Talk:Open defecation

"See also" section to be deleted?

Should I integrate the important words under "see also" into the text and then delete the "see also" section? EvM-Susana (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete the photo from WWI soldiers ?

I am wondering if the photo from the WWI soldiers should be deleted as their bums are visible and perhaps that is degrading? EvM-Susana (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Might be okay in a section about the history of the practice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

How much detail for the health impacts?

I am proposing to put only the basics about the health impacts and to rather refer the reader to the page on sanitation, where we would have more about the health impacts. It would be double work otherwise to have lots on health impacts in this article and lots in the article on sanitation. But the important thing would be to make sure people know that they can find more on the other page. An alternative option is to create a new stand-alone article called "Lack of sanitation" which would describe all the problems and isues with lack of sanitation (health, environment, gender, human rights, personal well-being, safety). What do others think about this idea? EvM-Susana (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That new sentence about the UNICEF campaign "Take poo to the loo"

Someone added a sentence about that UNICEF campaign in India but this sentence is missing real content, how about adding something about the significance of this campaign, its methods, scale, impact and so forth? Otherwise it seems just like a link to get people to click on the website link (and should possibly even deleted as it is not adding "real value" like this?). Needs an objective statement about what this campaign has achieved this far, how it is perceived by others, how much longer it will go on for etc. EvM-Susana (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Too many references to newspaper articles in the lead

Randhwasingh, I appreciate that you have taken an interest in this article and added references. However, you are not really adhering to good Wikipedia style: There is no need to cite multiple newspaper articles for the same sentences. Also newspaper articles and websites/blogs are not really suitable sources. Those figures are better quoted from UNICEF/WHO documents (Joint Monitoring Program). So I think they should be deleted again. I am referring to the last two articles of the lead section. EvM-Susana (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC) EChastain, did you see what I wrote here on the talk page? I think we should actually remove some of these superfluous links to arbitrary newspaper articles. These are not good sources. EvM-Susana (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

EvM-Susana, in general it's not usually necessary to have any citations in the lead, as ideally the lead is an accessible summary of the article and the material should be cited in the body of the article where the subject is discussed more thoroughly. Also, newspapers aren't necessarily unreliable; see Verifiability - reliable sources and Reliable sources - news organizations for nonmedical articles. There aren't that many sources to the article, and it's great that other editors are at least reading the article and looking for sources. In my eyes, this is a worse citation in the first sentence than newspapers known for fact-checking. Since this article is about cultural practices, mentions in appropriate newspapers can provide insight into how this problem is being regarded in the cultures most affected by open defecation and the success of efforts being made to remedy the problems. EChastain (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am also happy that people are taking an interest in this article. I think it's good if the lead also cites the sources, see e.g. this article about malnutrition. I still think it doesn't make sense to provide 3 very similar references for this simple sentence: "This is 47% of the India's population". And four very similar sentences for this sentence: "Indonesia (54 million people) and Pakistan (41 million people) are at second and third spot behind India in open defecation." The most reputable source should be used, which is the documents by UNICEF and WHO (JMP). If the newspaper articles are deemed important, they could be cited elsewhere in the article, where it fits, but not for these two sentences. I will change that when I get around to it. EvM-Susana (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

EvM-Susana, as I said above, the lead ideally doesn't have citations. The citations belong in the relevant sections of the article summarised in the lead. EChastain (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

EvM-Susana, I removed it per my edit comment that it's possibly wrong. It seems it only counts rural people in India, and doesn't include those in cities who practice open defecation. I'll leave this article to you, if you don't want to collaborate. EChastain (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Where does it say that the ideal lead doesn't have citations? In my work with medical articles, I see citations in leads all the time.

Secondly, I just re-checked that figure and it's correct. See here the JMP data: http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/JMP_report_2014_webEng.pdf We have quite accurate data for open defecation for each country, page 15. It is for total, not just for rural. 48% of the total population, data is for 2012. - what's that got to do with me "not wanting to collaborate??" EvM-Susana (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the links I gave to the MOS above? Whatever, I've removed myself from the project as I don't like to work in situations where there are owership issues. As I explained, that figure only counts rural people, so it's misleading. Carry on! EChastain (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And did you bother to read the link I sent you for the JMP data (by UNICEF and WHO) for India? http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/JMP_report_2014_webEng.pdf page 15 in the table it clearly says: 12% open defecation in urban areas, 65% open defecation in rural areas. Total 48%. Total population in India in 2012: 1,236,687,000. Multiply that with 48% gives 593 million people. So where is the problem? EvM-Susana (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

EvM-Susana, yes I did. That's how I knew it was only counting rural people and was therefore wrong to use that figure in the article as the total number. But it seems you have an agenda and not an open mind. So I'll leave you to your suite of Sanitation articles and not waste my time anymore trying to improve them. Happy editing! EChastain (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

please point me to the row in the table that I am then misreading. Maybe I am blind. I am calculating 593 million Indians openly defecating, using the third last column in that table. What figure are you calculating from that table?EvM-Susana (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's try to clear this up. We are all looking at table beginning on page 44 of the JMP report, are we? This has three different sections - urban, rural and total for each country for both improved water and improved sanitation. The world total page as a percentage of the population practicing Open Defecation (page 64) is given as 14% of 7050 million which is 987 million. Which is about 1000 million (a billion). India has 48% of 1040 million, which is 594,000. Which is nearly 600,000. It also states that 65% of rural people are practicing Open Defecation (all page 52). Indonesia has 22% of 246 million, which is 54 million (page 52), Pakistan has 23% of 179 million, which is 41 million, Nigeria has 23% of 169 million (page 52), which is 39 million and Ethiopia has 37% of 91 million, which is 34 million (page 50). Now, admittedly the table does not give those numbers - but it does give estimates of the total percentage practicing Open Defecation and the total population - so it is an easy calculation. Allowing for some rounding, the lead is correct and the JMP is a reliable source. There is nowhere else to get estimates of this. JMWt (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And about the citations in the lead: This section says WP:LEADCITE "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation". In any case, I have no problem if you want to remove citations in the lead. In fact I am the one who said right from the start that there are too many citations for the last two sentences! This is how the whole discussion started. So if you are saying that the lead should not have inline citations, then let's remove them (and rather have them in the body of the article).EvM-Susana (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

EvM-Susana, just to let you know that you twisted my wording so that it's inaccurate. You already have the source, but apparently you're not going to use it accurately so I'll remove it. I regret I spent so much time trying to improve this article. EChastain (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am lost. Seems like there is some confusion or misunderstanding going on. I never cite page numbers when I cite a document in a Wikipedia article; and I don't see others doing it either unless they use a different citation style where they use Source and then Full reference. Anyhow. Let's see what others have to say about this issue. Just to re-iterate that about 600 million people in India (in total - not just in rural areas) are currently estimated to do open defecation based on the report by WHO & UNICEF from 2014 which provides data from 2012. Let's leave it at that and move on. You are right, it's taken up too much of our time already. EvM-Susana (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, yes we need citations in the lead as part of the translation project. I would replace those 4 poor references with one good reference. We should stay away from newspapers generally for medical content.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Page numbers

EvM-Susana, Page numbers are needed when the material isn't readily accessed. The point is to verify your facts by providing citations. For example, when you cite this or (especially) this, where is the reader to find what you're refering to? If you look at articles that are considered "Good" on Wikipedia, like Irataba or "Featured", like Horace Greeley, see how the citations are formatted? Unless you're using short citations, like Maggie Gyllenhaal, you need page numbers for the reader. How is the read supposed to know what you mean when you use this as a source? Do you really expect each reader to download and read all those, looking to verify your facts? See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to use a source more than once so that the page numbers will be correct for each citation. EChastain (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, have done a major clean up operation for the references and page numbers. Have referenced the JMP report with pages numbers in each case (I find the JMP report so well structured that I didn't think page numbers are necessary to find things, but no problem; now it is very clear). I have also moved the newspaper citations to a new section on society and culture. I think this is a good solution and hope that everyone is happy with it. I think it was all a bit of a misunderstanding. The article is much better now, I think. EvM-Susana (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

EvM-Susana, thanks for fixing up the article. It does read better now. This citation still needs page numbers. Also you should be careful about adding references to the advocacy organisation with which you are associated, such as the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance which doesn't appear to contain the quote that you cite to it (at least I couldn't find it). It may be seen as WP:COI if you do. Other editors have been reminded not to add their own organisations to articles.

Perhaps your statement above: "I find the JMP report so well structured that I didn't think page numbers are necessary to find things" is the source of the problems I have trying to work on any sanitation articles that you reign over. It's not what you "find ... so well structured" that's important, but rather what the reader's experience is. I do think the opinions of someone besides you should be included in the suite of articles over which you have jurisdiction, especially since you don't seem to have a wide comprehension of the wiki ways. I might have been willing to remain part of the project if this were the case. Best wishes in your future editing. EChastain (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

For information, the link you've highlighted above is simply to an article in the SuSanA library. The article is not actually by SuSana, but by SQUAT. And I think it is quite helpful to have the link to the library page rather than straight to the pdf for those who want to read a summary rather than the whole article. This is not a whole lot different to linking to a journal abstract page rather than the pdf of the full article.

Rather than just tag and criticise, it'd be helpful if editors actually read the sources and added page numbers etc where necessary. JMWt (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Page numbers are needed for books (or at least chapter numbers). For your articles and short documents they are not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

JMWt, your position is that this is a reasonable source that I should have read and threfore added page numbers to, rather than tagged? EChastain (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Where in the page is there a reference to wssinfo/documents? I was refering specifically to the post I was replying to - which refers to the JMP report 2014, and the SQUAT (Sanitation Quality, Use, Access, and Trends): Evidence based sanitation advocacy for India report. Yes, I think it would be more helpful if you would read and correct the errors you see from these references rather than just tagging. The point here is to make these articles better, isn't it? Tagging in and of itself is not making anything better - if you think page numbers are important, read the documents and add the page numbers. And complaining about SuSanA as being an advocacy group is rather ridiculous - akin to suggesting that a engineering organisation is not a place to find books, expertise and experiences about engineering. JMWt (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

JMWt, you can't see it because it's been fixed! Thanks to my tagging it. EChastain (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Radical re-write of anonymous user

There was a radical re-write of an anonymous user recently (3 Nov). The comment was made that the article was "bashing" developing countries. This is definetely not true. It is describing something that is a health issue in developing countries, not in developed countries - and therefore raising awareness about a serious problem! Some of the edits were good but many were not good, including a lot of unexplained removal of content. I am going to undo the whole lot because unfortantely the editor made all the changes in one edit so it would take me too long to pick out the good from the bad. The re-structuring that the editor made was not justified in many cases. Let's rather discuss when a re-structuring is necessary before changing it all in one go! EvMsmile (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have put a lot of the copy edits back in now, but I disagreed with the large chunks of text that were removed and the different structure that was proposed. Please discuss further here. EvMsmile (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

refs

Almost all the refs on this page need attention, I discover. I can't remember how many of them were put in by me, but I think many of those which use <ref name=":2"> type formatting were added by @EvMsmile: - and we subsequently discovered why this wasn't a useful way to use the ref names when they broke. In practice when adding a ref, please don't use numbers and please also use one of the citation templates (web, news, book etc). It was probably me that started doing it wrong on this page so I'm probably largely talking to myself, but it is going to take quite a lot of work to get all the references properly sorted out. Doof. JMWt (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at the refs and couldn't see any red entries - but does that mean you already fixed them all? If yes, thanks! - I usually try to use a citation template; it's possible that those references were copied from other articles. EvMsmile (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It isn't that they're red, it is just that they're not properly formatted and therefore risk breakages. Unfortunately someone now needs to go back and manually fix them. JMWt (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed most of them. JMWt (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional reference by Duncan Mara

A paper from 2017 by Duncan Mara could contain useful info that could be added in the next round of improvements. I have so far cited it once. It's called "The elimination of open defecation and its adverse health effects: a moral imperative for governments and development professionals". The full paper is available here. EMsmile (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest data from JMP2017 report

Hi, User:Mfarazbaig. I really like the table you have inserted today! I have moved it to the left to make it more noticeable. However, I don't know how to get the spacing around the table right. Could you please fix that? Also, we should really use the data from JMP (2017). I have added that reference now and updated the figures in the tables. The easiest and most up to date place to grab them from is the WAHSwatch website: https://washwatch.org/en/countries/eritrea/summary/statistics/ - which is using the latest data from JMP in 2017. The rest of the numbers in the article also still need to be updated, rather than using the JMP report from 2015. I will do it when I find the time, or perhaps someone else gets to it before I do. EMsmile (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@EMsmile: The table wasn't working on the left, so its back on the right side. I have updated the whole article using JMP 2017 data. Pls don't remove the World Bank ref again (you never know when they update their data). The only thing now left is to keep it safe from vandals. Thanks. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

:@Mfarazbaig: It's a pity. Surely there should be a way of making it work on the left side as well. I can ask some other Wikipedians about this. I don't understand why the table needs 3 references, however. Don't you think it's confusing to users to have 3 references that all give the same numbers (as they are all based on the same dataset)? Is it in case one of them gets broken in future? By the way, if you have an interest in sanitation, how about joining us at WikiProject Sanitation and at our Sanitation Wikipedia drive before 19 November? See here for more information. EMsmile (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

I suggest we apply to have this page protected against vandalism. Do you all agree? It seems really tempting for people to change the figures that are quoted in this article. Very annoying. EMsmile (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the Lead of this article has been protected against vandalism? (No edit or edit source option there) That means you've also protected it against being made more readable. As is, this leads gets a 35 (out of 100) and the whole article gets a 34. I have a person who would like to work on readability. Is there a way she can do that?PlanetCare (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No, this article is not yet protected. You can tell as there is no lock symbol at the top right. The lead can be edited with the normal edit button at the top line. Welcome to User:Pouchak for working on this article! Don't forget to put a reference after the fullstop of a sentence if you are adding completely new content, thanks. EMsmile (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, EMsmile! Pouchak, EMsmile called it an "edit button." I would call it the "edit" tab at the top of the page. Click on that tab, and it automatically opens the page to the Lead....so it is possible to edit the lead for readability. Be careful about leaving in existing links (to other Wikipedia pages) and leaving in existing references, while you work your magic with readability. PlanetCare (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Improving Readability

Two of us have worked together to make the lead paragraph easier to read. This may not get much better, as "sanitation" and "defecation" (both necessary) are already 4-syllable words. This version does use shorter sentences, and it uses more words to establish causality "therefore" while also being able to start a new sentence.

I think it's a better lead for taking some of the details out. It is now only 4 paragraphs, as recommended. If more material is added to the body of the article the lead may need to be made longer. Readability is now 34. PlanetCare (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Strongly support Lindsmbrown's edit of changing "love" to "prefer" This takes away the risk of exaggeration to say that large of a group of people are similar in their "love" of anything. Their actions tell us only that they prefer one thing to another.PlanetCare (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I have inserted (OD) in parentheses after the title and sometimes used OD in the text to see if that would improve readability. It did get the lead up to 41.PlanetCare (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't rechecked this, but in general, I am not sure that we need to "push" the abbreviation OD. The word "open defecation" is already quite short. I would only use OD in the ODF abbreviation and even then, not really in text, just perhaps in table captions or alike. Do you think it improves readability to have more accronyms? I am not sure on this one. (same with WTD, I prefer in general to spell it out as World Toilet Day) EMsmile (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Better images to support the text?

I think we could do better when it comes to finding an image to support the lead paragraph. I'm not sure what the one that's here is trying to depict. I'm concerned about being disrepectful, or encouraging disrespect, if we use a photo of a person squatting. Any ideas? PlanetCare (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a difficult problem to find good images to show open defecation. I think the photo in the lead is not bad as it shows a person squatting but from a distance so it doesn't violate their personal rights, I think. It is a scene from India, which is where open defecation is most common on a global level. So that also makes sense. But sure, we could hunt around for better ones. I am not sure if photos of feces lying on a beach are much better though? They take away the behavior aspect, and would only show feces. But it's an option (perhaps not necessarily for the lead but for the main article). Another option could be to show a map from the JMP reports which shows where open defecation is most widespread in the world. We have used maps in the lead for other articles, e.g. the one on malnutrition - oh wait, that one uses an orange ribbon - not ideal, I think!? But perhaps due to a similar issue about respect for people's privacy? See here an example from stunted growth which uses a map. It would remove the concern about disrespect but it would also make the article more abstract. Thoughts? Maybe User:Doc_James as an opinion? EMsmile (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the new globalize tag

I don't quite understand why you, User:Daniel Case added the globalize tag to this article. The article clearly describes the situation in developing countries in general. Yes, India is mentioned often because open defecation is very widespread there. But we cannot "globalize" it by talking about the situation in e.g. Europe, where open defecation is not an issue. Therefore, what do you want us to do? What are we meant to change in order to remove the "globalize" tag again? I don't understand, please help. EMsmile (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@EMsmile: Well ... I placed this tag because I had linked here from The Mad Pooper, a recent instance of public defecation in the U.S. Maybe this does happen in Europe as well; I don't know.

Apart from that, though, I get what you're saying, that this article is about the public health problem created when people in developing countries must defecate on the ground in disused outdoor areas because of lack of access to proper toilet facilities. But still ... while the article does allow that it's a problem in much of the developing world, so much of it focuses specifically on India. I was thinking as I read it, could we not have some more material about how this problem presents in Africa, in specific countries there? Or in Asia, or Latin America? The sources have got to be out there.

And in light of the issue that brought me here, perhaps we could create another article, possibly to be titled public defecation (currently a redirect to this one), to be about defecation in public where proper facilities are available and where doing so violates social norms? Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this additional information. I am quite baffled that there would be a separate article on The Mad Pooper which is just about one woman defecating in the open for unknown reasons. Really, do we need an article on that? When millions of people are forced to defecate in the open for lack of toilets? The term "open defecation" is quite specifically linked to the "lack of toilets" issue. I am not sure about public defecation, e.g. people defecating in open spaces to annoy other people? If you have more instances and references about that than just that one case in Colorado, then yes, perhaps a separated article is indeed warranted.

But I disagree that the article is too focused on India. Look in the section about prevalence, there is even a table there giving the top-10 countries for open defecation. So the data for other countries is included in the article. The fact that no examples are given in the examples section does not warrant the globalize tag. I would therefore suggest that it be removed. EMsmile (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have come up with a compromise that might work: I have started a new section under "Society and culture" called "Public defecation for other reasons" where we could collect information on that topic. I have added your The Mad Pooper page link there (even though I am still not sure if it deserves a mention; I like the description in there though about people suffering from fecal incontinence and therefore having to defecate in the open for that reason. Actually, we could link fecal incontinence from see also. EMsmile (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Open defecation. 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/20150219114756/http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates to http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Figures about India

User:Aumnamahashiva, I see that you've updated some figures for India, using other sources than the JMP reports. It is difficult to estimate exact figures but the JMP reports are giving "official" numbers by UNICEF & WHO. So I think that they should not be deleted but perhaps both sets of figures mentioned side by side? Or else it could be said "more recent estimates put the figures at...". - Another thing is that perhaps in this article we should not harp on that much about India (at the moment the figures are mentioned in several places). Perhaps only mention the key figures for India once but then not repeat them again. Rather put the information here: water supply and sanitation in India? What do you think? EvMsmile (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I see that people are often changing the data for India but without giving any references for new data. That's not good. It may well be that the number of open defecators is falling rapidly in India but if you have new figures then please provide a reference to go with the figures! - And I have now moved the India information into one section under Country Examples. Before that, it was spread out in several places.EMsmile (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Can we stop fiddling with the data please?!

I see that people were contiously changing the country data. I have now re-arranged things so that we have a table with several columns. The one column shows the data from 2015 which was reported by JMP in 2017. I have just re-checked those figures and re-entered them very carefully into the table. These numbers should now not be changed anymore! (unless you can detect an error on my side). If you see new data reported somewhere, put it in the column on the right, together with the year and the source of the data. Hopefully this will now stop people from changing again and again the data from 2015 (reported in 2017 by JMP). EMsmile (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have again changed the figures for India in column 2 and 3 back to the JMP data from 2017. Do not change this! Updates can be added to the 4th column, but column 2 and 3 should stay like this until the next report by JMP comes out (note government data is OK but it is the JMP data that is comparable across countries). EMsmile (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I see that you User:Ehrenkater had changed the column headings here in November. Your intention was noble - I think you tried to simplify it - but I think people don't read the text above the table but only the table itself. So they didn't understand that the 3rd column is meant to remain unchanged and show the JMP data from 2017 for comparison purposes and NOT be updated each time the Indian government puts out a new figure! Those new figures are meant to go into the 4th column. EMsmile (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2019

Please add the following comment under section

Simple sanitation technology options

"Ecosan Services foundation" promotes UDDT (Urine Diversion Dehydration Toilets) in India which aims to promote hygienically safe toilet system to convert human excreta into nutrients used to increase agricultural yeild with Minimal use of Water across India under Swachh Bharat mission initiated by government of India . [1] Aditya Shailendra Patel (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NiciVampireHeart 12:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

California

The California section of this article needs significant expansion. The prevelance of open defecation in many of CA's major cities regularly makes national news, and has resulted in the reincarnation of medieval diseases such as Typhus. It has reached such a degree that apps have been created to map out the locations of feces. Neglecting this only further contributes to the racist and "third world" bigotry of the article. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:2D (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, you are correct that there is a major problem with this in California. I have often observed this during my visits there. I don't follow a lot of local California media, so I defer to others to expand the coverage. Reify-tech (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

What's "racist and "third world" bigotry of the article" about this article (referring to the comment by IP user number 2600 etc. - who has already been blocked I now see)? If you have information about open defecation in wealthy countries, feel free to add it. There is no doubt that the scale of the problem is bigger in developing countries though. Nothing racist about that. EMsmile (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove article protection

This is not a political article. This is not a controversial article. This is not an article concerning living persons. Why exactly is it necessary to lock it? 2601:18F:4101:4830:A43A:AFE9:A646:C931 (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It has to be protected because sadly, it attracted lots of vandalism. Just see the article's history. It seems any article that deals with bodily functions is prone to vandalism. In addition here, a lot of people were changing things when they didn't like the figures that were provided for India (where open defecation is/was still very common). EMsmile (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Broken link, and new source for data

Since it's not allowed to edit the article, I wanted to inform the editors that this link, cited as a source for several numbers in the page, is broken: https://washdata.org/sites/default/files/documents/reports/2018-01/JMP-2017-report-final.pdf. Further, I think this is a good source for future numbers, as it showcases percentages and trends from JMP rather clearly: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.ODFC.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=true. Thanks. 183.83.128.218 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I have removed the link to WASHwatch now as that project and website has ended, sadly. It wasn't any different data but just a nice way to access the data.EMsmile (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Numbers in the JMP table don't seem supported in sources

I checked the data and they seem to only show the total percentage of people practising this, not the number of people. Should it perhaps be adjusted to just percentages instead? Donkey Hot-day (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your point? Currently the table shows the percentage figure and the total number. That's good, isn't it? EMsmile (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The sources listed, like: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.ODFC.ZS, don't seem to show the numbers just the percentages out of the total population. It was same with the other JMP report that I found on google (after seeing source #3 was broken). Of course if you have a source for the numbers, then great, presenting it here would work. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The tables in the JMP report Appendix show percentage listed and total population next to each other. So I just multiplied one with the other to get the absolute numbers. That's OK, right?EMsmile (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I did not see the total population listed in the sources. Could you explain how to make it visible? Donkey Hot-day (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

See e.g. for Afghanistan on page 76 in the third column here: https://www.susana.org/en/knowledge-hub/resources-and-publications/library/details/2805 - it says: 32 527 total population in thousands, so that's 32.5 million people. Does this answer your question, User:Donkey Hot-day? EMsmile (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess, although I'm not sure how rounding would/should be calculated. Well regardless, I'll be adding a few other entries to the table. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

India & Hinduism

The section India & Hinduism, which keeps being deleted by one editor, is sourced to multiple reliable sources including UNICEF and the BBC. This is an issue which directly affects the health and life expectancy, of many Indians, and needs to be explained in our article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and repeated deletion on a basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not acceptable. The editor has been warned about edit warring, but has continued to delete this section. - Arjayay (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Arjayay:The opening sentence itself is misleading in this section. None of the three cited sources even BBC nor Unicif refer about "Street defection". The key issue is diluted with equating Open defecation to just Street defecation and misleading.

And on other part of the section, as you claim "Sourced from UNICIF and BBC" none of the sources you are stating are UNICIF and BBC, but surely are scholarly journals citations. again misleading. In following sentence of the ame section, you attribute open defection mainly with Hindus and cite Journal of Development studiea but strangely you miss, from same journal "It is also the case that Hindus and non-Hindus are both heterogeneous groups with substantial variation in sanitation behaviour: many Hindus do use latrines regularly, and many non-Hindus do not" (emphasis mine) Plz see (Apeendix-A2) of same source. I wonder, Why? is this WP:BIAS? But clearly is WP:UNDUE , Thanks Santoshdts (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Santoshdts, firstly, thank you for discussing this here, rather than edit-warring.
You called me to this section, and keep using "you" - "you claim", "you state", "you miss" etc. whereas a quick look at the edit history will show that I did not originate any of this text, so I suggest you ask/discuss the detail of this with the editors who actually wrote it.
Personally, I think the difference between "open defecation" and "street defecation" is a semantic argument, but I'm sure this could be reworded.
Furthermore, I am not sure what you mean by "none of the sources you are stating are UNICIF and BBC" - as both of these are clearly cited in the section.
My contribution was merely to stop the PoV mass deletion, of a very important issue, supported by multiple reliable sources, which directly affects the health and life expectancy of many Indians. The problem needs explaining and resolving, and is not helped by simply deleting it and trying to pretend that it does not occur. - Arjayay (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Arjayay: Iam absolutely sorry for appropriating the part of section in the page to you. I should have referred to the edit history of the page, I apologize for my mistake.

As far as "Street defecation" and "Open defecation" Thanks for agreeing on terming it appropriately. Now on "BBC and UNICIF" what I meant was, none of these sources are cited other than for the Opening sentence of the section starting with "Street defecation". Also, some of the sources cited, also say "many Hindus do use latrines regularly, and many non-Hindus do not" in the same journal. Ofcourse there are many sources connecting Hinduism to open defecation. But selective part from the journal is referred and other parts ignored. Isin't that POV Pushing? Somemore sources quoted, discuss about other factors like lack of availability of water, etc. related to open defecation, but the editor has sidelined most of them and considered only one aspect. What I wanted to convey is, most of the sources referred discuss many aspects of open defecation, but are not summarized in the article. Clearly Pushing a POV. Thanks Santoshdts (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"street defecation" is also another term used, but I've changed it to "open defecation" to be consistent with the rest of the article. A short summary of the scientific papers is given that Hindus who live in non-Hindu majority areas do use latrines (toilets) due to social norms being different in those areas. Since this is more of a larger epidemic in India, it's focused more on the causes that pertain to india, whereas the rest of the article talks about open defecation in other nations and by other groups. But if you want we can have longer summaries of these papers, although I tried to keep it short and simple to make it more information dense Qayrawan (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Arjayay Santoshdts Qayrawan Abecedare I am sorry people but can anyone please enlighten me on how this section is being informative, let alone targeting?? Many countries still practice open defecation, even so more than India. It’s illogical to mention a particular country. Countries like Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan have worse conditions. I think the editors are Muslims from pakistan which have some kind of agenda. If you want you should also mention worse conditions about your country as well. I would suggest that the previous section on country examples is restored. If you look at the edit history someone deleted country examples which mentioned countries and their initiatives and only added india and hinduism. Simply dedicating India as a section is weird, obviously racially motivated and misinformative.

You don't have a 121.6.114.20 But India contains 70% of all global open defecation. It is a very serious health issue that affects many Indian peoples. I don't know why you want to remove a very informative section. There already is a data table on other countries, but the fact that you mention "Muslims from pakistan" suggests you are one of those radical hinduvata trolls that commonly vandalize Wiki pages on India which talk about serious issues within India, for example this public health crisis many Indians suffer from. Please avoid vandalizing this page for political reasons, it's sourced to multiple reliable sources and even the scientific papers are made by Indian scientists who are concerned about this health issue. ----Qayrawan (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, could someone Plz define what "Other Hindu villages" mean in this article? As none of the sources cited with respect to this phrase explain this. Thanks Santoshdts (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted the recently added click-baity section heading that was more suitable for an online news article than for wikipedia. The whole India & Hinduism section needs a rewrite to improve organization and tone, and rely less on anecdotal news-reports and primary surveys, and more on review articles and authoritative reports that I am pretty certain have been written. Also needs to discuss the Swachh Bharat Mission. Abecedare (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The majority of it is primarily from Diane Coffey's book "Where India Goes" (2017), a very authoritative and information dense book on this topic which is the primary source for that while subsection, with news sources being used as secondary reference. Also added in the Clean India campaign Qayrawan (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Hari147 is continuing to vandalize this war. I'd recommend Ymblanter block him from this page, as blocked from it before for vandalizing by 331dot. He also seems to have removed several reputable sources from the page, and instead is continuing to replace it with non reputable sources and "claims" that contradict sources such as the BBC and UNICEF. He keep inserting the false statement " only 5% of the total population have no access to toilets and are still doing open defecation." yet according to unicef it's as high as 35%. I reccoment to the admin to revert to (-