Talk:Human feces

message: 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)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with where the servers are hosted and more to do with the nationality of the original article author. If the article had been first written in UK English then that's what would have been the language/spelling of the article. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just faeces, they use the baby simplified-for-dumb-yanks spelling of diarrhoea, too.182.240.9.44 (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Thanks for removing that god awful image. Duesel 00:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: thanks

message: 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)
replies: text: Who said anything about disgust? Also, I don't see any indication that the www.ratemypoo.com images are under a free license. I'm not prepared to wait 95 years plus the lifetime of an unknown author (who, being unknown, must be assumed to be the oldest living person) before I can freely use an image. I'm quite certain to be dead by then. 24.110.60.225 02:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I know :Image:Human feces.jpg is encyclopedic, but why do you deserve to stay it on the article? Adnghiem501 03:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because is the article is about them. mikka (t) 04:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Someone removed it from the article for some reason, and the same image that was deleted here before was once used as a lot of vandalism. They said it's proper to be used on the article. It has no effect for removal. That tells me I was wrong. Adnghiem501 05:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I am not a troll, I am an ordinary member of the 95% or 99% of the population who does not like suddenly coming across human faeces either as the real thing or as a realistic image. Atleast, if it was the real thing, the smell would warn me before I saw it, and I could know to keep away. Anthony Appleyard 14:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 99% of the population who don't like human feces probably wouldnt Wiki it now would they? If they want to look up things that offend them, then they should prepare to be offended. 63.195.61.102 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more images please, and/or the original 

message: 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)
replies: text: "aryan style"...seriously? Are you some sort of poop racist? Rpm2005 (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different pictures needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  missing 

message: 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)
replies: text: Because some European toilets are designed with the well in the front of the fixture with a nearly-flat bottom in the rear. The supposedly allows one to inspect one's output for signs of disease, etc. This stool was particularly large and somehow coiled itself up as it landed, which resulted in what you see in the image. Cacetudo 12:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The picture 

message: As suggested, let's vote:
:Against because nobody needs the picture, even if it could be relevant. Seriously, would you imagine that on encyclopedia britannica or universalis ? be serious, guys.
wikipedia isn't britannica. wikipedia isn't trying to be britannica.
:It isn't indeed. It is also quite uncommon for votes initiated by anonymous users to be taken very seriously. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Replacement 

message: 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?
:You've gotta be shitting me. Klosterdev 23:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, the wit. --Scix 01:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy shit, I think you're right. 65.68.145.113 03:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How're these for variety? I personally think this article needs a make-over. How do I go about nominating these puppies up for selection?Fresh is better!
Next stop; Poopville
Corny! WaddlingTimy (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The turd is a fraud 

message: 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)
replies: text: The edit above was made by me while I wasn't logged in. Reading above, I see there has been a little controversy on this image—like some of the others, I urge for a vote on this matter. Although I understand it is the subject of the article, the current image is both abhorrent and paranormal. If we must include an image, why not something a little less disturbing? Rmfitzgerald50 09:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too believe the image is unnecessary. To the extent of my understanding, a very small number of humans, if any, do not produce feces like the one depicted in the image. With that it mind, it seems the image serves no purpose as it depicts something which is common place and does not require any visual impetus to remind the reader of what it looks like. In its current form this article stinks.--Lord of the Ping 02:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have images of nipples in the Nipple article, even though everyone has at least one.  Powers 12:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As I'm late I'm unable to participate in the vote, however I would like to have the image associated with the article. Human feces is a "gross" subject in itself to many if not most people and I do see how this particular image can upset someone, even make them turn away froma reading the article, which is bad. Could we not use the  template for this making it look like this in the article. __meco 20:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern is the image itself.  If we're going to associate an image with this article, it needs to be a more authentic image.  Powers 02:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feces image 

message: Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "--~~~~".
*Comment The proposal offers a list of alternatives.  It is impossible to support all of the alternatives.  The proposal should be re-worded so that "Support" and "Oppose" can be used properly.  Powers 12:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey and discussion

message: Accepted No Objections, survey closed. --Sonic3KMaster (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I'm late I'm unable to participate in the vote, however I would like to have the image associated with the article. Human feces is a "gross" subject in itself to many if not most people and I do see how this particular image can upset someone, even make them turn away froma reading the article, which is bad. Could we not use the  template for this making it look like this in the article. __meco 20:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern is the image itself.  If we're going to associate an image with this article, it needs to be a more authentic image.  Powers 02:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result of discussion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Colour 

message: 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)
replies: text:  That is a picture of real human feces, produced by a healthy human being (in the interest of full disclosure, yes, that is me). Why don't you take a minute and read the description on the image page? Perhaps that will enlighten you. Notwithstanding your inaccurate and misleading comparisons (i.e., skunk = roadkill; human brain = gore; genitals = mutilation), the consensus was that this image was reasonably placed in this article (see this RfC section, for example). People reading an article on feces should not be surprised or offended to see a picture illustrating the topic. Cacetudo 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to tell us about how bad your diet is. It looks too soft, there is too much mucus, the diameter is too small, it is way too long. Tell us how much rolls of toilet paper you went through to wipe yourself... You must have had a lot of trouble to flush this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.183.151 (talk • contribs) 
;Comment:I'd say keep it in, for two reasons. First, if it's removed, the page will likely become the target of some strange combination of edit-war and consistent vandalism. Second, "the kids" will get a kick out of it, and the article is well-written enough to provide a good example to go with the guffaws. SB Johnny 14:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia isn't censored, so I say keep. Jefffire 14:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: if we could get a less offensive looking picture of feces it'd be better I think.--Andeh 14:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have a look at the previous image that was here. Not only was it altered in Photoshop, it was atypical. I must ask, however, what do you think makes certain pictures of feces more "offensive" than others? Cacetudo 14:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the image should remain inline, since wikipedia should not be censored, and anyone opening a page about human feces should expect such an image. I strongly believe that only a minority of people would be offended by such an image, and a greater majority would benefit from being able to link the articles points to the inline image. SuperTycoon 16:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I beleive that there should be an image, and that as a compromise to those who find it offensive it should be "below the fold"- i.e., not visible at the top of the article on most browsers (recognizing that this is a very malleable boundary). Kiaparowits 15:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: Can this effort be an allusion to the diet of police officers, and resulting injury near seaports?  17:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  interpretations of the word 'coprolites' 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why don't you have a look at the Request for Comment section just above  before you declare content to be unnecessary? Your edit history  shows you to be a new user who has contributed nothing of value to Wikipedia other than proposing articles for some manner of deletion. I have no problem with deletionists; however, when you go against a clear consensus  that emerged long before you began contributing, you are creating problems. Let me assure you that this issue has been debated, redebated, and resolved (for now, anyway). Furthermore, please look at the description on the image page before perpetuating your claim that the feces is on a plate. Cacetudo 09:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia isn't censored?  Bah!

message: 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)
thread_title:  Famous Dookies 

message: I deleted it. For shit's sake don't restore it. Indiawilliams 04:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: That was one shitty image.

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) 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Linkimage}} 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Delete shit image 

message: "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:
*we should be treating pictures which may be offensive or disgust people in the same way as we treat all other article pictures
*and that the policies on the inclusions of pictures which may be offensive/disguisting is the same as the policies on the inclusion of any picture in an article. 
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)
replies: text: No, we should. Detailed porn pictures would not be appropriate for our articles because of legality issues. Pictures of people having sex on the sexual intercourse article may be if they're neutral, but it seems like someone has gone to the trouble of creating nice clear drawings to serve the purpose. As for the pictures - yes, to show how shit looks like is exactly the reason why it's appropriate to have pictures of poo on an article about poo. I can't imagine what could be a more appropriate picture for an article about human feces than a picture of human feces, except i suppose if someone can create a drawn picture to replace the photographed one. --`/aksha 05:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That doesn't matter a thing. We are an encyclopaedia and should strive to include as much information as possible. Wikipedia is not censored. If you are offended by that picture, too bad for you. It still serves an encyclopaedic purpose. You say "everyone knows what shit looks like, so it serves no purpose"... Well, everyone knows what an arm looks like, and we have a picture of that too. There's no picture more informative on an article on human faeces than a picture on human faeces. Our task as a neutral encyclopaedia is providing as much objective information as possible, and we should not make a decision on whether something is offensive or not. As long as the law permits it and it serves any informative purpose at all, we include it. SalaSkan 10:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: One thing you cannot deny is that it does serve an informative purpose, whether it be "shocking to the majority of the planet" or not, just like an image of an arm serves an informative purpose.
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. SalaSkan 19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The dude below has made the point. The shock value is greater than the informative value. We are also an encyncopledia, a fact we should not be oblivious of. And your last point is nonsense: we do not decide what is offensive and what isn't, we distinguish between what is   offensive and what isn't. And regarding the fact that "although most people consider it offensive, that doesn't mean we should do so too": so you propose we include a certain material, offensive for "the most people" in a encyclopedia meant for "the most people"? Silly wikilawyering.--Kamikaze 08:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Offensive" is a subjective thing. WP:NPOV. Melsaran (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Remove. The shock value outweighs the benefit. How many people don't know what faeces look like and need to find out from Wikipedia? ElinorD (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shock value? What shock value? That you find it shocking doesn't mean that we remove it. Wikipedia is not censored, and this image is informative; it illustrates the article's subject. Melsaran (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That find you find it not shocking  doesn't mean we have to keep it either. It was removed on previous consensus. You should try reading Wikipedia:Profanity also to get over this censorship nonsense.--Kamikaze 08:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, what result?  I read the discussion at the Pump, and it was mainly that an illustration of fellatio may be better than a picture so we don't get a bunch of people trying to one-up each other.  I hardly think that's going to be an issue here; only one person's had the guts to produce a photograph at all.  The Pump discussion didn't really address the situation at this article.  Powers T 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, it was archived. Seek it in the archives.--Kamikaze 04:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Archives only go back 9 days, dude.  Should I just take your word for it, then?  Powers T 01:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, why not, dude? Don't you worry, though. Nothing is lost on Wikipedia. That's why I love this system. After digging through my contributions, I think this is the discussion I was talking about.--Kamikaze 12:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, forgot about page histories.  Anyway, I'm not sure much consensus was reached there, certainly not enough to override the consensus found multiple times on this talk page to include the image.  Perhaps the problem is the specific image in question?  It certainly seems to raise people's ire.  A more clinical image of stool may solve this problem in a more satisfactory way.  Powers T 13:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Just a note that i've posted to ask for more opinions at Village Pump (Policy) --`/aksha 06:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, what result?  I read the discussion at the Pump, and it was mainly that an illustration of fellatio may be better than a picture so we don't get a bunch of people trying to one-up each other.  I hardly think that's going to be an issue here; only one person's had the guts to produce a photograph at all.  The Pump discussion didn't really address the situation at this article.  Powers T 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, it was archived. Seek it in the archives.--Kamikaze 04:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Archives only go back 9 days, dude.  Should I just take your word for it, then?  Powers T 01:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, why not, dude? Don't you worry, though. Nothing is lost on Wikipedia. That's why I love this system. After digging through my contributions, I think this is the discussion I was talking about.--Kamikaze 12:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, forgot about page histories.  Anyway, I'm not sure much consensus was reached there, certainly not enough to override the consensus found multiple times on this talk page to include the image.  Perhaps the problem is the specific image in question?  It certainly seems to raise people's ire.  A more clinical image of stool may solve this problem in a more satisfactory way.  Powers T 13:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Village Pump

message: 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).
Your point being?--Kamikaze 17:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have pictures of old animated women being raped by octupi in the Hentai article, so how on earth is a simple stool any worse.  GoatSmoke 20:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One must keep in mind 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Need picture of actual fecal matter 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thanks for the laugh! 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well I could, but it would end up being blocked by toilet paper.  William Ortiz 21:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  poo pix 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but someone give this person a barnstar. This whole thing just slayed me :) Sorry, I'm stupid, I know. Back to regular programming... --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Two Cents 

message: 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)
thread_title:  re delete/restore of article 28 March 2008 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ridiculous 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect information 

message: 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)
replies: text: See discussion above. Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this image is by all means encyclopedic. If you're offended by images of human feces, don't type for human feces on the internet.  Zouavman Le Zouave 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: If you have any free pictures of equal or superior quality, feel free to upload them on Commons. ;-) Zouavman Le Zouave 21:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hypocrisy 

message: 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)
replies: text: Uumm may I refer you to wp:censorship, which explains what censorship is. It has nothing to do with subjects like Lockerbie bombings or anything like that. A Power Point presentation expounding on the meaning of each particle colour would be more fitting. Frankly, you have provided no reliable sources for your particle colour claims. Could have been corn, carrots, harmless bits of plastic, etc. Lumenos (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Exactly how much plastic do you eat Lumenos? Rpm2005 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Medical perspective on the picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: The picture looks like one of those novelty plastic cat poop decoys. 69.143.121.199 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it back in because, from someone who looks at poop all day(student nurse), I don't find it offensive and faeces can look like that, I'm tempted to post a pic of C. diff. faeces too as an example of unhealthy faeces. But if you can 'produce' a better picture feel free :) Kungfukats2 (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Add picture, I wanna see some doodie. Too bad we can't get some smell 'o vision up in here. Lumenos (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: It does seem like the only reason the uploader posted the picture is for some perverse sense of pride. In my mind it's no different than users who upload pictures of their penis to add to articles. Lucidphoole (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the exact reason I removed it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.52.255.70 (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To the person who keeps re-adding this image.  You can keep adding it at long as you like, I'll keep removing it for just as long.  Every time you have done so, you have not even left a comment as to why you think this is needed.  I'd like to hear your thought process.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.52.255.70 (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored but does support the extensive use of images.  Keep removing the image and you will be blocked for vandalism.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: I found some citations for the colour claims, and removed the more dubious ones per WP:PROVEIT.  I don't think there's a need to state why liquorice turns your poop black, just that it does.  Of course, if someone can come up with citation saying why, that'd help the page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron content of liquorice and fecal darkening 

message: 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."  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).
:The vandalism is the referring to faeces as "logs". The rest is unsourced and dubious information at best. If you want to re-add it then I suggest you obtain sources to back up your assertions. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is the addition of brown, orange, green, and bloody (red) feces vandalism? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arguments against the image of faeces are not only a violation of [[WP:CENSORED|Wikipedia is not censored]] but are logically fallacious.

message: 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)
thread_title: Protection

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why is there no mention of brown feces under "Color variations of feces"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Unless you'd like to propose a tasty image of poop, we're kinda stuck with a distasteful one. Wikipedia is not censored to meet your desires to have everything be "tasteful". - SummerPhD (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank God that good sense has prevailed 

message: "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."http://www.livestrong.com/article/472989-can-licorice-cause-discolored-stools/
::If sugar caused green stool, you would have one every time you drank a sugary soda. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is reliable, but our take was unclear. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: This doesnt make sense

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stepping into a mine field? Another attempt at adding a photo 

message: 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)
thread_title: Streamlined this article with content from [[feces]]

message: 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)
replies: text: I guess it's OK like this as it's under "society and culture". EMsmile (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote from the Bible?

message: This Page need archive --Gyan333 (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This page needs speedy excretion. Henry Hannon (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The page 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020123050/http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/prussianblue.asp to http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/prussianblue.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I see a bit of an edit war going on about the use of singular or plural with human feces (). One of the editors ( 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? ? 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)
replies: text: I note that Wikt:feces says . Although I wasn't here for the , 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 .) —2d37 (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi  thanks for that. Then I think we stick with plural which is how the article is currently written - no further changes needed, right? EMsmile (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Plural or singular for human feces?

message: 24.35.59.183 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Unnecessary in lead, already in article at . Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021 

message: I clicked on the references but could not find anything to verified this claimed. Any comment? CyberTroopers (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Commonly used" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Grammar, improval of content 115.97.40.226 (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If "average pH for a healthy person is 6.6", then the statement "The pH of human feces varies but usually alkaline" is a contradiction. 216.106.203.179 (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2022 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Average quantities produced