Talk:Urolagnia/Archive 1

message: If there are no objections, I'm going to change the quotes from saying "so and so admitted to doing such and such."  Admission implies wrong doing or embarassment, niether of which are the case here.  This should also help clear up some of the inherent negativity of the article. 68.158.106.192 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative Image

message: Can we have some pictures please? --131.111.8.96 11:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: "Male porcupines use urine to soften the females' quills before mating." And thus, all the jokes about procupines mating are dispelled.
--Why is the contents list almost at the bottom of the page? Bob the Pirate 23:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispelling jokes and myths 

message: : In contrast to practices such as coprophagia, it is generally considered harmless, as in healthy individuals urine is sterile. However, a small risk exists if there is disease present, or bacterial infection of the urethra. There may also be secondary effects, such as skin rashes in individuals sensitive to urine.
I think it should be made more clear that one can get STDs, like hepatitis, from urine (this is true no?). Some people might take the part about it generally being considered harmless taken together with "a small risk exists if a disease is present" to mean that IF a person has an STD, like hepatitis, then it is only a small risk of acquiring it--which I don't think is true, hepatitis is usually transmited through urine and feces if I'm not mistaken. --Brentt 05:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hepatitis

message: Should R. Kelly be added to this page? Katana3333 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I already removed an earlier attempt to add him here. While this might be linked from there, it's not notable enough to be added here. Graham 05:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  R. Kelly 

message: I had to take the link out to the video I used as a cite because it no longer worked. The Google lookups I did only produced message board references and not an article or review describing the on stage golden showers that were part of their act 69.114.117.103 07:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rockbitch 

message: The entry for Robter Cormier book has been deleted. Just because as in this case a character in a book wets himself or even a character is into urolagnia does not necessarily mean the author is a urolagniac. Stephen King has been a subject of speculation in the urolagnia community for years but no proof has emerged of his predisposition so no entry. The Borat entry was taken out for the same reason.  Discussion of should there be a section devoted to depictions of urolagnia in the arts is a topic for another thread. 69.114.117.103 19:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robter Cormier book taken out 

message: The article spells it the former way Microsoft Word suggests a correction 
towered the latter and Firefox 2.0 likes none of the spellings. 69.114.117.103 19:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it Urolagnia or Urolgnia? 

message: So the Pussing section gets deleted because because of a July discussion claiming the practice is not notable and the cite is not reliable yet all the other practices remain without any cite at all. Just goes to show there are many things in life I will never understand 69.114.117.103 06:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bye Bye Pussing 

message: According to the cite they flatly deny the song is about this topic.  "People have a tendency to refer to the song 'Golden Streams' as 'Golden Showers,' but that's not what it's called. And it tells me what they're thinking. But the song isn't really about anything sexual - it's about building an architectural device to get to heaven using frozen piss.". As said above mere suspicion the person is into this is not enough 69.114.117.103 19:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh so it's about "building an architectural device to get to heaven using frozen piss."? Oh Right. We all recognize that aspiration don't we? Don't you think that the comment in this interview might be just a little bit satirical given the well-known sexual content of his lyrics? Paul B 19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree based on the pattern you described one might deduce that he is a raving urophiliac that feels the need to deny it. One can also deduce that he views urine as normal part of life without any sexual connotations that he is having a bit of fun with. Another interpretation is that since most view urine as waste he wrote a song about "building an architectural device to get to heaven using frozen piss" as a statement of irony. Wikipedia is not here to try to read between the lines. Doing that is Original Research and Original Research is the biggest no no here. Debating which celebrity is giving a "wink" to a knowing audience  the a fun thing that is best done on the message boards listed in the article. The facts are the man flatly denied any sexual connotation so he should be deleted 69.114.117.103 08:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But there was no "original research". The section is fully footnoted and gives all points of view, including the heavenly-tower-of-piss explanation. That's the antithesis of OR as defined by Wikipedia. BTW, "recognise" is the correct spelling of the word in British English. Paul B 08:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True everything is cited and the denial is listed.The original research is done by you in deducing that this band is a "Notable urophiliac" based on "the comment in this interview might be just a little bit satirical given the well-known sexual content of his lyrics".Truth be told I agree with you in that I THINK he is a urophiliac. A person does not belong on the list based on our THEORY. 69.114.117.103 06:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no ban on "original research" on Talk pages! It is not our theory, but a widespread interpretation of the song. There is a case for renaming the section "notable and claimed urophiliacs" or something similar. After all Rembrandt is rather unlikely to have been one in reality (though that's only included here as Ellis's speculation). Paul B 10:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Putting in any type of claim or interpretation is dicey for this format.It will open a hornets nest as to what is a "credible claim"(In this case the most credible person is denying it). That is why most Wikipedia articles deal with proven facts. There are exceptions to the rule the 9/11 conspiracy theories article jumps to mind but some celebrity's  proclivity for urolagnia is not of the social and political import as the 9/11 stuff. 69.114.117.103 06:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No that's not the case with works of art, literature etc. Giving accounts of interpretations is perfectly normative. It's precisely what encyclopedias do - for example the discussion of possible motives for Iago. Paul B 07:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While encyclopedias may give accounts of interpretations it is not the usual policy to give an interpretation that the artist has flatly denied. But you did not do what the person who wrote the the "Othello" article did "lago also plays an undeniably important role. For one, he speaks more lines than Othello. It is also Iago who manipulates all other characters at his will, trapping them in an intricate net of lies. A. C. Bradley—and more recently Harold Bloom—have been major advocates of this interpretation.Other critics, most notably in the later twentieth century (after F. R. Leavis), have focused on Othello." 69.114.117.103 08:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another idea and this is stretching it would be to write a line at the beginning of this section or a separate section devoted to depiction of urolagnia in the arts that looks like this  "While it has become a popular pastime in the urolagnia community to speculate which celebrity has this proclivity (message board cite),(message board cite) this section only lists people who have confirmed their proclivity" or "have depictions that meet the strict definition of urolagnia as part of their artistic expression". With this unless you have a question I for now end my part in this discussion. I do not think you or me can add anything new at this point. Hopefully somebody else jumps in with a fresh perspective or suggestion at which point I might jump back in. I have a life and am not going spend the rest of it deleting the section it so you can put it right back in. I do hope you reconsider the validity of this section. 69.114.117.103 08:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I did not write or add this section. I merely formatted it after it was added by Summerbell. I like it because it is well written and constructed. I am not sure what point you are making about the Iago page. It is unreasonable to expect that major literaary critics can be cited commenting on the lyrics in this case. Paul B 09:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that the Othello page has a reputable cite for it's interpretation and that this page has none. While there won't be literary critic confirming this since the interviewer is asking this question the interviewer has to be getting that interpretation from somewhere. Without this cite I am not unreasonable in assuming that interpretation is from Summerbell's original research?. If I live to be 85 years old and am still in a reasonable state of mind and I am reading this rhis article with this particular notable I will still not get what part of "Its not sexual" people do not understand 69.114.117.103 06:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You answer your own question. Clearly the interviewer is getting the question from common interpretations of the song. While a citation for these interpretations would be desirable it is not reasonable to expect it to be easy to locate bacause of the nature of the subject - a part of recent popular culture debated by fans verbally and in weblists etc. I think we need to allow a bit of leeway in such cases otherwise the citation-obsessives will delete reference to anything on the grounds that it is not discussed in a peer-reviewed journal. This section is in fact better cited than almost anything else here. Paul B 11:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Hidden Cameras]] taken out of notables section 

message: If you read the above discussions I agree with you that the nature of the topic makes finding reputable cites difficult and there should be some leeway. But one should try and meet some basic standard and if it is difficult to bad. If the journalist can find this interpretation so could you. Agree or not message board or instant messaging cites are considered disreputable. You do not need a peer-reviewed journal just a music magazine or zine. But that misses the main point of why Hidden Cameras do not belong. The most reputable source you will find is not as reputable as the person who flatly denied it 69.114.117.103 18:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden Cameras (Cont) 

message: Does anyone have a reference for the paragraph about Hitler? It was removed recently, and I'm wondering whether it was a fact, or just made up.
xCentaur |  talk   17:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claims about Hitler originated with Otto Strasser, who was an ex-Nazi.  Otto's brother Gregor, who had been a rival of Hitler's for the party leadership, had been murdered on Hitler's orders. Otto obviously had a grudge, so he's hardly reliable, though he certainly did know Geli. See Ron Rosenbaum's book Explaining Hitler for a detailed discussion of theories about Hilter's sexual practices. Paul B 01:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler? 

message: It does not need as strict a proof as notable. Just make sure that 
the standards are kept as strict as the the first two entries 69.114.117.103 06:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Alleged urophiliacs is a good idea 

message: I feel the need arises because while an act may depict Urolgnia the artist who created it may not necessarily have that proclivity. Rockbitch and Cat Chaser would be moved from the notables to the new section for that reason. I would open the section declaring “This section lists depictions of activities that fall under the definition of urolagnia listed above or a depiction that the artist was quoted as saying the depiction was meant to "show" activities that fall under the above definition". I do intend to use the Patches “Pee movie list” as a cite. It is a for profit website that does sell “porn” but that section itself I feel is unbiased and not directly related to the selling. A sticky issue is a situation like Shirley Manson who has stated a proclivity and has a depiction(“happy hours Golden Showers”) in her song. I have not found a cite that specifically says that she meant that line as a depiction. It is a very logical assumption that given her statements that she meant it as a depiction but me or you assuming that is Original Research. Despite that I strongly lean towered keeping the quote and song lyrics in the notables section to prevent the reader from having to look in two places.  The first movies that I intend to put in are “Last House on the Left” “Vice Squad”,”Holy Smoke” and the recent Borat. Howard Stern has had his microphone follow desperate women into the bathroom several times and had Wetset models do a demonstration on his show in the late 1990’s. But I feel cites would be hard to come by so I ask for help from the hardcore Stern fans out there. Due to the low traffic for this article I will wait a week or two before adding this section to the article. I will add this section in if there is no reaction to this proposel after a “reasonable” amount of time. 69.114.117.103 07:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved MC Frontalot up to be with his fellow musical acts and added that he coined the term nerdcore hip hop.  Movies, Music acts should be listed together. Also very brief descriptions of what the artist does. A wide variety of people read this and everybody will not know an artist that to the poster would be obvious. As a middle aged person I was not familiar with the rapper or nerdcore but found the Wikipedia articles on the subjects an interesting read. Anyway good find. Also I am glad for the interest in this section and feel we are off to a good beginning 69.114.117.103 23:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal “Depictions of Urolagnia in the Popular Arts" 

message: A new edit was added for this person saying that he died because he held his urine at a dinner for to long. However the Wikipedia article about him say that recent studies have suggested he died from mercury poisoning. For me this means that the new addition should be taken out  however for now I just added that information to the article because it keeps the article factual and it is my assumption that people look at the main article more then the discussion pages. 69.114.117.103 00:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tycho Brahe

message: Added a Wikipedia link for Omorashi. GREAT FIND. As a person with a lifelong proclivaty to that side of things and having read many message board postings on this topic I had never heard of the word. 
Added to the depictions section a song by Hole “20 Years the Dakota” with a reference to “pee girl”
A brief search of Tommie John, Anton Bird recently added to the notables section revealed no references. Eventually a cite will be needed. 69.114.117.103 08:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: The Patches Pee Movie list description for the movie  "James Joyce's Women" states that Joyce liked to watch women relieve themselves. He might be a candidate for the alleged or notable urophiliacs section. But a Wikipedia and Google search leads to no more references so I am not adding him at this point without more proof 69.114.117.103 05:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Humm. There's a scene in Ulysses in which Bloom and Stephen urinate together, which is depicted as a "male bonding" moment, but that's all as far as I know. Paul B 10:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[James Joyce]]  

message: * Maladolescenza - 1977 German-Italian Movie. Laura Lara Wendel is a 12-year-old girl who has gone out hiking with her boyfriend Fabrizio artin Loeb At one point he sneaks away from her. She looks for him for awhile and then finally decides that she needs to pee. She pulls her denim skirt up and her panties down and squats on a hillside by a waterfall, as Fabrizio secretly watches from above. Later, Laura is tormented by Fabrizio and his new girlfriend Silvia Eva Ionesco. They threaten to shoot her with an arrow unless she shows them how she pees. Under protest, she pulls her skirt up and squats but has trouble getting started peeing because she does not have to go. Suddenly a stream of liquid falls on her, and Silvia laughs as the camera reveals Fabrizio zipping up his pants after having peed all over Laura. 
Review of DVD and discussion of film. [] 69.114.117.103 06:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be in ? 

message: The song "20 Years in the Dakota" has nothing to do with a urine fetish. She refers to herself as "The Pee Girl" in that song because that was a (creepy) nickname her parents gave her when she was a little girl, because she wetted the bed. She makes two references to this nickname. In "20 Years in the Dakota" she sings, "Pee Girl burns to be the bride/Your ever lovely suicide." In "Softer, Softest" (off of the album Live Through This) she sings, "Pee girl gets the belt." The song is about child abuse. Nothing to do with a urine fetish. Best Friend with Benefits 08:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Courtney Love reference

message: This article should have at least one image.  Images greatly enhance articles, making them much more useful.TrevorLSciAct 01:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images? 

message: I put back some of the my dipictions that were deleted. If a reason is given for deleting an item I will listen. When another editor deleted my item and said the the movie in question did not dipict   
urolagnia but pure humilition I agreed with the user and took out another movie with a similar theme. However if another editor deletes my edits without a reason I will assume it is for reasons of pure spite or ego and will put the item or items back as I see fit. 69.114.117.103 05:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not remove items without giving a reason 

message: Currently this section is listed by the type of popular art such as Television or Movies and then by year. This is not set in stone and can be changed after a discussion in these talk pages. For the last little while most editors have making additions by putting the new addition at the top of the list forcing unnecessary extra work. Most of us take time from our busy lives and do this as a labor of love. This type of laziness makes this task more labor and less love. (FHU) 69.114.117.103 06:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder about the Depictions if Popular Arts Section 

message: I was just wondering where the scene referenced for the movie Team America: World Police was. I've watched the DVD version and the scene in question and I haven't seen any watersports. Is it on a special edition? I'd like to see that scene. I love the movie. Sukima 15:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not referenced in the Patches Place Pee Movie List so I will have to put a citation needed warning (FHU) 69.114.117.103 06:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was cut in order to get the film an R certificate rather than a NC-17 cert in the USA. The video of the uncut scene is floating around various video sharing sites, but they don't meet WP:RS. I'm not certain if any of the DVD versions have the uncut scene. Exxolon 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team America World Police 

message: As pointed out in the article the list is now very lengthy. Should the list be split from the article ? 69.114.117.103 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that the modifying of this section in the main article occurred after the two attempts to remove this section without consensus or comments. I take this as a show of support for this section and am very much appreciative. Also I noticed there has been no reaction to the suggestion in the article or above to move the section to a Wikipedia list. Hard to know what to make of it but as of now since there is no consensus to move it will stay where it is. For now is the operative word. Your comments and suggestions are not only wanted but needed to make this a better article. Thanks again for your support 69.114.117.103 16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's way too long. Move to a list. Paul B 12:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed all uncited examples. Each example added should have individual citation. A blanket:  "All movie depictions are from the Patches Place "Pee Movie List"  unless otherwise noted," is not sufficient citation when anyone can add uncited examples to the list.207.69.137.41 02:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the current definition "derive sexual pleasure from urine and urination" - Do any of the cited references in popular culture actually apply for this article? I am not sure that 'sexual pleasure'  is inherrently part of any of the items. Sure someone with Urolagnia might recieve sexual pleasure from viewing the particular item, unless the 'sexual pleasure' part is an inherent part of the reference itself, it is a record of peeing and the 'Urolagnia' connection is subjective.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.29 (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depictions in the Popular Arts 

message: Removed a reference to him per WP:BLP. It was sourced to a personal website or what seemed to be an unreliable source, original research.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian Eno 

message: If you look discussion above for the Depictions for the popular arts I stated that I was going to use 
that source. I stated the pros and cons for using that source. With no objections I used it. Since January 2006 I have added many depictions and other editors have contributed as well. While no whole sections should be deleted at one editors whim just because it has always been there does not mean it always should be there. The deletion of depictions from that source will leave only teo or three depictions remaining.  I plead again for participation in these discussions. The non participation in  these discussions has lead to editors doing things on a whim, edit wars and readers poorly served. 69.114.117.103 08:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see above for reasoning - 'blanket citations' are NOT proper form in a context that anyone can add new uncited items to the list which a later reader would asume are covered by the 'blanket' citation. Only in-line citations should be used.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.8 (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done for that section. Might have to check other sections. Will deal with if depictions fit definitions after this issue settled 69.114.117.103 08:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for adding the in-line citations! Now the effort should be to find the prime examples / those of 'historical/cultural significance'- rather than a dumping ground for every appearance of the subject. 207.69.137.10 20:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not know where you find a reliable source to make the distinction between important and non important depictions. I still think what I proposed above would best. Have a link on the bottom to a Wikipedia list. But it would be nice to get a consensus for such a move. 69.114.117.103 08:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Give a partial example of what that would look like for this article 69.114.117.103 03:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your help. I have to think about it. Maybe I can do this in the main article and link to a list for those that want such a thing. There as far as I know has never been been big star big publicity for a a urolagnia scene. I did not use any "adult" films that is why I call it depictions in popular arts(Although adult films are popular) nor did I take any scene off the list just those that reasonable fit the urolognia definition. What has surprised me is that there were not more objections to the reliability of using the list. 69.114.117.103 23:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisiting the use of cites from the Pee Movie List 

message: I see my contribution has been removed on the grounds that it is uncited.  While this is true, I should like to point out that information about urolagnia is almost inevitably uncited and anecdotal because of the nature of the subject. Biscuittin 09:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia relies on reliably sourced, verifiable secondary sources of information. In short, if it cannot be cited, it cannot be included. It is an encyclopedia, after all. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, i am familiar with IAR. It doesn't trump providing citations. look, I am not the bad guy here, and certainly not the final arbiter of such things. If you think it should be in, find an admin, tell them what you want to do, and get their input. They tend to interpret the rules with a larger view in mind.  Have them come here an say 'yep, no citations are needed for that'; that way, its on the record, and we move from there. Until then, I am going to maintain that anything contentious gets cited, as that's just common sense. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited info 

message: Article states that the trial was to start in September 2007.  That date has already passed.  Resistance is Character-Forming (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting us know. Apparently, the trial was again delayed until October 27th, 2007. I couldn't find anything more current than that, though. Again, thansk for pointing out the stale info. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: R. Kelly Trial

message: Dispute about notability or reliability of sources.
The discussion is in the above section titled Way Ahead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Barlow (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are supposed to sum up in a neutral way. This doesn't even attempt to be neutral. I am content to let readers of the above debate decide for themselves. By the way, Reiter never actually denied it, pace the WP Hitler article. She never said anything about it. Paul B (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you think that she might have mentioned it, had it ever come up. Something as unusual as urolagnia seems like it would be notable, had it happened. thanks for helping to make my point, Paul. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think you have made any point. As I say, others can judge for themselves. Paul B (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC Whether or not Hitler should be mentioned in the article

message: This discussion section is disproportionately large compared to the article, which really doesn't say much about the condition at all, beyond what most readers would already guess about it.
Fixbot (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird 

message: I removed this as unnecessary and also possible BLP issues. Probably best to just stick to people who self identify with this behavior and have no problem with that. Adding a section about "alleged" indiviuals really isn't appropriate for this article. MAYBE can go on individual bio page but still is questionable. Anyways, thanks, --Tom 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged section