Talk:Meconium

message: You know damn well this picture doesnt add anything to the article, its all about seeing what you can get away with and about testing the limits of wikipedia.  Do everyone a favor and cut the act, you know as well as I do the image is of very dubious encyclopedic value, and is just there for its "shock value", not that i'm that easily shocked but I think the pro-picture people here are really immature.
What you are doing is just another form of vandalism, and I am asking you nicely to stop.  If you fail to do so I'm sure there are some admins who will agree with me that this is hardly more than abusing the right to edit articles.  Do not re-insert the image. 
:I know damn well that there is a world of difference between faeces on the feces page and meconium here. Those people who have never looked after a newborn baby will never have seen meconium, and the image is therefore highly informative.
:::Wow that's highly informative? "Those people who have never looked after a newborn baby will never have seen meconium, and the image is therefore highly informative." I would never wanna see that thing again. I won't have to anyway, since I won't have any kids. 
:::....And I guess the picture like many are stating can be valid, but wouldn't the pregnant people just go to the doctor to learn all about it? What if someone came here by accident? Punkymonkey987 23:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unwise to call this "vandalism". You will not be taken seriously if you start shouting at a strawman. Your personal attack is also not appreciated. JFW | T@lk 14:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Thx. JFW | T@lk 14:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Woah guy. TMI. --71.36.213.123 00:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which finally gives us a real-life example of how useful pictures in Wikipedia can be. All of the best to you and your now 8 months old son! — Mütze 16:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just like the debate on the feces page.

message: I restored the image that was blanked on 15 Jan 2007.  I don't see what the fuss is about... there are much worse things in life, folks.  The image is completely appropriate IMHO, if not exactly appetizing.  As I said in the invisible HTML comments (in case a newcomer decides otherwise), "" — VoxLuna (talk)  06:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I suggest and add to the debate by saying, why don't we make people "opt-in" so to speak to seeing the image. By that I mean, have a link for people to click on that would take them to the image itself if they are interested in seeing it. I think that would balance our duty to show those who are willing or wanting to see the image, while respecting the sensitivities those who don't. RickyCourtney 15:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really can't agree - to my mind people who are looking at an article about baby-poo have no real business being shocked and horrified that there's a picture of it! As has been stated above, the picture's useful, so I'd vote for it staying put. Nmg20 14:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I hate to weigh in on this again, but under the guise of "sensitivities", a great many articles (for example, Bristol Stool Scale) would have to be censored.  BTW, that image, however offensive, was nominated for the April Fool's Main Page as a WP:FPC. — VoxLuna T / C  22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Folks, Faeces is the Latin word for dregs.  It is the waste product of digestion.  Since the fetus does not eat, it cannot produce waste; thus, meconium is not feces. Mike Serfas 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Folks, there is nothing wrong with this image. It is what it is, the feces of a newborn. I am neither atracted nor apalled by it. It should be the goal of Wikipedia to collect as much information as possible, and this image certainly contributes to it. The picture is not offensive in any way, i could think of a lot of different ways how this picture could have been shown off worse. It is rather neutral.
Rave24 (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning "the image", again

message: This article is part of WikiProject Medicine, and as such, it is quite necessary that the images in question remain viewable from this page. I will agree that they are not pleasant to view, however; many medical images are not. Many medical students, myself included, use Wikipedia as a quick reference tool to gain a superficial understanding of particular topics. The images, of which these are the only examples throughout the Wikimedia projects I will add, are a useful tool to reinforce the text and aid in identifying meconium in the clinical setting. Eps0n (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical importance of the images

message: I think the image is excellent.  However, the caption clearly contradicts the lead sentence, which states that meconium is the "first stool of an infant."  If this is so, the image which is of the infant's "third bowel movement," by definition cannot be meconium.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the definition of meconium is based on its origins: it is composed of substances that the infant ingested before birth.  Therefore it is reasonable for meconium is exist past the first bowel movement, and I have (hopefully) clarified the situation on the article.  Kelvinc (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the medical definition is, but that solution at least makes logical/semantic sense.  Thanks.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead sentence contradicts caption of lead photo

message: I added a second image to help clarify what Meconium looks like.  The first photo is good, but it's such an odd substance that I thought it could use another example.  Since Wikipedia helped me find out what Meconium was... I thought I would donate another image.  This stuff is difficult to photograph. Azoreg (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another image 

message: Wondering what people think of this image comparing the appearance of meconium to mature (breastfed) faeces. Will it be useful for this article? Tonicthebrown (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison image 

message: From this page a naive reader might well think that only human infants have meconium, whereas presumably all infant mammals do (certainly all those in my experience), and I suppose any other creature born or hatched with an operational gut.  Is there any particular reason why it should be limited to humans?  If so, the article should be renamed human meconium.  If not (which seems very likely), the text should surely be broadened to cover the whole subject.  Richard New Forest (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Human-only focus

message: The hospital tests meconium for drugs at time of birth. 2600:1011:B01C:5E11:D0C7:52FD:468:B2C0 (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  After birth