (all?) hormones etc. Faeces are not excreted, they are simply voided. Using the term "human waste" is also consistent with, as noted above, other related articles. I certainly had no intention of sowing disquiet or raising anyone's hackles, but I believe that it is the best title. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk  21:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, Velella, but this is in fact a controversial change that you have made, in my opinion. Can you please change it back and then have a discussion about it first? Or if you find that too cumbersome then let's have the discussion here. Firstly, I would also prefer "human excreta" over "human waste" and there has indeed been a discussion about it on the talk page of "human waste". See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_waste. At the time, I was arguing to change the EXISTING article from Human waste to Human excreta but was overruled. In fact, there was another editor who had started a NEW article on human excreta but he/she was also overruled. Later I started the article on "reuse of excreta" using plenty of high quality literature. This is the correct term used in plenty of literature, including by WHO, and I see no justification to make it "reuse of human waste". As it is, when you made the change you changed by mistake the titles of many of the references used. The fact that "human waste" might currently still be more common than "human excreta" does not justify that another article, the one on "reuse of excreta" needs to be renamed. Human excreta does include urine and feces. Where do you get the definition from that excreta does not include feces? In the Wikipedia system, we have made "human excreta" redirect to "human waste" and are saying it's the same thing. Excreta also redicts to "human excreta". See also the Wikipedia article on "excretion" which also includes feces. It says there "The liver and kidneys clear many substances from the blood (for example, in renal excretion), and the cleared substances are then excreted from the body in the urine and feces.". Let's also hear from others about this, therefore I am pinging User:Doc James for example. (note: I might be slow to respond in the next week or so due to holidays) EMsmile (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you have got the references fixed. Agree those should not change. Should this article be "human waste" versus "human excreta"? Not sure. Definitely there should only be one article with the other term redirected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * If all the publications by WHO call it "reuse of excreta" (and not reuse of human waste) isn't that a good enough argument that the article name was correct (reuse of excrete) before Velella changed it without any prior discussion? Having redirects is a given but not good enough. EMsmile (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like there are not many people watching this page... I am going to revert the name change that User:Velella had done, for the reasons that I had described above. In summary: the relevant literature uses the term "reuse of excreta", "excreta" is the correct term rather than the colloquial term of "human waste". Also the article also includes reuse of animal excreta which would not fit within the article name "reuse of human waste". EMsmile (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've changed it back now. EMsmile (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Your edits to the lead
Hi User:Sadads: thanks for trying to improve the lead. However, you have changed the meaning of it quite a bit and now it's no longer quite right (the second sentence now says "Such beneficial usually involves composting for reclaiming the the nutrient and organic matter." which doesn't make sense; also reuse is not limited to composting). I think it needs to be changed again to be closer to the original. Also I am not sure why you deleted the last paragraph of the lead? EMsmile (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! So I was trying to make sense of the lead (it was a bit confusing to me), and also use it as an Template:Excerpt in Compost -- that article is particularly bad, and wasn't really describing the whole scope of the problems. Feel free to continue to refine and reuse, Sadads (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * :, OK, I'll try to improve the lead. I have never worked with Template:Excerpt before; does that really work well? Could you give me an example for it? Does it mean that the same content would appear in two different Wikipedia articles, and if it gets changed in place A then it would automatically change itself in place B? EMsmile (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah -- excerpts bring in the information in the lead or another specified section into another article, so that we don't have to update both places -- its really good for bringing together topics that are heavily redundant of eachother, so that if changes happen on one page, you don't also have to update the other. Its a very new tool and approach to editing content, but it super useful for these high level topics that are interwined with eachother, Sadads (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A good, well implemented example, is the use on the main Africa article of the article on Climate change in Africa: Africa -- I tend to fall back on them, when I find perpetually undermaintained content on high visibility articles. I added a bunch to the Food article yesterday, Sadads (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reworked the lead and some of the article's content after realising that you misunderstood parts of the lead. Composting is only one of many treatment options and not necessarily the most important one. This article is about the "reuse" as a focus, assuming that treatment has already taken place, which is why it said very little about treatment. I have beefed up the information about treatment now (many wikilinks to other articles) so that this information doesn't get lost, and it's mentioned how important treatment and management aspects are, in order to be able to do safe reuse. I have also removed mentioning E. Coli because this might be a well known pathogen but it is not the main one of concern here. It's a common indicator of faecal pollution in drinking water. But for reuse of excreta the main indicator of concern is the helminth eggs as they are much more difficult to destroy. Hope the lead is clearer now? I'd say it's now scientifically more correct, although the readability might have suffered a bit from my efforts. This article happens to be my main area of expertise and I wrote it very soon after starting with Wikipedia editing in 2015 or so. I can tell when I read some of it, that I was still a novice Wikipedian back then, although the article has also been improved by a range of other people over the years so I think it's not a bad article now. - It may not be suitable for that "excerpt" idea you have though because composting is just a small component here. EMsmile (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Reuse of excreta?
Let me probably ask a trivial question, but why is the title “Reuse of excreta”? Have the excreta ever been used for any reason before? So shouldn't the title simply be "use of excreta"?

Cordially Rameshvar (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * it does make sense when the title is "Reuse of human waste". Waste management and minimisation uses the maxims, "Reuse" and "Recycle" when applied to waste. So in that context the word "Reuse" is indeed appropriate. I tend to agree that at the current title it is less relevant and less meaningful. I shall not rehearse the arguments for and against the current title, it is all adequately rehearsed in the threads above. I guess the best course of action is to propose a name change and seek support and consensus. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk  17:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The current literature uses the term "reuse of excreta", "reuse of wastewater" and so forth, so I think the policy WP:Commonname would apply. Furthermore, the first use of excreta is to rid the human body of stuff that it no longer needs - it's a by-product of the human metabolism. If it's uses as fertiliser then it's the second use. so I think "reuse" makes sense here. EMsmile (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed name change
I am aware that the current article title has been debated before but it still seems both illogical and inconsistent with Wikipedia conventions guidelines and rules. I propose that this is renamed as Reuse of animal waste or, even better would be to merge with Manure. My reasons are:
 * Excreta, as defined here, is the same as manure as defined in that eponymous article. The inclusion of human manure make this article more wide ranging and connects it with a number of other articles on sanitation, but it is still the same material with the same potential uses and the same risks and opportunities.
 * Excreta is metabolic waste (which) is eliminated from an organism. In vertebrates this is primarily carried out by the lungs, kidneys, and skin and does not include faeces, menses, vomit etc. which are all components of manure. Excretion is a scientific term with a precise meaning which, in this article, is being unduly expanded to include all wastes produced or ejected from the mammalian body.
 * The use of the word Excreta seems to me to be used here as a euphemism, and Wikipedia has no truck with euphemisms.
 * Wikipedia guidance proposes 5 criteria for choosing a name of an article. These are:
 * Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
 * Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
 * Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
 * Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
 * Consistency
 * I would strongly suggest that the word Manure or waste would meet the test of recognizability much better than excreta which is hardly used outside of a relatively niche world of sanitation . The use of Manure or waste would also much better meet the tests of naturalness and precision. The current title fails to meet the precision test because it use an incorrect understanding of what excreta comprises.


 * An issue previously raised on this talk page was the concept or Re-use of excreta, implying a previous use. Clearly there has been no previous use and re-use can only be logically applied to something described as waste. The whole tenet of this article is about the beneficial and useful properties of this material.

As the history will show, I have in the past uni-laterally changed the title because, thinking that it was a simple error in translation, mistake or misunderstanding. I apologise if other editor's feelings were hurt but it remains a peculiar linguistic oddity and, in my opinion, needs to be changed.

My first preference is to merge into Manure My second preference would to rename as Reuse of animal waste.  Velella  Velella Talk 14:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose My opinion is that "Reuse of excreta" is the correct term as it's the term used in the relevant literature, see for example the guidelines by World Health Organisation from 2006 (cited in the article). "Reuse of animal waste" would exclude human waste. This article is mainly about "human waste" which the scientific as well as grey literature calls "human excreta" nowadays. I am surprised you say that excreta does not include faeces. I would say it does. All the literature that I read includes is (yes, in the fields of sanitation and wastewater treatment). Even the Webster dictionary has it correctly as "waste matter (such as feces) eliminated or separated from the body" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excreta?src=search-dict-box) Perhaps not regarded as a reliable source but the first place where I double checked. NB: I would not equate excreta and excretion; two different things. About "Reuse" as a second use, yes, that may seem odd but it's the term used in the scientific literature (first use is in the human metabolism; second use is as a fertiliser). See for example results from Google Scholar here. You'll find a lot of articles also when searching for "reuse of human waste" but you'll see it's mostly older articles because there has been a shift in terminology, in line with the circular economy approach, i.e. it's not a waste but a resource. The term "reuse of human-derived resources" is also in use but not as widely. - If we wanted to separate out this article from manure, we could rename it to "Reuse of human excreta" and take out the sub-heading about manure but I don't see a great advantage in that (?). EMsmile (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I had forgotten that we had discussed this name change a year ago already. I've pretty much repeated the same points I had made back then (sorry fur not having anything new to add). Perhaps another thing worth mentioning is that we should use global terminology which might differ from usage of the term in the U.S. (I am not sure). At a global level, all the current literature I read refers to it as "human excreta (reuse)", not "human waste (reuse)". Note that the literature cited in this article does use both terms (waste or excreta) but from my own professional background I can state that human excreta is regarded as the more current term nowadays (I can collect further books and PhD theses on this topic if needed?). - Lastly, we should try to collect lots of people's opinions on this. I suggest you alert some editors to this by writing on the WikiProject Sanitation page and any other WikiProject pages of relevance?  EMsmile (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, we have been here before! And we do seem to be re-capitulating the same arguments. So yes, a variety of other inputs would be most welcome. However, although input from Wikipedia experts in the field of sanitation are, or course, most welcome, what we really need are the opinions of editors who are not experts but who might search for such a term as excreta.I think all of us have our own prejudices and mine tends to be a knee-jerk reaction against overt Americanisms - apologies to many friends and colleagues over there but if I thought that the term  excreta was a common American usage, I might argue with even greater verve for its change. However, my professional background is in environmental protection and environmental regulation in Europe and New Zealand and I have never, ever heard anyone talk about the re-use of excreta. There are, of course, a whole panoply of slang and euphemistic words that are commonly used which are unavailable as article titles. Usage by the grand international bodies is not a good guide and nor in reality is academia. Wikipedia aims at providing material ordered by recognizability and naturalness - as I quoted above. Anyone coming here to find out about manure, its origins and usage, even humanure would surely search on Manure or Use of manure. They won't have had reference to the United Nations or WHO. I have never seen a single reference to human excreta in the UK when dealing with the operational issues of sewage treatment nor in the esteemed publications of the greatly missed Water Pollution Research Laboratories. Publications of the UN and the WHO are frequently translations from material authored in languages other than English and I suspect that that is where the term excreta has originated as a synonym for waste.  Velella  Velella Talk 17:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not an Americanism, I can assure you that. It's a global term as used by people in the WASH sector. I agree with you that in the field of wastewater treatment (which is also my professional background) the term "excreta" is not commonly used. I had never heard of it either back then (I made a career change in 2004, away from wastewater treatment plants). Excreta comes more from the developing countries type of work where water is not necessarily used to flush away faeces and urine - toilets are often "dry" (dry toilet). Think pit latrines. Again, "pit latrine" is not a word that people from Europe would be very familiar with. Maybe people know it more under the slang term of "long drop". Does that mean the article on "pit latrine" should be renamed to "long drop"? No, we use the "correct" term. Another example: as a layperson, I might search for "heart attack" on Wikipedia. I end up at this page: "Myocardial infarction". Never heard of that term! But never mind, I have arrived at the page that I am looking for. And I am learning that the correct medical term is "Myocardial infarction". So my proposal is that we think up any alternative terms that we think people might use and then redirect those to "reuse of excreta". - Overall, do we agree that manure is for animal faeces and urine, whereas this article's focus is not on animal's urine and faeces? In older articles you might find the term "human manure" but it has become a rarity. EMsmile (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. we could also ping a few people who we might think are interested. I am a bit scared of using pinging though because people have told me I do WP:canvassing, so now I don't dare. ;-) I suggest you put it on the talk pages of WikiProject Sanitation and WikiProject Agriculture perhaps? Or ping anyone that you think could be interested to contribute to the conversation. EMsmile (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's sub-optimal that we now have two section headings discussing this: this one, and the one below. Velella, do you have a suggestion for improving on that? I worry that people will continue the discussion below without reviewing the discussion to date here. Perhaps merge the two sections into one? EMsmile (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now put up a notice on the WikiProject Sanitation and WikiProject Agriculture talk pages, to try and attract more opinions. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this article only gets about 60 views per day, so I don't really want to spend too much time on it. Nevertheless, it would be good to reach consensus and to discuss the different aspects of the article's title so that everyone can live with it and there are no hard feelings. I have also tweeted the link from my personal Twitter account. I don't regard this as WP:canvassing because I am transparent about it and I honestly just want to collect more opinions (I am aware of the fact that opinions of content matter experts won't carry more weight than of non experts). I doubt that many of my twitter followers will join the discussion as they are almost all not Wikipedians but it's a good example to show people how Wikipedia articles are discussed "behind the scenes". EMsmile (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All done, see next section below. EMsmile (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2021

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Moved to Reuse of human excreta by an editor as noted below. This rename appears to have been made disregarding the nom's opinion that "excreta" is being used as a euphemism. As closer, I'm okay with all this because WP:OTHEROPTIONS adds a little leeway when there is consensus to move a page but no consensus as to what title should be used. That means that the now current title is only acceptable if involved editors are okay with it and consensus emerges over time. So if the nom or any editor still prefers a different title, they can open a new move request at any time, which would hopefully land this page under a title that is supported by consensus. Kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 22:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Reuse of excreta → Use of animal waste – Excreta, as defined here, is the same as manure is defined in that eponymous article. The inclusion of human manure make this article more wide ranging and connects it with a number of other articles on sanitation, but it is still the same material with the same potential uses and the same risks and opportunities. Excreta is " metabolic waste (which) is eliminated from an organism. In vertebrates this is primarily carried out by the lungs, kidneys, and skin" and does not include faeces, menses, vomit etc. which are all components of manure. Excretion is a scientific term with a precise meaning which, in this article, is being unduly expanded to include all wastes produced or ejected from the mammalian body. The use of the word Excreta seems to me to be used here as a euphemism, and Wikipedia has no truck with euphemisms.  Velella  Velella Talk 18:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * the discussion for this has begun in the thread just above, see here. EMsmile (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - "excreta" is only barely a word. "Use of animal waste" is common, precise, and natural Red   Slash  19:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know where this "animal waste" thing is coming in. Like I explained above (in the previous section heading) this article is NOT about animal waste, it is about human waste (which is called "human excreta" in the literature - I can't change that). It's the same thing like I explained above with the "heart attack" article. Put "heart attack" into the search field of Wikipedia and see where it takes you: Myocardial_infarction. I'll put a notice on a couple of WikiProject talk pages to get more inputs. EMsmile (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, then call it "poop", whatever common word you want, but not a word like "excreta" Red   Slash  20:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ummm..... it does seem to also be about animal waste. The first sentence in the lede is clear in that respect. The separation between the use of human versus other animal waste appears to be based on taboo and on epidemiology - a greater likelihood of picking up other people's disease. With those two caveats, the processes, concerns and outcomes are all exactly the same.  Velella  Velella Talk 20:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the issues are actually vastly different, precisely because of the taboo aspect and because of the human pathogens aspect, and because in the Western world, human excreta is mostly dealt with sewage treatment plants where reuse is an afterthought at best but not a main consideration. There is no equivalent option of sewers and wastewater treatment plants for animal excreta... Maybe a better solution would then be to move any of the content about manure use to the article on manure and to refocus this article solely on "reuse of human excreta". Would you find that better? I think that could work. Or if not, an easier option would be to rename it to "Reuse of human or animal excreta". And no, it would not be appropriate to use the terms poop, shit, kaka or whatever in the title. That's child language. The literature calls is "human excreta" - there is nothing I can do about that. Neither of you have responded to my argument above where I compared it with the Wikipedia article on heart attack = Myocardial_infarction. Would you also want to convince the editors of that article to change the title to something that is more colloquial, i.e. a term that you and I would use? No, we accept that there is a redirect from heart attack to Myocardial_infarction, and that's that. EMsmile (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I too would strongly oppose the use of any coy references or euphemisms. One of the reasons for proposing a name change is that I believe the word "excreta" IS a euphemism adopted by some very significant organisations in order that their message can reach people who might otherwise be offended by a more direct reference. Whatever may be asserted, "excreta" is a direct derivative from "excretion" which refers to substances produced by mammalian organs, materials such as sweat, tears and urine, but absolutely not faeces which are mostly a bacterial mass with some food remnants which has never passed through an organ, simply been carried through the lumen of the gut. Google searches demonstrate some 4million + results for "Human waste" and only some 600K results for "Human excreta". While these metrics can be debated, the guidance at WP:COMMONAME entreats Wikipedia editors to use the name in common use. That is clearly "Human waste or "Animal waste". It is interesting that wikipedia does indeed have an article at Human waste which supports my contention. I have no problem if this article was to consider Human waste only but I would strongly urge that this be titled "Use of human waste". This complies with WP:COMMONAME, it is the logical search term and avoids the somewhat coy usage adopted by WHO and similar organisations. It is surely our aim to ensure that as many English speaking readers can be as well informed as possible about health critical areas of sanitation and waste disposal. Having an appropriately titled article is the starting point in that aim. Incidentally, the reference to Myocardial infarction is something of a red herring. We have very many articles at their common names such as Pneumonia, Tuberculosis, Cancer etc. etc. Using a technical term for an article is almost always unhelpful unless it is dealing with species of organisms where multiple common names can exist for one unique organism.  Velella  Velella Talk  17:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I think WHO and UN are quite reputable sources so if they call it "human excreta", not "human waste", I find that pretty significant. As someone having worked in the sector for a long time, I can also confirm that "human waste" is the older term, and the more recent publications more and more use "human excreta" as it's a term that doesn't carry a judgement. "Waste" is a judgement term. Please also see a previous discussion on the talk page of "human waste" where myself and a few others argued to rename it to "human excreta". We were overruled at the time but I think it's only a matter of time until this change will be accepted. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_waste . I think people searching for the term will find it, regardless, as we can put redirects in place for all possible synonyms. Let's wait a bit further and see if we can collect more opinions from others? EMsmile (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article is about human excreta, and human excreta is the term replacing human waste because that term is ambiguous. Even for animals, “waste” is ambiguous. Excreta is not, and it is a normal word for a serious topic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SmokeyJoe. - OK, I think we can close this now. Will prepare a move to "Reuse of human excreta". EMsmile (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Have added the deletion tag to "reuse of human excreta" (which is currently a redirect) to make space for the move. Awaiting deletion of that page. EMsmile (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All done. Article has been renamed. EMsmile (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Refocus article on human excreta only
Meanwhile, I think it's probably a good move to refocus this article on the human excreta/waste only. Shall I go ahead with that and move the manure part to the manure article? Then rename to "Reuse of human excreta" and keep discussing it a bit longer and look for consensus. If I get overruled then my preference would be "Use of human excreta". I would really cringe at "Use of human waste". Human waste is also ambiguous, because "Waste produced by humans" would include organic solid waste / rubbish, whereas "human waste" would not include that. To me that is confusing, especially for non-native English speakers. EMsmile (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now removed the content about the use of animal manure. If people want, the article could now be renamed to "Reuse of human excreta". Is that better? EMsmile (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. EMsmile (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

By the way, here is the link to a new important book that has recently come out about fecal sludge: https://www.iwapublishing.com/books/9781780409115/methods-faecal-sludge-analysis It's open access. It clearly states on page 3: "Excreta is urine and faeces". EMsmile (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

New possible publication about China human excreta reuse
Moving this to talk page. Could be a good reference. In that case, include it as an inline citation please: Worster, Donald, ed. “The Good Muck: Toward an Excremental History of China,” RCC Perspectives: Transformations in Environment and Society 2017, no. 5. doi.org/10.5282/rcc/8135. EMsmile (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Multiple barrier concept never clearly explained
"Multiple barrier concept for safe use in agriculture," is actually the title of a section, and is referred to as, "the concept," several times. Some examples are offered, but no actual explanation is given, and I was left with only the vaguest idea of what was meant, particularly as most of the things mentioned are only "barriers" analogically. The phrase suggests, to me as someone with no idea, several layers of pond liner and a layer of straw, and it is obviously at least not limited to that sort of thing.

Could an explanation be added?

FloweringOctopus (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)