This article was nominated for deletion on 3 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Human feces article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Feces was copied or moved into human feces with this edit on 01:00, 12 March 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
How come the American spelling was chosen for 'faeces' ?? Last time I checked, the language was still called ENGLISH, not American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.105.149.125 ( talk) 17:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is hosted in California, hence, American spellings are used over their British (or even Canadian) counterparts. 142.161.68.24 ( talk) 03:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to offer a pre-emptive Strong Keep for this page. Probably the simplest answer to the heated discussions on the Feces page; those who need to learn about human feces can do so, those who don't want to see it don't have to. Good job, mikka. -- Psyk0 21:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it is very clear to everyone that Samboy and Psyk0 are just trying to stir up trouble. Classic troll behavior. They tried it on the main article page, and now they are trying it here. I am preparing an RfC on their behavior. 68.97.208.123 11:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
So people on a daily basis we all see dismembered bodies? Spacebar265 ( talk) 00:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing that god awful image. Duesel 00:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring that god blessed image. 68.66.98.168 08:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me why they have problems with an image on the internet of something they see several times per week? (unless of course they have severe psychological troubles associated with looking into a toilet bowl - go see a shrink) Joffeloff 16:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I personally cannot poo and the sight of it would help me bring the article into context. It is not often that I am able to view human feces, do to my condition. I would appreciate the inclusion of images. thanks -- Billwsu 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Dude, I find that really hard to believe. In fact, I'm pretty sure you'd be dead if you could never poo. Bufftractor53 23:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why in Heavens name there even is a page in Wikipedia devoted to human excrement let alone a disgusting picture? Max Vitor ( talk) 21:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Poo especially human poo is extremely important. You may want to live in the dark ages, but dont drag the knowedge of poo back their with you--
203.192.91.4 (
talk) 02:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
We have had these problems in many other articles before, starting form vagina. The image stays, because:
mikka (t) 19:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
By the way, this is your third reversal, not second. You are not answering my objections, nor presenting them here. I have all reasons to treat this removal of relevant information as trolling or vandalism. mikka (t) 21:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I do understand your position from User:Samboy/Offensive, but I fail to see that this particular image is offensive to a prohibitive degree, see above. Your argument about absence of pornography at pornography page is irrelevant here: the "pornography" subject is offensive and prohibited by itself, but not feces, unlike, say, shit. You are well aware that offensiveness of various topics vary, and in this article your tolerance threshold is too low, IMO. mikka (t) 22:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Somebody removed the image, and put in a link to it instead. My understanding was that the image stayed in that location, due to a compromise between mikka and Samboy. It seems like a good solution to me. I'm reverting. Kiaparowits 16:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Must it stay? Everyone is fairly similar with what human turd looks like. There is no need for a graphic image. -- Kilo-Lima 22:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Lets have a public vote on the matter. That image is graphic and very disgusting, and it made me feel a bit sick seeing it. There are various reasons for linking to an image rather than displayng it: offensiveness and nastyness (as here); (and to avoid an excessive clutter of images on one page) Anthony Appleyard 07:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
It's just a poo. It is not a violent, sexual, or otherwise image it is just a picture of what each and everyone of us does every day. It's just human waste product. No one will be harmed by seeing this picture, there are many other pictures on wikipedia that are controversial but they remain because they share a common ground with this one. They illustrate the article. There's no point stuffing it all the way at the bottom of the page. AntonioBu 09:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Antonio, no need to bring back an old argument. (sigh) QuizQuick 01:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Poo is not "graphic," just gross. In fact, it's angelic to have a picture of human feces in the human feces article compared to the picture of the naked man I saw as soon as I went to the man article. -- Gray Porpoise 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Besides more variety for this page, I could use some shit for a toilet-training game. :-)
Make a new account on the Commons if you are shy.
Public domain shit is best. GFDL shit is no good. GPL shit, LGPL shit, MIT shit, 2-clause BSD shit would be OK too. Basically it needs to fit the Open Source Initiative and Debian guidelines.
I prefer to add the alpha channel (variable transparancy mask) myself, starting from an unmodified image. I'm more skilled at making alpha channels than most people are. A shit on brown paper is probably best, though there needs to be enough contrast so that I can make out the edge.
A top-down view, without shadow, might be best. I'm also interested in straight side-on views. I don't want to deal with funny angles.
Related stuff I could use: toilet (front/side/vertical, open and shut), plunger, toilet brush, urinal, mens room sign, ladies room sign, and any other bathroom or restroom object.
24.170.177.130 04:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Can we get some more pics? The one here i especially yellow and loglike. What about brownish/reddish, liquid-type and piles? How about the kind in a baby's diaper?
If you want more pictures, go to [ [1]]. They've got lots there for you to look at. Wikipedia's not the place for pictures purely for the sake of disgust. -- Nathan 02:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
DON'T feed trolls. mikka (t) 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I came here because my son had a very, very, green stool, and here I see you all getting up in arms about a picture? How sad. I seen somewhere on this page about using a live link to enable people to view the image if they want to. Everything else is moot. Oh, and if this isn't good enough for you, go view some other page and leave this one to people who have more to worry about. Thanks.
I think we need more pictures, not less. One picture after eating pizza all day, then maybe a picture after eating corn and peanuts.
^person didn't sign
Personally, I think we are looking at the shit picture the wrong way.
Someone needs to take a less offensive picture of human feces, preferably brown and drier, and replace the yellow slimy one with that. The current picture of fecal matter is certainly not the norm (see ratemypoo, etc), and prompts the gag response quicker than a more normal, aryan style piece of poop would. I'd like to reopen this discussion, because I freaked out almost as much as I did when I saw Vagina while in a school-run computer center when I scrolled down. - WAZAAAA 23:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
can someone add something about average quantities of feces, e.g. kg per week?
I did not see a reference to stools that float versus stools that sink. any signicance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.239.128 ( talk) 17:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to put a picture on this page, maybe you should have one that is representative of normal human feces. The example on the page doesn't look like it came from a particularly healthy individual .. -- 68.146.186.92 06:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Why have a picture? Everyone not born blind knows what faeces looks like.-- Mongreilf 16:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
cause it's funny
wikipedia is a resource that should be open to all walks of life, if other intelligent life want to learn about us (and i'm not saying aliens), a picture can be considered informative — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.189.104.122 ( talk) 07:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Why does the picture of Feces look like it went through a Dairy Queen soft serve machine? FancyPants 01:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess this guy likes to take pictures of his/her poop!
I'm pretty sure human poop doesn't look like that, but that does look a lot like fake human poop from a gag store, so I guess it's good enough. 2601:448:4300:3FF0:7111:F96A:3F9:CF85 ( talk) 14:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
As suggested, let's vote:
wikipedia isn't britannica. wikipedia isn't trying to be britannica.
I'll get my toddler to provide an alternative image of a more normal-looking bog, but in the interim I'm removing the picture of the yellow log. - brenneman {T} {L} 13:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm cooking up a good one right now. I had tacos and a meatball sub, it'll be a great one, assuming I can get it out my ass
If you look closely at Image:Human feces.jpg, you will notice that the middle part of the turd appears to have been cloned and stretched to make the turd longer. There is a peanut which can be seen, and an identical peanut about 1 inch away. Can we get a real picture of a big turd rather than this photoshop gimmickry?
Next stop; Poopville Corny! WaddlingTimy ( talk) 03:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Tell the Wikitruth! Unprotect the page and put the turd at the top!
I think the feces image is unnecessary in this article. Anyone reading this knows what feces looks like; we don't need to be reminded by a gross image. 209.236.231.253 06:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL. I believe the above user meant 'abnormal', unless by 'paranormal' he was referring to a ghostly poo, or perhaps the loch ness monster. Saccerzd 14:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but nipples don't make me lose my appetite. Also, "the existance of one thing does not warrant the existance of another" or something like that. Anyways, if you don't know what it looks like, or want to see it, go here http://www.ratemypoo.com/ Zombieninja101
Listen here, ZOMBIENINJAONEOHONE. If you don't want to look at the picture you don't have to! For the rest of us though, the image stays. user:nateabel —Preceding comment was added at 05:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposal : | Should we remove the image to the right from the Human Feces article? |
Rationale : | This image depicts Human Feces and could be placed at the top of the article. But from looking at the talk page, many people believe it doesn't need to be on the page because everyone knows what feces looks like. |
Proposer : | Sonic3KMaster |
Please add * Support or * Oppose followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "--~~~~".
Accepted No Objections, survey closed. -- Sonic3KMaster (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
{{linkimage|Human feces.jpg|An example of human feces}}
That survey did not last long enough. only two people voted. silly! do another, let it last a month or two, and then we'll see! I say get a new image, because that one definitely IS PARAnormal. Loki at6 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do not protect pages without putting a protection notice up. It causes confusion when people go to edit the page and they find that the page is protected. Scott Gall 22:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Why was Image:Human feces.jpg replaced by Image:Human Feces.jpg. Is the new image "better" than the old one? (IMHO, the latter seems more representative of human feces than the first.) SCHZMO ✍ 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
How can we know the image is indeed a real human turd? It might just be fake poo, like you can get from joke shops etc. I think we need a verified image of a turd, with a reference. We shouldn't just accept any old turd produced by a wikipedian and put on the page. Remember, a lot of people around the world are reading this shit and we have to show them authentic feces.
Isn't human feces larger and darker than the feces shown on the picture?
I know from experience that the eating of beet may cause one's feces to go reddish and that eating things with a lot of iron can make it green, can someone research more into this and add that to the article? 201.23.64.2 00:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
{{linkimage|Human_Feces.jpg|Human feces}}
I suggest that the photograph of human excrement be de-inlined, so that it will be displayed on the article page as shown here. We would still preserve access to the photograph for readers who wished to view it, but it would not be obtrusively displayed to readers who do not want to view explicit photographs of human excrement.
John254 00:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I came here from requests for comment. I think the image should be inlined BUT it should be not too invasive to the article, as in not too big. If it's small it would probably offend less users. Pictures are very important and valuable to wikipedia. It's not censored either. If the image is small, the user can always click it for a closer look if they are interested.
The image shouldn't be right down the bottom of the page, maybe halfway down or even at the top.
The above comment has taken into consideration vandals redirecting articles here.-- Andeh 11:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Filed an RfC here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. For folks coming from the RfC, I thank you. The discussion is immediately above this section. To restate, the issue is whether an image of human feces should be displayed in the article (note that even in this case, the image has been "below the fold", so to speak -- far enough down the page that a user must scroll down to see it) or linked to as a warning to readers who might find the image offensive. Any comments are appreciated. Powers 11:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Keep Per Jefffire.
QuizQuick 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Keep. A few months ago a similar RfC happened at smegma and the result was also keep. In response to some suggestions the editors cropped the image to emphasize its purpose as an example of smegma rather than a photograph of a human penis (the current image is an extreme close-up). I view the current feces image as more a depiction of a toilet bowl than of its contents, thus missing the details that would indicate a person's diet and intestinal health. What I suppose I am suggesting is that someone deposit a bowel movement onto a flat surface, then photograph with better lighting and zoom in on the subject. Durova 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Can this effort be an allusion to the diet of police officers, and resulting injury near seaports? 17:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC) beadtot
If I vented my true feelings on how unnecessary the poop on a plate is, I guarantee I'd be censored. Mr Spunky Toffee 05:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be hilarious to have a great long line of poop pictures running down the right edge of the page. Six or seven. Just to illustrate the great variety of human poop. And come on, half the people who come here are probably just doing so to see if Wikipedia is brave enough to host poop pictures. That said, there's good-looking poop, then there's disgusting poop. No need for the latter. -- Chris 17:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Pics unnecisary! I don't need the loss of appatite (especially since my ovens broken and I kind of need to be willing to eat almost anything in my fridge right now.) Buddy, if you want poo pics, go here
http://www.ratemypoo.com
Schizel
I thought it was a plate as well... Rorrenig 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a digital camera. I could take pictures of my own feces and license it public domain for all to see so it wouldn't have a licensing issue. It can go in this article or better yet on a userbox for people to express their believe that a picture of feces should go in the article.
SakotGrimshine 02:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Bold textSHOULDN'T THERE BE A SECTION ON FAMOUS DOOKS? LIKE THE STEAMY LOAVES OF HISTORY? PERHAPS A WHOLE NEW ARTICLE: HISTORY OF DOOKIES? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brydav ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
no.
YES!
I deleted it. For shit's sake don't restore it. Indiawilliams 04:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
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. 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be best to delete that shit image and replace it with a schematic or smth. In no medical articles, magazines or books, or other encyclopedias can one find such disgusting images. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.165.146.90 ( talk) 12:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
It is highly offensive, delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.146.90 ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 March 2007
I strongly support removing those pictures. They are offensive indeed. I too have uploaded images on wikipedia that were deleted due to various reasons so keeping this .... crap here is beyond my comprehension. This is not about censorship, it is about common sense. Freedom of speech has its limits too.-- Biotudor 18:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Why would anyone read an article about SHIT and then recoil in shock to see pictures of SHIT???
Good point if one would read an article about human shit, then one would expect to see a picture of it. If it is disgusting then one must not search for it, there is no reason why the image should be deleted. If it is offensive, then don't view the article!. -- Vlad788 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not censored" means we don't prejudice between pictures which are offensive/disguisting/gross/etc and pictures which are not.
In other words:
What this means is that saying a picture is offensive, or that it is disguisting, or explicit, are not reasons by which we judge whether or not a picture should be included in an article.
Whether or not a picture should be in an article is judged by questions such as "is the picture relevant to the article", "is the picture free and if not, can we use it under fair use", "is the picture representing, or at least not contradicting, a neutral point of view?" and so on.
As far as i can see, the only reasons for the removal of the pictures on this page is that they offend and disguist people. The pictures are otherwise relevant, and previous discussions on this talk page (as well as the vote and request for comment carried out last year) shows that there was a clear consensus by other editors to keep images on this article.
Of course, one can argue that the pictures are unnessasary. However, it's generally understood that all Wikipedia articles should (ideally) be illustrated by images (and more than one unless the article is very short).
Just ask yourself this question - if the pictures where not gross and offensive, would there be such a fuss about there being too many pictures in this article? No, considering the article length (in terms of text), we don't have an excessively large number of pictures here. So at the end, it comes down to the fact that these pictures happen to be disgusting and offensive to some people.
But as i said, "Wikipedia is not censored" means we shouldn't be biased against gross/offensive pictures when deciding whether or not to include them.
-- `/aksha 09:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The images are clearly needless and irrelevant despite your opinion. Also, there are enough pictures for this article. Judging by your faulty reasoning, we should add detailed porn pictures on the articles about sexual positions or about sexual intercourse. Wikipedia is not censored, of course, but you seem to forget it is also an encyclopedia, and in no encyclopedia will you find such images. Why do we need those pictures for? To see how shit looks? Seriously. Needless, irrelevant, offensive, that's just enough to keep them out of this article.--
Raja Lon Flattery 10:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It's worth having an illustration. The Type 2 picture, however, is frankly very shitty. It's blurry and doesn't impart any information. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 06:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not worth it. Everybody knows exactly how shit looks. Unlike having sex, people, all people, shit every day so EVERYBODY knows exactly what it looks like. It's impossible not to. The pictures serve no informative purpose, they are clearly intended as some sort of amusement.-- Kamikaze 09:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Your examples are poorly chosen. I could argue no other encyclopedia has such images on their feces articles. An arm picture is not necessarily offensive while a feces image it is. Furthermore, its image is needless and is intended only for shock value. And no, it serves no informative purpose at all.
The point is this:Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.( WP:PROF). You can't deny a feces image is offensive to the majority of this planet. And the omission of such image doesn't cause the article to be less informative, relevant or accurate.
If you'd like to hear more opiniosn, just ask at WP:VPP. As you can see below, someone with the same view as you did the same thing. The resulting consensus was to remove the image.-- Kamikaze 16:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, why would it be "intended for shock value"? How could you know that? The article is about faeces, so it is relevant. Also, that "most people" render this image offensive doesn't mean that we should do so too. We are neutral and uncensored. We will not decide what is offensive and what isn't. Sala Skan 19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a note that i've posted to ask for more opinions at Village Pump (Policy) -- `/aksha 06:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The result was remove.-- Kamikaze 14:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Shit is universally held to smell bad, because we're naturally disinclined to share space with faeces... because it's bad for us. We're keyed to dislike the smell because it can be harmful, the bacteria.. I think the same can possibly be said for the sight. This is the ONLY legitimate reason not to include an image, because it can be objectively said to be gross.. because ... the image recalls something full of harmful bacteria. Eh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 6 June 2007.
Your point being?-- Kamikaze 17:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Instead of pictures of toilets, we should instead have a picture of a fresh stool. I come into this article looking for pictures of actual stools for my collection and all I get is DNA and toilets. I'm sure others are upset in the same manner as I and should hope you fix this. GoatSmoke 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I edited this sentence, as it suggests that cellulose is a type of bacteria. Cellulose is a fiber.
"The main composition of human feces is not undigested food but dead cells and bacteria including cellulose." 208.32.173.71 22:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This has been my favorite talk page for a while now. I dare you to find a funnier talk page. The reactions and puns and all of it are so delightful! Utils 07:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This article needs some pics of poop. A random toilet room from hundreds of years and a pic of bacteria do not effectively illustrate the subject. I can't believe there are numerous people clamoring at the chance to get a picture of their cock on wiki, while no one at all wants to take a picture of their latest dump. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should have one image of poo. I don't see why it was offensive in the first place. Its kinda hypocritical to say we can't have a picture of human poo, but we can of a horses poo in the main feces article. We all poo. We all smell the poo. We all check our poo. (or I hope you do to make sure you're not sick-also its kinda fun to examine what you ate[that was gross never mind]) I think that human poo is not offensive. Its part of the human body and the human body is a fascinating subject. Personally, the yellow slime slug poo shouldn't be shown. Just a regular nice healthy poo would be nice. You know a picture that says this is a healthy poo. Anything that doesn't look like this is unhealthy.(Joking) 71.142.214.138 ( talk) 01:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
To anyone who noticed; an ip was posting a phone number or similar while vandalising - so I deleted and restored without that info. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 11:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the most ridiculous talk page I have ever seen. I feel like I've gone back to the third grade when kids snickered about poo and turds. If we can have articles with pictures of sex positions, sex organs, horse feces, horse semen, ejaculation, octopus rape, and other potentially offensive photos, whats wrong with a picture of human feces? If we've all seen our own shit, then why would we be offended to see a photo of it on an article about shit? This isn't Conservapedia, there is no agenda here. If you didn't want to see shit, then why would you look at an article about shit? Even if one were to click on "random article," one should be prepared to deal with the consequences. There are many offensive articles (see third sentence) and we're not here to protect people's vauge notions of decency or vulgarity. If you find sex offensive, don't look at sex articles. If you find shit offensive, don't look at shit articles. </soapbox> -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 16:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think its kind of entertaining really, how everyone is so seriously debating the inclusion of pictures of poo, and how they should take the perfect photograph to make an 'appropriate' entry in an encyclopedia. A great example of reducing the world to pure logic and reasoning, only to recall these moments a few years down the road, and wonder "what was I doing?" 128.100.37.8 ( talk) 12:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
All lactose fermenting bacteria turn red on MacConkey agar (not just E. coli) If you want an agar that differentiates E. coli from others, EMB would be the correct choice. E. coli turns metallic green because it ferments lactose so strongly that it precipitates the methylene blue from the agar.
Here's a source in case you don't believe me: http://www.bd.com/ds/technicalCenter/inserts/Eosin_Methylene_Blue_Agar_Modified.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.7.96.94 ( talk) 18:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not censored" means we don't prejudice between pictures which are offensive/disguisting/gross/etc and pictures which are not."
As I can see, the only reasons for the removal of the pictures on this page is that they offend and disguist people. That's OK, but the pictures are otherwise relevant. Even if is necessary I could do and post some in SVG format with a GFDL license -- Simon Le Bon ( talk) 04:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow! You take Wikipedia non censored thing extremely serious 142. Its not the fact that we haven't seen poo before its the fact that we do needed to be reminded. As human beings we forget about ourselves. We all like to think that we don't fart and don't shit. Also sometimes it can be helpful if someone was writing a paper on something like this and they couldn't find the right pictures to have at least on credible source for pictures. Don't cha think. 71.142.208.226 ( talk) 03:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
If an image is placed here it MUST be put in a click activated drop down fashion or de-inlined to avoid accidental viewing by people who find it objectionable but want to read the page. Before you tell me "wikipedia is not censored" go to the page on fellatio, cunnilingus, and sexual intercourse and tell me if you whether a photograph instead of a painting or drawing. (non-humans don't count) Also the animal feces picture is much less revolting. I am a regular contributor 2,000+ edits since 2004 but am not logged in because I don't want this discussion in my edit history. I am using a wi-fi connection at a hotel -- 209.104.244.164 ( talk) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Pictures should be moved to a separate page as they may offend some readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evansad ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Its nice how its perfectly shaped as well :) Maybe a more realistic picture is in order? Matt ( talk) 12:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Question: why are there no photographs of feces in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.174.49 ( talk) 12:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Mat is right there should be more pictures one to represent each type of poo on the chart!--
203.192.91.4 (
talk) 02:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
So people want to come and read about poo, but dont want to see poo. Well if your that desperate to read about poo but dont want to see it, go else where! You will find a hard place to meet your needs so I suggest you make one!-- 203.192.91.4 ( talk) 02:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Ideally we should have a better picture that represents a more normal variant of human feces. While the picture appears to be of Bristol type 4, it contains a variety of particles that could be signs of pathology. With it appearing on the page it's an implicit endorsement that the pictured stool is normal. In fact, such coloured particles in the stool can be a legitimate reason to consult a physician. An individual with abnormal stool could be mislead into thinking their stool is normal. I'd suggest we find a better picture. If not, it should probably be removed from the article. This is not censorship, but rather a genuine editorial concern. Katie3329 ( talk) 02:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
We should have a picture, but not if it's going to look like soft-serve ice cream. We need a more realistic picture. 99.152.125.66 ( talk) 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a single person in the history of the world, who is able to read wikipedia, yet, does not know what feces looks like? This picture is not necessary, it is simply someone wanting to post THEIR feces on the internet.
I've added a citation request for this assertion. I agree that ingesting liquorice can darken faeces; I'm questioning that the darkening is caused by a high iron content. The only information that I could find on the chemical composition of liquorice gives an iron concentration of <100 ppm, which seems quite low. WP's liquorice confectionery article ascribes the black colour of liquorice to its molasses content, though some liquorice sweets also contain food colourings. Do we have a nutritionist who can point us in the direction of the facts? -- Kay Dekker ( talk) 04:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
How is this vandalism? Brown, orange, green and bloody (red) feces do exist and thus constitute valid color variations. I am also adding important, true facts, including signs of healthy and unhealthy feces, and signs of potentially serious conditions. For example: "Feces may appear red if there is an abnormally high concentration of blood present. This is often an indicator of potentially dangerous conditions, such as a perforated peptic ulcer, esophageal varices, colorectal cancer, diverticula, inflammatory bowel disease (including Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis). Blood in the feces may additionally be caused by food poisoning, rectal prolapse, colorectal cancer, rectal abscesses, intestinal infections, peptic ulcer or intestinal polyps. Less alarming causes of blood in feces are hemorrhoids, constipation, anal sex, cuts surrounding the anal sphincter caused by significant straining during defecation in attempting to expel logs, or anal fissures. Nonetheless, since any sign of blood signifies a potentially serious condition, it should be reported to a licensed health care provider as soon as possible. [1]" You cannot tell me there is no sourced scientific basis for this. If you want to make this encyclopedia article less thorough and useful, go ahead. However, anyone that sees that the only colors of feces that Wikipedia lists are yellow, black, blue and silver will be more likely to think Wikipedia is a terrible source to get your information from (which it is, for the most part, but I'm doing my best to make improvements).
IF THERE IS A FUNNY COLOR SPEAK WITH YOUR DOCTOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.118.204 ( talk) 00:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
References
The primary argument put forth by opponents of the image is that everyone knows what human feces looks like, therefore there is no need for an image of genuine human feces to illustrate it, as people may deem it to be offensive or shocking. This runs contrary to logic, If everyone has seen their own feces, then it begs the question: are people shocked and/or offended every time they take a dump? If that is the case, such people would be spend much of their life in a state of shock and offence as the average person defecates several times a week! Hmm... 67.142.172.26 ( talk) 01:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Im thinkin it would be good idea to give this page protected status —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentmanslow ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Brown is the most common color variation of feces. Is there any good reason it's not included there? -- 82.31.164.172 ( talk) 00:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
That's a good question. Rpm2005 ( talk) 15:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
And that there are no longer any distasteful images of poop littering the page. Just wanted to voice my approval. Vranak ( talk) 01:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Wudumindif has provided us a perfect image of "poo". But it's keep getting reverted. I think it should be kept because Wikipedia is not censored. -- 121.218.50.113 ( talk) 03:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)— 121.218.50.113 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I understand that some editors want to exclude the image. However, I am not seeing anyone proposing reasons to exclude the image based on our policies and guidelines... - SummerPhD ( talk) 04:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
That "someone" happens to be me. And it's straight from my vowels into the toilet. It hasn't been modified in anyway. Just took a quick photo before flushing it down. And yes, like I said before not everything in this world is "pretty" looking. It's like me saying "Please take down that photo of you because your face is far too ugly". -- Wudumindif ( talk) 22:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)— Wudumindif ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Break for reconsideration
I have reverted Wudumindif's restoration of the image, pending further consideration. In the above discussion, all of the IPs are sockpuppets of Wudumindif (currently blocked for socking/edit warring). As such, the discussion in, IMO, contaminated. Though my lukewarm endorsement of an image still stands. I would prefer more discussion. - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
A poop on a plate? Is someone being ironic? Revatman ( talk) 01:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
"This might be the result from eating liquorice candy, since it is typically made with anise oil rather than liquorice herb. Thus, as the candy is predominantly sugar, it can cause green stools." [1]
I read through all the previous comments about the images and I am probably stepping into a mine field here. But I have added another image, I hope people will be OK with it. I purposefully didn't put it in the lead but put it next to the information on fertiliser value of faeces. I think one thing you have missed out on in the discussion so far is the moisture content: I have realised that "wet" faeces looks far more disgusting than faeces after it's been dried (and adult feces looks more disgusting than child feces). For reuse in agriculture it is usually dried or composted. - When I get around to it, I will add information to this page about the moisture content (usually 80%) and about the nitrogen and phosphorus content (important for use as fertiliser). EvM-Susana ( talk) 16:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just moved quite a bit of text from the article about feces to this article, particular in the section on uses and the part about disgust. There was a mixture of uses of animal and human feces in the other article, and I felt it was neater to keep that information in two different articles. I hope others agree that it is better like this. EMsmile ( talk) 21:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if the quote from the bible is taking up too much importance in this article? Would it be fairer to also mention information from other religions or at least link to other relevant articles? I have added under See Also a link to relevant information in Islam, but more could be done to remove the strong emphasis on the information from the bible? EMsmile ( talk) 21:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
This Page need archive -- Gyan333 ( talk) 12:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Human feces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I see a bit of an edit war going on about the use of singular or plural with human feces ( Anne N. Cephaly). One of the editors ( Flobbadob cited this well known publication: "Håkan Jönsson, Håkan Jönsson, Anna Richert Stintzing, Björn Vinnerås, Eva Salomon, Guidelines on the Use of Urine and Faeces in Crop Production, page 1, Urine and faeces are complete fertilizers of high quality with low levels of contaminants such as heavy metals. Urine is rich in nitrogen, while faeces are rich in phosphorous, potassium and organic matter." I feel that there are more publications that say "human feces are", rather than "human feces is". Or is this really an American English thing? PlanetCare? Whilst the article is written in American English, maybe we should follow the more global convention in the published literature if indeed the majority of publications would say "human feces are...". EMsmile ( talk) 14:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Use with plural verbs is more common, especially in Britain, and is the only use recognized by some dictionaries,[Dictionary.com] while others recognize both plural and singular use.[TheFreeDictionary.com]. Although I wasn't here for the
bit of an edit war, I would support using feces as plural, and I think MOS:COMMONALITY would too. (A less PAG-based and more opinion-based reason of mine would be that "feces are" sounds more like formal or careful usage to me (especially as faeces is unambiguously plural in the original Latin), and MOS:CONTRACTIONS seems to make clear that Wikipedia is expected to be
formal writing.) — 2d37 ( talk) 23:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
24.35.59.183 ( talk) 02:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Write commonly referred to as poop or stinky.
"In the medical literature, the term "stool" is more commonly used than "feces".
I clicked on the references but could not find anything to verified this claimed. Any comment? CyberTroopers ( talk) 17:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
This article contradicts Fecal pH test. Specifically, in the Average chemical characteristics section, it is claimed that the pH of feces from a healthy human is 6.6, whereas Fecal pH test claims it is 7.0-7.5.
Both articles appear to have credible sources. Stowgull ( talk) 16:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Grammar, improval of content 115.97.40.226 ( talk) 11:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I was looking into the average quantities of faeces produced (for science) and noticed that the figure for how much is produced in the article is wrong. It's referenced to a paper from 2015 (The Characterization of Feces and Urine by Rose et al.), but the quoted figure (128 g) from the paper is specifically for high income countries. In lower income countries, where more fibre is produced, people produce nearly twice as much (250g). The article needs to be updated to reflect more of the human population. Since this has been a contentious article in the past, I'm just putting this suggestion here rather than editing.
The Characterization of Feces and Urine: A Review of the Literature to Inform Advanced Treatment Technology - PMC (nih.gov) Solanum dulcamara ( talk) 03:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 3 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Human feces article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Feces was copied or moved into human feces with this edit on 01:00, 12 March 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
How come the American spelling was chosen for 'faeces' ?? Last time I checked, the language was still called ENGLISH, not American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.105.149.125 ( talk) 17:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is hosted in California, hence, American spellings are used over their British (or even Canadian) counterparts. 142.161.68.24 ( talk) 03:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to offer a pre-emptive Strong Keep for this page. Probably the simplest answer to the heated discussions on the Feces page; those who need to learn about human feces can do so, those who don't want to see it don't have to. Good job, mikka. -- Psyk0 21:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it is very clear to everyone that Samboy and Psyk0 are just trying to stir up trouble. Classic troll behavior. They tried it on the main article page, and now they are trying it here. I am preparing an RfC on their behavior. 68.97.208.123 11:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
So people on a daily basis we all see dismembered bodies? Spacebar265 ( talk) 00:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing that god awful image. Duesel 00:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring that god blessed image. 68.66.98.168 08:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me why they have problems with an image on the internet of something they see several times per week? (unless of course they have severe psychological troubles associated with looking into a toilet bowl - go see a shrink) Joffeloff 16:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I personally cannot poo and the sight of it would help me bring the article into context. It is not often that I am able to view human feces, do to my condition. I would appreciate the inclusion of images. thanks -- Billwsu 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Dude, I find that really hard to believe. In fact, I'm pretty sure you'd be dead if you could never poo. Bufftractor53 23:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why in Heavens name there even is a page in Wikipedia devoted to human excrement let alone a disgusting picture? Max Vitor ( talk) 21:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Poo especially human poo is extremely important. You may want to live in the dark ages, but dont drag the knowedge of poo back their with you--
203.192.91.4 (
talk) 02:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
We have had these problems in many other articles before, starting form vagina. The image stays, because:
mikka (t) 19:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
By the way, this is your third reversal, not second. You are not answering my objections, nor presenting them here. I have all reasons to treat this removal of relevant information as trolling or vandalism. mikka (t) 21:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I do understand your position from User:Samboy/Offensive, but I fail to see that this particular image is offensive to a prohibitive degree, see above. Your argument about absence of pornography at pornography page is irrelevant here: the "pornography" subject is offensive and prohibited by itself, but not feces, unlike, say, shit. You are well aware that offensiveness of various topics vary, and in this article your tolerance threshold is too low, IMO. mikka (t) 22:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Somebody removed the image, and put in a link to it instead. My understanding was that the image stayed in that location, due to a compromise between mikka and Samboy. It seems like a good solution to me. I'm reverting. Kiaparowits 16:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Must it stay? Everyone is fairly similar with what human turd looks like. There is no need for a graphic image. -- Kilo-Lima 22:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Lets have a public vote on the matter. That image is graphic and very disgusting, and it made me feel a bit sick seeing it. There are various reasons for linking to an image rather than displayng it: offensiveness and nastyness (as here); (and to avoid an excessive clutter of images on one page) Anthony Appleyard 07:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
It's just a poo. It is not a violent, sexual, or otherwise image it is just a picture of what each and everyone of us does every day. It's just human waste product. No one will be harmed by seeing this picture, there are many other pictures on wikipedia that are controversial but they remain because they share a common ground with this one. They illustrate the article. There's no point stuffing it all the way at the bottom of the page. AntonioBu 09:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Antonio, no need to bring back an old argument. (sigh) QuizQuick 01:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Poo is not "graphic," just gross. In fact, it's angelic to have a picture of human feces in the human feces article compared to the picture of the naked man I saw as soon as I went to the man article. -- Gray Porpoise 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Besides more variety for this page, I could use some shit for a toilet-training game. :-)
Make a new account on the Commons if you are shy.
Public domain shit is best. GFDL shit is no good. GPL shit, LGPL shit, MIT shit, 2-clause BSD shit would be OK too. Basically it needs to fit the Open Source Initiative and Debian guidelines.
I prefer to add the alpha channel (variable transparancy mask) myself, starting from an unmodified image. I'm more skilled at making alpha channels than most people are. A shit on brown paper is probably best, though there needs to be enough contrast so that I can make out the edge.
A top-down view, without shadow, might be best. I'm also interested in straight side-on views. I don't want to deal with funny angles.
Related stuff I could use: toilet (front/side/vertical, open and shut), plunger, toilet brush, urinal, mens room sign, ladies room sign, and any other bathroom or restroom object.
24.170.177.130 04:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Can we get some more pics? The one here i especially yellow and loglike. What about brownish/reddish, liquid-type and piles? How about the kind in a baby's diaper?
If you want more pictures, go to [ [1]]. They've got lots there for you to look at. Wikipedia's not the place for pictures purely for the sake of disgust. -- Nathan 02:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
DON'T feed trolls. mikka (t) 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I came here because my son had a very, very, green stool, and here I see you all getting up in arms about a picture? How sad. I seen somewhere on this page about using a live link to enable people to view the image if they want to. Everything else is moot. Oh, and if this isn't good enough for you, go view some other page and leave this one to people who have more to worry about. Thanks.
I think we need more pictures, not less. One picture after eating pizza all day, then maybe a picture after eating corn and peanuts.
^person didn't sign
Personally, I think we are looking at the shit picture the wrong way.
Someone needs to take a less offensive picture of human feces, preferably brown and drier, and replace the yellow slimy one with that. The current picture of fecal matter is certainly not the norm (see ratemypoo, etc), and prompts the gag response quicker than a more normal, aryan style piece of poop would. I'd like to reopen this discussion, because I freaked out almost as much as I did when I saw Vagina while in a school-run computer center when I scrolled down. - WAZAAAA 23:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
can someone add something about average quantities of feces, e.g. kg per week?
I did not see a reference to stools that float versus stools that sink. any signicance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.239.128 ( talk) 17:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to put a picture on this page, maybe you should have one that is representative of normal human feces. The example on the page doesn't look like it came from a particularly healthy individual .. -- 68.146.186.92 06:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Why have a picture? Everyone not born blind knows what faeces looks like.-- Mongreilf 16:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
cause it's funny
wikipedia is a resource that should be open to all walks of life, if other intelligent life want to learn about us (and i'm not saying aliens), a picture can be considered informative — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.189.104.122 ( talk) 07:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Why does the picture of Feces look like it went through a Dairy Queen soft serve machine? FancyPants 01:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess this guy likes to take pictures of his/her poop!
I'm pretty sure human poop doesn't look like that, but that does look a lot like fake human poop from a gag store, so I guess it's good enough. 2601:448:4300:3FF0:7111:F96A:3F9:CF85 ( talk) 14:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
As suggested, let's vote:
wikipedia isn't britannica. wikipedia isn't trying to be britannica.
I'll get my toddler to provide an alternative image of a more normal-looking bog, but in the interim I'm removing the picture of the yellow log. - brenneman {T} {L} 13:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm cooking up a good one right now. I had tacos and a meatball sub, it'll be a great one, assuming I can get it out my ass
If you look closely at Image:Human feces.jpg, you will notice that the middle part of the turd appears to have been cloned and stretched to make the turd longer. There is a peanut which can be seen, and an identical peanut about 1 inch away. Can we get a real picture of a big turd rather than this photoshop gimmickry?
Next stop; Poopville Corny! WaddlingTimy ( talk) 03:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Tell the Wikitruth! Unprotect the page and put the turd at the top!
I think the feces image is unnecessary in this article. Anyone reading this knows what feces looks like; we don't need to be reminded by a gross image. 209.236.231.253 06:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL. I believe the above user meant 'abnormal', unless by 'paranormal' he was referring to a ghostly poo, or perhaps the loch ness monster. Saccerzd 14:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but nipples don't make me lose my appetite. Also, "the existance of one thing does not warrant the existance of another" or something like that. Anyways, if you don't know what it looks like, or want to see it, go here http://www.ratemypoo.com/ Zombieninja101
Listen here, ZOMBIENINJAONEOHONE. If you don't want to look at the picture you don't have to! For the rest of us though, the image stays. user:nateabel —Preceding comment was added at 05:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposal : | Should we remove the image to the right from the Human Feces article? |
Rationale : | This image depicts Human Feces and could be placed at the top of the article. But from looking at the talk page, many people believe it doesn't need to be on the page because everyone knows what feces looks like. |
Proposer : | Sonic3KMaster |
Please add * Support or * Oppose followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "--~~~~".
Accepted No Objections, survey closed. -- Sonic3KMaster (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
{{linkimage|Human feces.jpg|An example of human feces}}
That survey did not last long enough. only two people voted. silly! do another, let it last a month or two, and then we'll see! I say get a new image, because that one definitely IS PARAnormal. Loki at6 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do not protect pages without putting a protection notice up. It causes confusion when people go to edit the page and they find that the page is protected. Scott Gall 22:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Why was Image:Human feces.jpg replaced by Image:Human Feces.jpg. Is the new image "better" than the old one? (IMHO, the latter seems more representative of human feces than the first.) SCHZMO ✍ 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
How can we know the image is indeed a real human turd? It might just be fake poo, like you can get from joke shops etc. I think we need a verified image of a turd, with a reference. We shouldn't just accept any old turd produced by a wikipedian and put on the page. Remember, a lot of people around the world are reading this shit and we have to show them authentic feces.
Isn't human feces larger and darker than the feces shown on the picture?
I know from experience that the eating of beet may cause one's feces to go reddish and that eating things with a lot of iron can make it green, can someone research more into this and add that to the article? 201.23.64.2 00:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
{{linkimage|Human_Feces.jpg|Human feces}}
I suggest that the photograph of human excrement be de-inlined, so that it will be displayed on the article page as shown here. We would still preserve access to the photograph for readers who wished to view it, but it would not be obtrusively displayed to readers who do not want to view explicit photographs of human excrement.
John254 00:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I came here from requests for comment. I think the image should be inlined BUT it should be not too invasive to the article, as in not too big. If it's small it would probably offend less users. Pictures are very important and valuable to wikipedia. It's not censored either. If the image is small, the user can always click it for a closer look if they are interested.
The image shouldn't be right down the bottom of the page, maybe halfway down or even at the top.
The above comment has taken into consideration vandals redirecting articles here.-- Andeh 11:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Filed an RfC here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. For folks coming from the RfC, I thank you. The discussion is immediately above this section. To restate, the issue is whether an image of human feces should be displayed in the article (note that even in this case, the image has been "below the fold", so to speak -- far enough down the page that a user must scroll down to see it) or linked to as a warning to readers who might find the image offensive. Any comments are appreciated. Powers 11:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Keep Per Jefffire.
QuizQuick 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Keep. A few months ago a similar RfC happened at smegma and the result was also keep. In response to some suggestions the editors cropped the image to emphasize its purpose as an example of smegma rather than a photograph of a human penis (the current image is an extreme close-up). I view the current feces image as more a depiction of a toilet bowl than of its contents, thus missing the details that would indicate a person's diet and intestinal health. What I suppose I am suggesting is that someone deposit a bowel movement onto a flat surface, then photograph with better lighting and zoom in on the subject. Durova 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Can this effort be an allusion to the diet of police officers, and resulting injury near seaports? 17:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC) beadtot
If I vented my true feelings on how unnecessary the poop on a plate is, I guarantee I'd be censored. Mr Spunky Toffee 05:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be hilarious to have a great long line of poop pictures running down the right edge of the page. Six or seven. Just to illustrate the great variety of human poop. And come on, half the people who come here are probably just doing so to see if Wikipedia is brave enough to host poop pictures. That said, there's good-looking poop, then there's disgusting poop. No need for the latter. -- Chris 17:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Pics unnecisary! I don't need the loss of appatite (especially since my ovens broken and I kind of need to be willing to eat almost anything in my fridge right now.) Buddy, if you want poo pics, go here
http://www.ratemypoo.com
Schizel
I thought it was a plate as well... Rorrenig 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a digital camera. I could take pictures of my own feces and license it public domain for all to see so it wouldn't have a licensing issue. It can go in this article or better yet on a userbox for people to express their believe that a picture of feces should go in the article.
SakotGrimshine 02:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Bold textSHOULDN'T THERE BE A SECTION ON FAMOUS DOOKS? LIKE THE STEAMY LOAVES OF HISTORY? PERHAPS A WHOLE NEW ARTICLE: HISTORY OF DOOKIES? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brydav ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
no.
YES!
I deleted it. For shit's sake don't restore it. Indiawilliams 04:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
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. 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be best to delete that shit image and replace it with a schematic or smth. In no medical articles, magazines or books, or other encyclopedias can one find such disgusting images. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.165.146.90 ( talk) 12:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
It is highly offensive, delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.146.90 ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 March 2007
I strongly support removing those pictures. They are offensive indeed. I too have uploaded images on wikipedia that were deleted due to various reasons so keeping this .... crap here is beyond my comprehension. This is not about censorship, it is about common sense. Freedom of speech has its limits too.-- Biotudor 18:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Why would anyone read an article about SHIT and then recoil in shock to see pictures of SHIT???
Good point if one would read an article about human shit, then one would expect to see a picture of it. If it is disgusting then one must not search for it, there is no reason why the image should be deleted. If it is offensive, then don't view the article!. -- Vlad788 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not censored" means we don't prejudice between pictures which are offensive/disguisting/gross/etc and pictures which are not.
In other words:
What this means is that saying a picture is offensive, or that it is disguisting, or explicit, are not reasons by which we judge whether or not a picture should be included in an article.
Whether or not a picture should be in an article is judged by questions such as "is the picture relevant to the article", "is the picture free and if not, can we use it under fair use", "is the picture representing, or at least not contradicting, a neutral point of view?" and so on.
As far as i can see, the only reasons for the removal of the pictures on this page is that they offend and disguist people. The pictures are otherwise relevant, and previous discussions on this talk page (as well as the vote and request for comment carried out last year) shows that there was a clear consensus by other editors to keep images on this article.
Of course, one can argue that the pictures are unnessasary. However, it's generally understood that all Wikipedia articles should (ideally) be illustrated by images (and more than one unless the article is very short).
Just ask yourself this question - if the pictures where not gross and offensive, would there be such a fuss about there being too many pictures in this article? No, considering the article length (in terms of text), we don't have an excessively large number of pictures here. So at the end, it comes down to the fact that these pictures happen to be disgusting and offensive to some people.
But as i said, "Wikipedia is not censored" means we shouldn't be biased against gross/offensive pictures when deciding whether or not to include them.
-- `/aksha 09:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The images are clearly needless and irrelevant despite your opinion. Also, there are enough pictures for this article. Judging by your faulty reasoning, we should add detailed porn pictures on the articles about sexual positions or about sexual intercourse. Wikipedia is not censored, of course, but you seem to forget it is also an encyclopedia, and in no encyclopedia will you find such images. Why do we need those pictures for? To see how shit looks? Seriously. Needless, irrelevant, offensive, that's just enough to keep them out of this article.--
Raja Lon Flattery 10:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It's worth having an illustration. The Type 2 picture, however, is frankly very shitty. It's blurry and doesn't impart any information. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 06:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not worth it. Everybody knows exactly how shit looks. Unlike having sex, people, all people, shit every day so EVERYBODY knows exactly what it looks like. It's impossible not to. The pictures serve no informative purpose, they are clearly intended as some sort of amusement.-- Kamikaze 09:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Your examples are poorly chosen. I could argue no other encyclopedia has such images on their feces articles. An arm picture is not necessarily offensive while a feces image it is. Furthermore, its image is needless and is intended only for shock value. And no, it serves no informative purpose at all.
The point is this:Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.( WP:PROF). You can't deny a feces image is offensive to the majority of this planet. And the omission of such image doesn't cause the article to be less informative, relevant or accurate.
If you'd like to hear more opiniosn, just ask at WP:VPP. As you can see below, someone with the same view as you did the same thing. The resulting consensus was to remove the image.-- Kamikaze 16:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, why would it be "intended for shock value"? How could you know that? The article is about faeces, so it is relevant. Also, that "most people" render this image offensive doesn't mean that we should do so too. We are neutral and uncensored. We will not decide what is offensive and what isn't. Sala Skan 19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a note that i've posted to ask for more opinions at Village Pump (Policy) -- `/aksha 06:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The result was remove.-- Kamikaze 14:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Shit is universally held to smell bad, because we're naturally disinclined to share space with faeces... because it's bad for us. We're keyed to dislike the smell because it can be harmful, the bacteria.. I think the same can possibly be said for the sight. This is the ONLY legitimate reason not to include an image, because it can be objectively said to be gross.. because ... the image recalls something full of harmful bacteria. Eh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 6 June 2007.
Your point being?-- Kamikaze 17:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Instead of pictures of toilets, we should instead have a picture of a fresh stool. I come into this article looking for pictures of actual stools for my collection and all I get is DNA and toilets. I'm sure others are upset in the same manner as I and should hope you fix this. GoatSmoke 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I edited this sentence, as it suggests that cellulose is a type of bacteria. Cellulose is a fiber.
"The main composition of human feces is not undigested food but dead cells and bacteria including cellulose." 208.32.173.71 22:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This has been my favorite talk page for a while now. I dare you to find a funnier talk page. The reactions and puns and all of it are so delightful! Utils 07:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This article needs some pics of poop. A random toilet room from hundreds of years and a pic of bacteria do not effectively illustrate the subject. I can't believe there are numerous people clamoring at the chance to get a picture of their cock on wiki, while no one at all wants to take a picture of their latest dump. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should have one image of poo. I don't see why it was offensive in the first place. Its kinda hypocritical to say we can't have a picture of human poo, but we can of a horses poo in the main feces article. We all poo. We all smell the poo. We all check our poo. (or I hope you do to make sure you're not sick-also its kinda fun to examine what you ate[that was gross never mind]) I think that human poo is not offensive. Its part of the human body and the human body is a fascinating subject. Personally, the yellow slime slug poo shouldn't be shown. Just a regular nice healthy poo would be nice. You know a picture that says this is a healthy poo. Anything that doesn't look like this is unhealthy.(Joking) 71.142.214.138 ( talk) 01:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
To anyone who noticed; an ip was posting a phone number or similar while vandalising - so I deleted and restored without that info. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 11:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the most ridiculous talk page I have ever seen. I feel like I've gone back to the third grade when kids snickered about poo and turds. If we can have articles with pictures of sex positions, sex organs, horse feces, horse semen, ejaculation, octopus rape, and other potentially offensive photos, whats wrong with a picture of human feces? If we've all seen our own shit, then why would we be offended to see a photo of it on an article about shit? This isn't Conservapedia, there is no agenda here. If you didn't want to see shit, then why would you look at an article about shit? Even if one were to click on "random article," one should be prepared to deal with the consequences. There are many offensive articles (see third sentence) and we're not here to protect people's vauge notions of decency or vulgarity. If you find sex offensive, don't look at sex articles. If you find shit offensive, don't look at shit articles. </soapbox> -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 16:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think its kind of entertaining really, how everyone is so seriously debating the inclusion of pictures of poo, and how they should take the perfect photograph to make an 'appropriate' entry in an encyclopedia. A great example of reducing the world to pure logic and reasoning, only to recall these moments a few years down the road, and wonder "what was I doing?" 128.100.37.8 ( talk) 12:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
All lactose fermenting bacteria turn red on MacConkey agar (not just E. coli) If you want an agar that differentiates E. coli from others, EMB would be the correct choice. E. coli turns metallic green because it ferments lactose so strongly that it precipitates the methylene blue from the agar.
Here's a source in case you don't believe me: http://www.bd.com/ds/technicalCenter/inserts/Eosin_Methylene_Blue_Agar_Modified.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.7.96.94 ( talk) 18:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not censored" means we don't prejudice between pictures which are offensive/disguisting/gross/etc and pictures which are not."
As I can see, the only reasons for the removal of the pictures on this page is that they offend and disguist people. That's OK, but the pictures are otherwise relevant. Even if is necessary I could do and post some in SVG format with a GFDL license -- Simon Le Bon ( talk) 04:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow! You take Wikipedia non censored thing extremely serious 142. Its not the fact that we haven't seen poo before its the fact that we do needed to be reminded. As human beings we forget about ourselves. We all like to think that we don't fart and don't shit. Also sometimes it can be helpful if someone was writing a paper on something like this and they couldn't find the right pictures to have at least on credible source for pictures. Don't cha think. 71.142.208.226 ( talk) 03:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
If an image is placed here it MUST be put in a click activated drop down fashion or de-inlined to avoid accidental viewing by people who find it objectionable but want to read the page. Before you tell me "wikipedia is not censored" go to the page on fellatio, cunnilingus, and sexual intercourse and tell me if you whether a photograph instead of a painting or drawing. (non-humans don't count) Also the animal feces picture is much less revolting. I am a regular contributor 2,000+ edits since 2004 but am not logged in because I don't want this discussion in my edit history. I am using a wi-fi connection at a hotel -- 209.104.244.164 ( talk) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Pictures should be moved to a separate page as they may offend some readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evansad ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Its nice how its perfectly shaped as well :) Maybe a more realistic picture is in order? Matt ( talk) 12:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Question: why are there no photographs of feces in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.174.49 ( talk) 12:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Mat is right there should be more pictures one to represent each type of poo on the chart!--
203.192.91.4 (
talk) 02:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
So people want to come and read about poo, but dont want to see poo. Well if your that desperate to read about poo but dont want to see it, go else where! You will find a hard place to meet your needs so I suggest you make one!-- 203.192.91.4 ( talk) 02:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Ideally we should have a better picture that represents a more normal variant of human feces. While the picture appears to be of Bristol type 4, it contains a variety of particles that could be signs of pathology. With it appearing on the page it's an implicit endorsement that the pictured stool is normal. In fact, such coloured particles in the stool can be a legitimate reason to consult a physician. An individual with abnormal stool could be mislead into thinking their stool is normal. I'd suggest we find a better picture. If not, it should probably be removed from the article. This is not censorship, but rather a genuine editorial concern. Katie3329 ( talk) 02:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
We should have a picture, but not if it's going to look like soft-serve ice cream. We need a more realistic picture. 99.152.125.66 ( talk) 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a single person in the history of the world, who is able to read wikipedia, yet, does not know what feces looks like? This picture is not necessary, it is simply someone wanting to post THEIR feces on the internet.
I've added a citation request for this assertion. I agree that ingesting liquorice can darken faeces; I'm questioning that the darkening is caused by a high iron content. The only information that I could find on the chemical composition of liquorice gives an iron concentration of <100 ppm, which seems quite low. WP's liquorice confectionery article ascribes the black colour of liquorice to its molasses content, though some liquorice sweets also contain food colourings. Do we have a nutritionist who can point us in the direction of the facts? -- Kay Dekker ( talk) 04:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
How is this vandalism? Brown, orange, green and bloody (red) feces do exist and thus constitute valid color variations. I am also adding important, true facts, including signs of healthy and unhealthy feces, and signs of potentially serious conditions. For example: "Feces may appear red if there is an abnormally high concentration of blood present. This is often an indicator of potentially dangerous conditions, such as a perforated peptic ulcer, esophageal varices, colorectal cancer, diverticula, inflammatory bowel disease (including Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis). Blood in the feces may additionally be caused by food poisoning, rectal prolapse, colorectal cancer, rectal abscesses, intestinal infections, peptic ulcer or intestinal polyps. Less alarming causes of blood in feces are hemorrhoids, constipation, anal sex, cuts surrounding the anal sphincter caused by significant straining during defecation in attempting to expel logs, or anal fissures. Nonetheless, since any sign of blood signifies a potentially serious condition, it should be reported to a licensed health care provider as soon as possible. [1]" You cannot tell me there is no sourced scientific basis for this. If you want to make this encyclopedia article less thorough and useful, go ahead. However, anyone that sees that the only colors of feces that Wikipedia lists are yellow, black, blue and silver will be more likely to think Wikipedia is a terrible source to get your information from (which it is, for the most part, but I'm doing my best to make improvements).
IF THERE IS A FUNNY COLOR SPEAK WITH YOUR DOCTOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.118.204 ( talk) 00:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
References
The primary argument put forth by opponents of the image is that everyone knows what human feces looks like, therefore there is no need for an image of genuine human feces to illustrate it, as people may deem it to be offensive or shocking. This runs contrary to logic, If everyone has seen their own feces, then it begs the question: are people shocked and/or offended every time they take a dump? If that is the case, such people would be spend much of their life in a state of shock and offence as the average person defecates several times a week! Hmm... 67.142.172.26 ( talk) 01:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Im thinkin it would be good idea to give this page protected status —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentmanslow ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Brown is the most common color variation of feces. Is there any good reason it's not included there? -- 82.31.164.172 ( talk) 00:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
That's a good question. Rpm2005 ( talk) 15:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
And that there are no longer any distasteful images of poop littering the page. Just wanted to voice my approval. Vranak ( talk) 01:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Wudumindif has provided us a perfect image of "poo". But it's keep getting reverted. I think it should be kept because Wikipedia is not censored. -- 121.218.50.113 ( talk) 03:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)— 121.218.50.113 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I understand that some editors want to exclude the image. However, I am not seeing anyone proposing reasons to exclude the image based on our policies and guidelines... - SummerPhD ( talk) 04:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
That "someone" happens to be me. And it's straight from my vowels into the toilet. It hasn't been modified in anyway. Just took a quick photo before flushing it down. And yes, like I said before not everything in this world is "pretty" looking. It's like me saying "Please take down that photo of you because your face is far too ugly". -- Wudumindif ( talk) 22:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)— Wudumindif ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Break for reconsideration
I have reverted Wudumindif's restoration of the image, pending further consideration. In the above discussion, all of the IPs are sockpuppets of Wudumindif (currently blocked for socking/edit warring). As such, the discussion in, IMO, contaminated. Though my lukewarm endorsement of an image still stands. I would prefer more discussion. - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
A poop on a plate? Is someone being ironic? Revatman ( talk) 01:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
"This might be the result from eating liquorice candy, since it is typically made with anise oil rather than liquorice herb. Thus, as the candy is predominantly sugar, it can cause green stools." [1]
I read through all the previous comments about the images and I am probably stepping into a mine field here. But I have added another image, I hope people will be OK with it. I purposefully didn't put it in the lead but put it next to the information on fertiliser value of faeces. I think one thing you have missed out on in the discussion so far is the moisture content: I have realised that "wet" faeces looks far more disgusting than faeces after it's been dried (and adult feces looks more disgusting than child feces). For reuse in agriculture it is usually dried or composted. - When I get around to it, I will add information to this page about the moisture content (usually 80%) and about the nitrogen and phosphorus content (important for use as fertiliser). EvM-Susana ( talk) 16:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just moved quite a bit of text from the article about feces to this article, particular in the section on uses and the part about disgust. There was a mixture of uses of animal and human feces in the other article, and I felt it was neater to keep that information in two different articles. I hope others agree that it is better like this. EMsmile ( talk) 21:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if the quote from the bible is taking up too much importance in this article? Would it be fairer to also mention information from other religions or at least link to other relevant articles? I have added under See Also a link to relevant information in Islam, but more could be done to remove the strong emphasis on the information from the bible? EMsmile ( talk) 21:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
This Page need archive -- Gyan333 ( talk) 12:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Human feces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I see a bit of an edit war going on about the use of singular or plural with human feces ( Anne N. Cephaly). One of the editors ( Flobbadob cited this well known publication: "Håkan Jönsson, Håkan Jönsson, Anna Richert Stintzing, Björn Vinnerås, Eva Salomon, Guidelines on the Use of Urine and Faeces in Crop Production, page 1, Urine and faeces are complete fertilizers of high quality with low levels of contaminants such as heavy metals. Urine is rich in nitrogen, while faeces are rich in phosphorous, potassium and organic matter." I feel that there are more publications that say "human feces are", rather than "human feces is". Or is this really an American English thing? PlanetCare? Whilst the article is written in American English, maybe we should follow the more global convention in the published literature if indeed the majority of publications would say "human feces are...". EMsmile ( talk) 14:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Use with plural verbs is more common, especially in Britain, and is the only use recognized by some dictionaries,[Dictionary.com] while others recognize both plural and singular use.[TheFreeDictionary.com]. Although I wasn't here for the
bit of an edit war, I would support using feces as plural, and I think MOS:COMMONALITY would too. (A less PAG-based and more opinion-based reason of mine would be that "feces are" sounds more like formal or careful usage to me (especially as faeces is unambiguously plural in the original Latin), and MOS:CONTRACTIONS seems to make clear that Wikipedia is expected to be
formal writing.) — 2d37 ( talk) 23:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
24.35.59.183 ( talk) 02:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Write commonly referred to as poop or stinky.
"In the medical literature, the term "stool" is more commonly used than "feces".
I clicked on the references but could not find anything to verified this claimed. Any comment? CyberTroopers ( talk) 17:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
This article contradicts Fecal pH test. Specifically, in the Average chemical characteristics section, it is claimed that the pH of feces from a healthy human is 6.6, whereas Fecal pH test claims it is 7.0-7.5.
Both articles appear to have credible sources. Stowgull ( talk) 16:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Grammar, improval of content 115.97.40.226 ( talk) 11:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I was looking into the average quantities of faeces produced (for science) and noticed that the figure for how much is produced in the article is wrong. It's referenced to a paper from 2015 (The Characterization of Feces and Urine by Rose et al.), but the quoted figure (128 g) from the paper is specifically for high income countries. In lower income countries, where more fibre is produced, people produce nearly twice as much (250g). The article needs to be updated to reflect more of the human population. Since this has been a contentious article in the past, I'm just putting this suggestion here rather than editing.
The Characterization of Feces and Urine: A Review of the Literature to Inform Advanced Treatment Technology - PMC (nih.gov) Solanum dulcamara ( talk) 03:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)