Talk:Feces/Archive 2

message: This article clearly is in violation of Wikipedia NPOV poliy.
|Um, can you tell us why? Or are you just going to say it is. Also please sign your posts. Dramma! 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: ===Animal and human poop on main page ===
koilpoty
#The log of poo is A-OK. Eyeon 22:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old poll

message: koilpoty
#The log of poo is A-OK. Eyeon 22:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Animal and human poop on main page''' 

message: We should have a new poll, because some say that Eyeon's poll is invalid and refuse to accept the results. So, no debate or explanation in this next vote please; if you want to make an additional statement, then scroll past the voting for 'human poo picture debate.' For the vote, please give your signature only (Four Tildes). The photo  should be:
=== Normal size (200px) and at top of page ===
# LittleRedRidingHood 01:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New poll 

message: # LittleRedRidingHood 01:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normal size (200px) and at top of page 

message: # --Psyk0 13:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smaller size (100px) and at bottom of page 

message: # MechBrowman June 28, 2005 21:53 (UTC)
# 62.253.96.44 30 June 2005 11:31 (UTC)
# Hoekenheef 1 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)
# Kfort 5 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)
# RJC 5 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)
# Kaldari 6 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)
# --MicroFeet 01:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off the page, with a text box link 

message: # Floopy 2 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)
#:--MicroFeet 01:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nowhere on Wikipedia 

message: # [ +t, +c, +m ] 03:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
#Gemini6Ice 04:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't this poll dead yet? 

message: If there are any issues that were not fully explored in Talk:Feces/archive1, then lets discuss them here. LittleRedRidingHood 01:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reducing it to 50px, the size of my pinky nail, is pathetic and just a weasel way of censoring the image. LittleRedRidingHood 20:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, it is 100px, down from 200px. I don't really see what's this fuss about besides being nasty. mikka (t) 22:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Going from 200px to 100px is a 75% reduction of the image. This is not appropriate. 68.97.208.123 22:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Shouldn't this be removed as vandalism? LittleRedRidingHood 01:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really worth de-vandalising the talk page? --Psyk0 13:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. This is not a chat room. People work here. Believe me or not, poop is a serious matter to many: hunters, trappers, zoologists, veterinarians, doctors, bird sighters, etc. mikka (t) 15:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. Remove away. --Psyk0 22:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late now. It should have been done on sight. Now we have a reasonable discussion. mikka (t) 22:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text:  This was amusing. Don't be so hard on the discussion page. Gemini6Ice 2 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)
"Normal size (200px)" is not really a valid description.  "Normal size" should just be "thumb", so the size is set by the user's preferences.  Overriding the user's preference by setting a specific size is valid in some situations, but is not "normal".  I'd rather just get rid of the picture since I don't see any point to it, but certainly any specific size should be removed unless there's consensus for that size.  An alternative to a thumbnail would be a gallery, again without specifying a particular size. Phr (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Feces Picture Debate 

message: A small image will do IMO. mikka (t) 20:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reducing it to 50px, the size of my pinky nail, is pathetic and just a weasel way of censoring the image. LittleRedRidingHood 20:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, it is 100px, down from 200px. I don't really see what's this fuss about besides being nasty. mikka (t) 22:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Going from 200px to 100px is a 75% reduction of the image. This is not appropriate. 68.97.208.123 22:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think thumbnailing it is better. It's still recognisable, but it isn't as 'in your face' as the larger image was. Also, whoever it was who suggested artification, that seemed to help too. --Psyk0 13:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing the image to 1/4 the size of the others

message: :Shouldn't this be removed as vandalism? LittleRedRidingHood 01:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really worth de-vandalising the talk page? --Psyk0 13:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. This is not a chat room. People work here. Believe me or not, poop is a serious matter to many: hunters, trappers, zoologists, veterinarians, doctors, bird sighters, etc. mikka (t) 15:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. Remove away. --Psyk0 22:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late now. It should have been done on sight. Now we have a reasonable discussion. mikka (t) 22:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text:  This was amusing. Don't be so hard on the discussion page. Gemini6Ice 2 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)
"Normal size (200px)" is not really a valid description.  "Normal size" should just be "thumb", so the size is set by the user's preferences.  Overriding the user's preference by setting a specific size is valid in some situations, but is not "normal".  I'd rather just get rid of the picture since I don't see any point to it, but certainly any specific size should be removed unless there's consensus for that size.  An alternative to a thumbnail would be a gallery, again without specifying a particular size. Phr (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  solution 

message: Why are there pictures of turds on this page? That's disgusting and unnecessary. Floopy 2 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)
:This is an article about turd, my friend. The article of Michael Jackson has pictures of Michael Jackson, which look much more disgusting to me.  Just look at this: :Image:Michaeljacksonm.jpg. mikka (t) 2 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)
::Aargh! That picture is disguting!(The Michael Jackson one) 
30px	~ Flame-viper 12 14:25, 13.06.06
</div>
::Shall we also have photos at phlegm, urine, smegma, santorum and semen? This is not a rhetorical question. If not, why not? Floopy 2 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)
:::I doubt that photos of urine would be useful, e.g., they will hardly help to distinguish urine from, say, tea. Feces, because identifiable from a picture, do benefit from pictures. Unfortunately so far it seems the whole affair looks more like an exercise in free speech than an attempt to add encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not democracy, remember. As for santorum, I thought you knew it was a nasty joke, and your inclusion of it in your list forces me not to take your intentions seriously. mikka (t) 4 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)
poop looks like chocloate bars sometimes. and nut fudge clusters!
::::Mikkalai, it is clear that you take nobody's intentions seriously but your own. An examination of your participation in this article shows that you abused your position as admin to block another user's contributions in violation of policy, and when called on it you refused to defend your actions. You are in a poor position to lecture on Wikipedia policy. And in a worse position to lecture on democracy, comrade. Floopy 6 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
::I agree that picture of Jacko is nasty looking.  DyslexicEditor 07:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never, ever thought I'd be able download a high-resolution picture of human excrement on Wikipedia. Patriarch 10:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate 

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

message: Under fecal contamination, I changed bacteria to organisms, as hepatitis is caused by virus rather than bacteria.
Also, in the related terminology section, there is a direct contradiction. In the first paragraph, it states that feces are incorrectly believed to be a product of excretion. In the second, it states that rabbits excrete feces.
According to both the American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, feces is synonymous with excrement.
:At some point I came to the conclusion that excretion referred to urine while excrement referred to feces. I think this article is incorrect in saying that excrement is missapplied to feces. (In fact, I think the only correct usage of excrement is to refer to feces.) That said, it is true that excrement is not the result of the excretory system. Rather, it is the result of the digestive system. I think probably the root excr was used to refer to anything that came out of the body before excretory and digestive systems were well understood. 
:Regarding the bacteria/organism thing, some people do not view viruses as organisms. Further, rather than using the all-life-envoloping term organisms I would suggest that the article be changed to say bacteria and viruses. Theshibboleth 09:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes: Bacteria vs organisms, excrement 

message: I expected better of you Wikipedia.  Klosterdev 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you edit an article about crap, expect the talk page to being pretty crappy as well :P CanadaAotS 23:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This talk page stinks 

message: A year ago there was the rabbit poop and a car with bird poop.  Then a debate came about if a pooped in diaper could be allowed.  And now I see it's the rabbit and some container for dog poop (with no actual poop).  This second picture is just useless.  DyslexicEditor 07:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, everyone here sure is afraid of the sight of poop 

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

message: It's been weeks since I added the microscopic image of fecal bacteria and I'm quite proud with myself that everyone has liked it enough not to remove it.  I feel that this has helped settle the debate on this page.  DyslexicEditor 16:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... or rather helped to put the shit aside :) - Anonymous 21:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice pic. Viridae 02:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Microscopic Image 

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

message: User ProhibitOnions removed the Human Feces image without any discussion. This issue has already been settled in my view and the image is appropriately placed in this article. I will restore it shortly.
Separately, I will also request that this page be semi-protected due to the continuous frequent vandalism.
Cacetudo 10:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's see what happens in the debate about the image on the human feces page before we do anything here. Also, it helps with the discussion if you sign your comments. Cacetudo 12:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your totally useless asinine commentary. --Cacetudo 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Image Debate 

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

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

message: Someone get a picture of someone eating poop. It'll spark a massive flame war. Or it could go under an article with people eating poop. I need to read the article. Youknowthatoneguy 02:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image idea 

message: The feces pictures were never that bad.  Here is why Frenulum.  Also much less so, anus and Anal glands.
I think all the animal feces pictures should be put back. Anomo 09:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm about to disprove all arguments for taking pictures out 

message: Seriously, somebody's having a laugh putting that in.  Since the poop is not in its natural habitat, I'll take it out. Mr Spunky Toffee 15:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a closer look, that is nto a plate - its s toilet bowl. ViridaeTalk 00:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If you had bothered to read the description on the image page, you would know that the picture depicts a toilet bowl (whether "natural habitat" or not is irrelevant). I've described the reasons it looks the way it does elsewhere. Also, you should read through the consensus reached on this talk page and elsewhere before unilaterally removing this image - we've been through several evolutions of discussion/reversion before deciding that the image should stay within the article. Cacetudo 08:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

message: First, let me explain how I came to a Wikipedia article on feces: I was on a forum writing a post about the etymology of the phrase damn straight. I then commented that the etymology of other obscenities is even more interesting, citing shit as an example. I searched Wikipedia for faeces to check if that was indeed a correct spelling, and I was also interested in gleaning a little encyclopedic information about excrement (I do have a pathological curiosity, after all). Frankly, though, I was not expecting to see an actual photograph of a turd, and yes, I was disgusted as almost anyone would be.
I'm going to play psychologist (because I've studied it in depth) and postulate that most of the people (if they are not just sockpuppets) defending the picture being in the article are not defending it out of some noble passion for free speech and opposition to censorship; they really just get a kick out of shocking people. Still, policy is nothing if it is applied arbitrarily. The question becomes is is removing the photo really a matter of censorship? I say it is not.
I remember attending an informal debate at a college free speech club. A few Libertarians joined the fairly liberal bunch, and most people didn't know how to refute their points even though they felt they were wrong (as a matter of values). I realized the problem was one of control more than anything: The Libertarian "invaders" were controlling the debate because we had unwittingly accepted their basic assumptions! Not that any of us really believed these axioms; we more or less were arguing as if they were true. We really couldn't defeat their arguments if we were working within the framework that monetary value is the best determinant whereas many of us actually believed human dignity has a higher priority.
No one would call it censorship if a picture of shit were removed from an article about trees because it would be irrelevant there. A photo of feces is not really relevant here. It adds no encyclopedic knowledge to the article while disgusting more than a few who would rather keep an intellectual distance from the subject at hand. This disgust is qualitatively different from the offense a fundamentalist Christian might take if Wikipedia contradicts parts of the Bible. It may be someone's opinion to say a picture of feces is disgusting (my opinion, for one), but there are scientific theories to support disgust at excrement as nearly universal rather than something culturally conditioned. Simply, people who eat shit are a lot more likely to get sick and die and thus not pass on their coprophiliac genes.
Of course, it is also true that occasionally doctors and sanitation workers need to deal with shit, so maybe a photograph of feces should be somewhere in Wikipedia for that purpose. A suitable compromise would be to provide a link to the photograph from the main article for those who really need to see what human excrement looks like. The rest of us can just use our imagination, all right?--NeantHumain 08:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a photo of feces is not relevant on an article about feces, it becomes impossible to justify just about any picture on any article.  How is it not relevant?  Powers T 02:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shock value as noncensorship? 

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

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

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

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

text: Wikipedia is not a normal encyclopedia.  Many encyclopedias don't include an image for every topic because of space constraints.  We try to do so where possible, because we don't have space constraints.  In addition, I bet if you open up a medical encyclopedia, you will indeed find images of stools.  Finally, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors -- there's a disclaimer at the bottom of every page that says as much.  Users use Wikipedia at their own risks.  Powers T 15:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Thats not a policy, thats an essay.. ViridaeTalk 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Common undigested foods found in human feces are seeds, nuts, corn and beans, mainly because of their high fiber content."
What is the basis of this statement ?   The passage of some nuts and seed including corn kernels intac through the digestive system without being digested,  is caused by the outer shell of those seeds being impervious to digestion in the stomach by acid, bile etc and has nothing really to do with the fiber which they may or may not contain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.7.225 (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the poop cooking on a plate 

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

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

message: In haiku form, no less.
Seriously, guys. 
Faith in project: low.
i agree you are aguring about poo !!!- chris
~ Flameviper Who's a Peach? 01:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entire discussion is complete shit (pun intended) 

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

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

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

message: I collect and analyze excrement as a hobby, I have several photographs of excrement that I could post. I think you would be amazed at the different consistencies, colors, and textures prevelent in my photographs. One shows the stool of a man with leprosy, another shows a stool after eating too much corn. The pictures should not be thought to be disgusting but rather an educational tool. I always heard that Wikipedia goes out of its way to educate the public here is a perfect time to back up such claims. God Bless.JJAshfiel 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there should be a pic, put those upNeopetslovette 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hobby 

message: I have no idea what feces looks like.  Put some pictures in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.35.149 (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, did you not even at least read the index for this talk page? There will likely be no images... until SOMEONE becomes mature enough to find an appropriate picture. I'm almost tempted to go find a paper encyclopædia and scan a pic from it to demonstrate its "appropriateness." Daisen¡i 15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * Its absurd that there are no pictures of feces, whether human, bear, bird, or Matian.  —Gaff ταλκ 19:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where are the pictures?

message: Ah, you people make me laugh. Good times. I'm sure the above comment is a troll. However, we do not need a picture of human feces here for the following reasons (all of which have been stated before, but perhaps gathered here for the first time):
* We all see human feces almost every day. There can be no doubt about what the substance looks like. (Also, if you don't look at your productions, you should, at least from time to time. Odd colors and/or particularly offensive odors can be early indications of a variety of medical conditions).
* The vast, vast majority of people do not like feces. People are posting photos of pet cats on the internets, not poops.
* Most importantly, there can be no questions answered and no information gained by such a photo. 
** The appearance of one's feces varies depending on food eaten, and a variety of other complex factors. You would need hundreds of fecal photos to capture all the variations.
** No information about feces can be gained from a photo or diagram, unlike the genitalia photos at penis and vagina. Those photos serve a high purpose, which is to allow people of one sex to educate themselves about the equipment of the other in an academic, informed, realistic manner (as opposed to fumbling about in the dark).
* The article text about feces, on the other hand, is valuable, because most people are not aware of the chemistry of their colon. That is why people would type 'feces' or 'defecation' into the search box in the first place!
An earlier user commented on whether people would want to see photos of phlegm, semen, or necrophilia. But as always, we have to consider case-by-case. 
# Everyone has phlegm, we all know what it looks like, a photo gives no information (same arguments as for feces), but the gross-out picture would distract from the valuable text of the article (e.g., the chemical composition of phlegm, why we have it, how it is made). 
# A photo of semen, on the other hand, could be invaluable to a curious female. Where else is she going to find out just what this critically important substance looks like, and why? Knowledge is power! 
# Finally, illustrations of necrophilia would be useless -- first of all, what do you learn from an alleged necro photo, and second, how do you know the partner is really a corpse? It could be a doll, papier-mache, etc. 
# Before you try and make a connection with the pictures at anal sex, note that those are selected paintings from many years ago. They too serve a high purpose, which is to drive home the point that the practice is as old as the hills, and even the glorious Roman emperors did it.
Thus, no pictures of feces here. However, if you can dig up a 9th-century painting of a prince or pricess straining on the chamber pot, that could be worth including on grounds of "artistic license".
Respectfully submitted. 24.95.48.112 05:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures redux

message: Currently, the article states: "Its brown coloration comes from a combination of bile and bilirubin, which come from dead red blood cells". Whereas this may hold true for bilirubin, bile is a product of hepatocytes in the liver. I propose changing "come" to "comes", indication that this clause refers to bilirubin alone.
Evlshout 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  correction to coloration sentence 

message: If the poop page offends you people so much, why don't you just stop reading it? I mean, really.
yeah! this guy is freaking right! Just because 1-2 of you dainty types can't stand the sight of poo, dosen't mean everyone can't. Let's just leave it up and if you hate poo, then look away.
ps. how do you unprotect an article?
It's fun to be freaking right! And I have no idea how to unprotect the article. I guess the administrators do it. By the way, I'm not a guy. I'm a girl. Gray94wolf 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a simple solution 

message: I looked up feces to find out what does poop actually contain? Obviously it contains wast products our bodies no longer need. But what exactly is it?? I think this article should contain this information.208.59.170.83 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me tooNeopetslovette 17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The contents of feces... So what are they?? 

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

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

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

message: That picture of horse feces is simply appetising.
LOL! HAHAHAHAHA! Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 06:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Horse feces

message: AWWWW C'MON!!!!!
Horse Feces? That bullshit! (no pun intended)
what makes a pic of horse poop(or rather manure), better than a pic of human poop on a plate?
SAME THING!
Someone should put the Human Poop on a Plate back up.
LOL!
Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 06:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horse feces?!?!?!