Talk:Feces

Human Feces Color Correction

I was reading the part about human feces and I noticed an error.

It says that the brown color of feces is due to a combination of bile and bilirubin and that a baby's feces is initially yellow/green from the bile, but becomes brown due to the addition of bilirubin. This is not exactly correct. Bilirubin is yellow (it's why people with jaundice often have a yellow tone in their skin; the liver quits working and bilirubin is no longer secreted in the bile and begins to accumulate in the body). Feces is brown because bilirubin is converted to stercobilin (which is brown) by the bacteria in the gut.

Also, (and it's been about 3-4 weeks since I lectured on this, so I'm unsure of this, but) if I'm not mistaken bilirubin is secreted as a different compound which is green and results in bile's green color and that compound is what gets converted to stercobilin. So to say Baby's feces is greenish-yellow and not brown because they are not disposing of red blood cells and therefore not excreting billirubin is likely incorrect. In fact, erythrocytes (Red blood cells) wear out after roughly 120 days (or 3 months). Since the gestation time for a human fetus is typically 9 months, It stands to reason a baby is certainly secreting bilirubin at birth. A more likely explanation for why a baby's feces isn't brown is that a baby doesn't have any bacteria in its gut and therefore isn't producing stercobilin from the excreted bilirubin.

I'm not good at writing concise statements (obviously), nor do I know how to properly cite things. This is why I haven't edited the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.112.45 (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point, could you post references here to make it easier for someone to update the article. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

MISLEADING PHOTO

The photo that is titled "Horse Feces" is actually a pile of straw with probably some feces mixed in. While cow feces is "continuous", horse feces is "quantized", meaning that it consists of individual oval shaped lumps - all of approximately the same size. You need a better photo. There are some available online. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcrply (talk • contribs) 11:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

How about editing the caption to state it is a mixture of Feces and straw Jonpatterns (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 January 2012

Please change: In Islam, washing of the anus with water using the left hand is part of the prescribed ritual ablutions. To: In Islam, washing of the anus with water using the left hand (not necessarily a bare hand) is part of the prescribed ritual ablutions.

The left hand is used to hold the water, paper, wipe etc. that one intends to use to wipe the anus and water is required to be used at some point (usually after) for "purity". Years ago a bare hand may have been used (before wipes, paper etc.) but this is a very uncommon practice now.

122.102.100.177 (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

✗ Not done — Your explanation is slightly confusing, but the request is not extremely relevant because the main article for the section in which you wish to change is Anal cleansing. As long as the blurb is correct it does not need to be changed, but you are welcome to edit the other article. If you have a reliable source for this change to be made (as required by policy for potentially controversial changes), please reopen the request. — Jonadin^(talk) @ 03:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Dog feces

It is disappointing that this article has so little about dog feces and its proper disposal, and the legal issues of leaving unbagged or bagged dog feces on the sidewalk, and health issues with dog feces. Perhaps I will do some investigating and add to this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Doody Services

I would of liked more information on dung and dropping cleaners. With regaurds to cat feces, the ammonia from the them is very dangerous is mixed with the wrong cleaning agent. 208.91.137.58 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC) james jessee April 22, 2012 2:37 pm

Ammonia is a product of the decomposition of mammalian urine. Yeah, sure, if you save up a few gallons, dump in a bucket of bleach and concentrate the fumes, you might have a problem. Of course, if you're doing that, you already have a problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Image of butterfly on the top of the article states "Cyclosia papilionaris enjoying bird droppings". Can a butterfly really enjoy eating? Suggest change to "consuming bird droppings". 124.148.212.93 (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that butterflies have no capacity to enjoy something? I don't think enjoy vs consume makes any real difference in the context of this article of course, but I don't see any reason to adopt an anthropocentric view that 'lower' life forms are not capable of feeling emotions. That is pretty 19th century thinking anonymous. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

While you are welcome to continue this discussion at your convenience, please do not re-activate the {{edit semi-protected}} request unless you have a specific request to edit the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Assuming butterflies can "enjoy" something is anthropomorphizing. We know they consume it, we do not have any indication there is "enjoyment". (We say "The cat jumped onto the chair" because that's what the cat did. We do not add in assumptions that the cat made calculations based on body mass, gravity and air friction, though it is "anthropocentric" to assume cats cannot handle high school level physics calculations.) - SummerPhD (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone ever heard the term cloaca before?

First sentence? is that the same as arse?Sevendigits (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That term is linked in the article: (cloaca). It's kinda like a "3 in 1 anus" :)) TMCk (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoopie redirects to feces?

This may be vandalism because I was unable to find a connection between "whoopie" and feces on any other web information resource. 16:00, 18 May 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.146.33 (talk)

Ha!

"Non-human animals" obviously. Animals are good at one thing in particular; lions are courageous etc. but human talents vary from person to person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.86.250 (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Link Location (I'm new and can't edit this article myself, sorry).

I noticed that under the "Gut Flora Transplant", subheading, the "Hippos", link redirects to this page, rather than the correct Hippopotamus page; here , this link is also not followed by a comma as it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletalclown (talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Coprolite, fossilized feces

At the moment the article doesn't mention Coprolites or fossilized feces at all, I may work it in myself if I can figure out how to work it in. If anyone feels they can do a decent job go ahead. It deserves at least a few sentences somewhere.  Carlwev  15:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Why US spelling, it hurts

I was about to correct the spelling as a misspelling when I saw that this is a known issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences

The argument seems to be that because feces is spelt that way in US English that is OK.

The etymology is from Latin faeces "sediment, dregs", which, to me, means that feces is a mis-spelling fallen into common US usage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timp21337 (talk • contribs) 12:49, December 9, 2014‎

It seems that many English readers find the alternate spellings to be jarring. So, Wikipedia has found compromises and built policies to avoid edit warring over spelling - see WP:ENGVAR.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be a misspelling, if we were using Latin. We aren't. We use one national variety of English in each article, as explained in WP:ENGVAR. As the subject does not have strong ties to any one country (everybody poops), we go with the variety first established in the article. In this case, that's American English. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And to add to what SummerPhD already explained, the idea of a "misspelling fallen into common US usage" is not correct. It is not a mistake that American English chooses "e" instead of "ae" or "oe" in many words of Latin origin that are now "naturalized citizens" of English. It's an intentional choice. Read more at articles on, for example, phonemic orthography, spelling reform, æ, and œ. Although English orthography does not have regular spelling to the extent that Spanish or German have it, English-language spelling reform has effected a few changes over the centuries, such as this one, although they are not all adopted in every region. To sum up, the "it hurts" in the heading of this section reflects discomfort born of misapprehension. Once the misapprehension is cleared up, the pain subsides. Quercus solaris (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

New photos of feces for the lead

Hi DawnDusk, I quite like your idea of using these two photos for the lead (I have made the background white though, I think that looks better). However, we have had quite a debate about using an image of a "real, fresh human feces" on the page of human feces (see talk page). In the end, I found a compromise that seemed to stick: no photo in the lead, and rather a photo of dried human feces later on. When they are dried, they are less repulsive. Personally, I don't have a problem with showing raw human feces (but I work in the sanitation field), but we don't want to shock others too much. So if there are objections to your collage of two photos, I would say we either move them from the lead further down or we replace the human feces photo with one that shows dried human feces. Thoughts anyone? EvM-Susana (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! I checked out that talk page; the debate rages on from 2005 and is still fresh now in 2015. That's half my life. Jesus! Anyway, it seems you're right; the consensus is that WP:NOTCENSORED, but there is shock value to wet human feces. I'm all for either one - though I'm curious to know what you think - will people get upset about it as it is now? Does its juxtaposition and comparison to the elephant feces lessen the blow? What should we base the decision on? You definitely have far more experience than I - I will defer to you, my friend. DawnDusk (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am also undecided. The thing is, I deal with sanitation in my day job so such photos do not shock me at all. But not sure about the average Wikipedia reader... Perhaps we wait and see if some more reactions come in? I can also ask Doc_James who always has good advice on such matters. If we decide that the human feces need to be more in a dried state, I have plenty of photo options (like the one I inserted in the page for human feces. In any case, how can we make the two images in this collage the same size? It doesn't look so good that the image of the human feces is bigger than the image of the animal feces. EvM-Susana (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think we can get them the same size because their image proportions are different ratios. Instead, I made them the same height - how does that look to you? Anyway - I hear what you're saying. Something tells me the 10-year old war will come back and blow up on the two of us making innocent additions, lol. However, it sounds like you have the best plan we possibly can in this landmine. Tell me as you need my help at all, my friend. DawnDusk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I like the Bristol stool chart in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good one for the lead of this article for two reasons: this article is also about animal feces whereas the Bristol stool chart only focussed on human feces. Secondly, it is already used on the page for human feces (where it could be put in the lead if people prefer that). I actually quite like the two images side by side (elephant and human), I think it looks quite good now. EvM-Susana (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

Feces Lovethelord801 (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand which edit request has been made here? EvM-Susana (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

Feces Lovethelord801 (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

Feces Lovethelord801 (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC) I want to change,,, the picture of horse poop

True, not a good one, as it's mixed with straw. I will delete it, do you have a better one to replace it (on Wikimedia Commons)?EvM-Susana (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2015

2601:243:A03:46E6:B89C:1542:61AA:69DA (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC) i would like to edit this cause no-one knows what "poop" means.

 Not done You have not requested a change to the article. Please use a "change XXX to YYY" format. Datbubblegumdoe (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

On a dinner plate. Really!

Unbelievable.