Talk:Defecation/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ball movement

"ball movement" redirects here, but there isn't any explanation as to why a "ball movement" is called that. i've always been confused by that, because it seems to me that it's the shit that moves through the balls, while the balls themselves pretty much stay put, perhaps wiggling a little at the most...

i guess it's a movement going through the balls. sort of like calling traffic driving through a tunnel a "tunnel movement." maybe just one of those non-sencical euphemisms...

--Blackcats 07:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Is that really a valid term? I've never heard that before! --Attendsboi 08:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I believe they all mean to say "bowel movement". 01:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur.

"Ball movement" is term used in baseball and cricket to describe the action of the ball on a curve or slider.

Thank god somebody knew that it was, in fact...BOWEL movement.

I can't believe that that many people would get the word wrong :\ —An Sealgair (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Although calling it a "ball movement" is blatantly ignorant, perhaps it is a common misunderstanding and should still redirect? I mean, if all these misunderstood... Dukeofwulf (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV edit

"Many people" find a variety of things "physically pleasurable and satisfying." However, why is this appropriate or useful information for this article? Please provide some defense for leaving this bit of subjective, tawdry information in an otherwise competent article (and explain, if you would please, why similar sentiments are not appropriate to add in articles such as, say murder (which "many people" find "satisfying"). Thanks in advance.

Actually, the murder article does refer that. Use your browser search feature to search for "satisfaction" Rbarreira 18:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The Valsalva Maneuver

The article says:

"During defecation the chest muscles, diaphragm, abdominal wall muscles, and pelvic diaphragm all exert pressure on the digestive tract and respiration temporarily ceases as the lungs push the chest diaphragm down in order to exert pressure."

This process only occurs when using the sitting position, which is used by less than one-third of the world's population. The process is called the "Valsalva Maneuver" and has a number of damaging effects on the body.

Most of the world (and the entire world 2 centuries ago) uses squat toilets. I've added an external link to "Health Benefits of the Natural Squatting Position" to clarify the difference and advantages of reverting to this natural method.

~ Jonathan

-- 16:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed link. The link [1] goes to an article that ends up blaming sitting toilets for everything from colitis to appendicitis to prostate cancer. I might add that the best part about the linked article is the "case study" (near the bottom of the article) where one woman cures herself of cervical cancer by changing to the squatting position for toileting. An interesing read but, until proven otherwise, this is pseudoscience. Alex.tan 16:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored

This is an encyclopedia article about defecation. Anything that is relevant and encyclopedic needs to be included. That includes full description of defecation. That includes images of defecation. And, yes, that may even include the word shit. Whether we like them or not, we must follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Two relevant ones:

"Wikipedia is not censored."
"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
Okay... But one question: What about our younger users? Random the Scrambled 21:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
What about the adult users then? There are wikis that are censored for the protection of minors, and they aren't as big, or as good as wikipedia. There's a reason wikipedia isn't censored, and that's because there's a real slippery slope there. There'd be no containing it. A picture of a cow defacating might be as offensive to someone as a diagram of sexual intercourse and is certainly less offensive than a picture of a person dying of any kind of infestation. You can post to wikis that eliminate swearwords. Wikipedia is designed to inform, censorship is against the rules here. SiDNEy 23:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Children should use a children's encyclopedia like Compton's. 08:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyone that uses Wikipedia to get information is out of their mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baseton (talkcontribs) 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes We do!

Corn Cobs?

"The anus and buttocks may be cleansed with toilet paper or similar paper products, rags, leaves (including seaweed), corn cobs or sticks"

Is this for real or is it vandalism?

the article on toilet paper mentions early uuse of sticks, so it must be true. Ilikefood 02:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was vandalism too, but it seems to check out: "The material of choice among colonial America was corn cobs. When daily newspapers became commonplace in the 1700's, paper became the material of choice (I guess that one could say that Gutenberg's printing press caused the toilet paper revolution)." [1]


The introduction states that "sloths can go for a week." Does this mean that they can go for a week without defecating or that their metabolism is so slow that it takes a week to empty their bowels? 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)RKH

Fecal Ingestion

How come fecal ingestion isn't mentioned? This happens more often than you know, you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Might I ask that you are referencing cupchicks now? Two girls one cup. GROSS RESULTS!

Dude, that video's sick. Anyway if you're interested in eating fecies then search for coprophagia. --Meridius 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Read somewhere that a guy used a full manure spreader to put shit on a town's city hall to protest some policy AS being full of shit. (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"May require cleanup"

Brilliant —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide view?

Why is there a {{worldwide}} on this article? I don't think that there's anything in here that's US-centric, is there? --Mblumber (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection

Ive protected the article given the amount of vandalism this page has received. Feel free to remove the lock if I am in the wrong however thought it would be a good idea. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding a protection tag doesn't actually stop anyone from editing. It's just a notice to other users. If you think an article needs protecting, you have to request admin help on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Just done that btw. — FIRE!in a crowded theatre... 08:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

sometimes if you poop, your buthole may bleed. that is a cause of the poop being to big and streching out your but "hole". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Symptoms of Pre and Post Defecation

Someone more knowledgable than me would greatly enhance the article by discussing in lay persons terms the physical feelings associated with Pre and Post Defecation, beyond 'discomfort' and 'relief' . I know constipation can cause discomfort, but where and how much, and is orgasm upon defecation an urban myth, etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


I say that there should be a picture of someone defecating. (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I really, really, really really really don't think that is neccessary. I know wikipedia is not censored, but I also know that this is an encyclopedia, and I don't think that an image of someone defecating is needed on this article. T.Neo (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The picture could be made small on article's page, and anyone really interested could click on it to see it full size. Apparently disgust of fecal matter is learned at a very young age (approx.18months, ref a UK TV documentary), so anyone older than this may not be objective, however their vocabulary will probably be a bit limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What about a picture of just a toilet, or a dog or cat mid poo? JayKeaton (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I'd go with's idea.


Huh, Jay? What's the difference between a picture of a cow, dog, or cat pooping, except the kind and size of the animal and of the poop?

-Anon. _________________

uh... I want a high quality image of someone pooping outdoors or out in the open. Superjustinbros. (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I 2nd that i agree with what said there should be an image also i think there should also be a video of someone defecating to show how this is done. As it is done on the Ejaculation page demonstrating the process Yourname (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There need not be a picture or a video. They do not add to the article in any way. Realistically, there need not be a picture or video of a man ejaculating on the Ejaculation page either. We do not need a 'demonstration' of a process that every human being on the planet (indeed, every animal on the planet) MUST perform.Theroguex (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

this is bull and proof that wikipedia sucks

"Constipation is normally caused by consuming large amounts of potassium" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. One false statement that was easily corrected has definitively demonstrated that this project is doomed to failure. Thanks for pointing that out. - EronTalk 00:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Does "shitting" belong in the heading of an encyclopedia article on defecation? Jeff Anonymous 03:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a perfectly appropriate AKA --Blackcats 07:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I certainly don't approve. This is an encyclopedia, not a slang dictionary. If this page was being used for research by a younger audience, it could cause the wrong impression. Keep Wiki Clean. Removed colloquial terms not rquired or helpful for the understanding of this article..Hamdev Guru 20:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Give me a break! How many people say, "I defecated"? Instead, several of them say, "I took a shit."
That is irrelevent, I want wiki kept clean – it is completely unnecessary to quote colloquial phrases here. --Hamdev Guru 21:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (And Assumign Good Faith and everything, but please don't vandalise my User page again, Thanks :))
You're wanting to keep wiki clean is irrelevent. Shit will be staying on this page. Thank you JayKeaton 11:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys,
i just looked up defecation for my med assignment and i wouldn't have found it if it was headed 'shitting'. So turns out it was useful to use the medical term (or maybe i should just stick to my texts!) wow, i really sound like a nerd now! bugga.

Cheers, phil

It is important to note that wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. There are pictures of real vaginas, and erections, on the site, that break no rules. SiDNEy 23:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but if we include the term "shitting" do we also include "taking a dump," "laying cable," "pinching a loaf," etc.? There're many common slang terms for this. 05:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

-I think that the term "shitting" is unnecessary because it's simply slang rather than a proper, official term.- (Lemmy12)

As long as "shitting" continues to redirect here it doesn't matter whether "shitting" is or isn't mentioned in the article. If it can be used without degrading the professionalism of the article, and I'm sure there exist such ways in which it can be used, I see no reason why it should be removed. There is certainly no reason to censor it. - (Elsenrail)

The simple fact is that someone may search it, and they should get a relevant result. Dukeofwulf (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Point of information, the word "shit" is not slang at all; it and its etymological antecedents have been in English for a VERY long time. See the entry at World Wide Words. Ashanda (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting sidenote - the article on Urination lists colloquialisms for it. Wikipedia, while awesome, is terribly inconsistent. This being said, I think a 'colloquialisms' section should somehow be re-added to the articleTheroguex (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

HEY GUYS! I did a google search. 1,050,000 results for defecation. 4,310,000 results for shitting. Just FYI. Lhw1 (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Defecation in sugar refining

Eventually I'll get around to it if nobody else does, but one of the processes of cane sugar refining is called "defecation:"

Pressure Filtration of Phosphoric-Acid-and Lime-Defecated Refinery and Whole Raw Sugar Liquors

Cane Sugar Handbook, Amazon listing, "search inside this book" for "defecation"

Cane Sugar and Its Manufacture, Amazon listing, "search inside this book" for "defecation"

One form of apparatus used is called, no kidding, a "double-bottomed defecator." The product is "defecation mud," but I haven't been able to find a description of it. So I don't know whether the sugar-refining process is called defecation because defecation mud really resembles digestive foeces, or whether the core meaning of "foeces" was once just something inoffensive like "waste product" rather than referring specifically to "shit." It is analogous to the non-sexual meaning of the word orgasm, which is now totally forgotten.

Not quite sure how to handle this, because I don't want to tackle an article about cane sugar defecation, so I can't add a "see disambiguation page" and create a disambiguation page. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

problem solved FiveRings (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Human Health

If humans may move bowels twice a day, or a few times a week, which is currently thought optimal, or healthy? And if such a consensus exists in the medical community, does that information belong on this page, or the page for constipation? 23:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How bout a picture of poop coming out of a human butthole???

Uh,,, that was ON the article, but someone took it off. Superjustinbros. (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The picture of the squatting position is somewhat unnatural, as most people who squat to defecate would most likely not use a conventional (western) toilet. A better picture would be of someone squatting outdoors. There is a fine line between showing a photograph of a female defecating for explanatory purposes and photographs on some internet sites that seem to cater for this fascination with some people. -- Aks53 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aks53 (talkcontribs) 13:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Dude, its still on there and I find it very disturbing, as no one actually defecates in such a positionGooooooood namme. (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooooooood namme (talkcontribs)

Take a dump

I gotta take a dump. (I'm not kidding!) I'll tell you when I get back. Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need a picture?

I won't edit it but do we really need a picture of a cow laying down a huge turd? Is it really needed to get the point across? Ewwwwwwwwww!

Same. I was eating when I saw that. :'( --Sinewaves23 06:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, picture or no, if you're eating while you visit the "defecation" article, you deserve everything you get. Some people. PacificBoy 04:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Dat maakte me aan het lachen! (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


Well, I think we could use a picture of a WOMAN laying down a huge turd!

-Anon. _________________________

It shows a little bit of the spectrum of defecation, with the illustration of the human rectum, and then representation of the other members of the animal kingdom! I wouldn't want this page to be accused of being overly anthropocentric. Further, with the issues of runoff from farms, cow defecation is certainly tied to the bigger environmental and social issues around defecation as a whole! Now, pretty much everyone knows what poop is, and that everyone poops. But just because information is understood doesn't mean we have to exclude it. I think it's the best of all possible pictoral examples of defecation. If not for this, someone would surely post a picture of someone squatting in the grass. Think of that! 23:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if some idiot put a picture of a cow defecating. That is not needed i think i understand defecation. I don't need to see a cow pooping. Please get rid of it. The image is stuck in my head. (Glass of water 04:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

It's a good image; it demonstrates the action without being too gross. You were asking for trouble eating while reading about defecation to begin with! 05:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Eating while looking at defecating? Nice move! Tourskin 03:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell are you looking at the defecation page while eating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This does not need a picture of a real person using the toilet, the drawing that's already there is good enough. (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that a image besides the drawing and the pooping seagull aren't enough. We need an image such as a person defecating out in an open field. (I want a female taking a dump) The image that the one user posted a while ago was okay but it needed to be of higher quality. (Once again, I want a woman doing this). I can draw a person defecating, but I don't know how to upload images on Wikipedia. =(

I also aggre with Anon. Superjustinbros. (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, I found a site with defecation. (it's in Japanese)

Here is a good picture: [2] Superjustinbros. (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's about time I clear this part up: This is a website that I found showing many females defecating: Superjustinbros. (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm.. no, this is an encyclopedia article about the bodily function of defecation, not an article about Corprophilia, and that particular external site really doesn't offer any encyclopedic content. --Versageek 15:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Brown noise

I dont believe, from experience, thaat brown exists. Delete it from your webpage as POV, or as a minority idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unwanted content from fecal incontinence article

I'll just put this here for the mo, it needs integrating. I'll probably get around to this soon... Lesion (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The rectum acts as a reservoir to store stool until it fills past a certain volume, at which time the defecation reflexes are stimulated.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Shafik|first=A|coauthors=Mostafa, RM; Shafik, I; Ei-Sibai, O; Shafik, AA|title=Functional activity of the rectum: A conduit organ or a storage organ or both?|journal=World journal of gastroenterology : WJG|date=2006 Jul 28|volume=12|issue=28|pages=4549–52|pmid=16874870}}</ref> In continent individuals, defecation can be temporarily delayed until it is convenient. The rectum is able to expand to a degree to accommodate this function (rectal compliance). Distension of the rectal walls creates the urge to defecate.<ref name="ASCRS textbook" /> The point at which the rectum joins the [[anal canal]] is known as the anorectal ring, which is at the level that the puborectalis muscle (part of the [[pelvic floor]] muscle, levator ani) loops around the bowel from in front, where the puborectalis attaches to the [[pubic bone]]. This is known as the puborectalis sling (see diagram). This arrangement means that when puborectalis is contracted, it pulls the junction of the rectum and the anal canal forwards, creating an angle in the bowel called the anorectal angle. This angle prevents the movement of stool stored in the rectum moving into the anal canal. It is thought to be responsible for gross continence of solid stool.<ref name="Yamada textbook" /> Conversely, relaxation of the puborectalis reduces the pull on the junction of the rectum and the anal canal, causing the anorectal angle to straighten out (increase).<!-- <ref name="ASCRS textbook" /></blockquote> p.36--> A [[Human defecation postures|squatting defecation posture]] is also known to increase the anorectal angle, meaning that less effort is required to defecate when in this position.<!--<ref name="Yamada textbook" /></blockquote> p.247--> The anal canal can be defined functionally as the distance between the anorectal ring and the end of the IAS. The IAS forms the walls of the anal canal. It is an involuntary, smooth muscle. In normal persons it is contracted at all times except when there is a need to defecate. This means that the IAS contributes more to the resting tone (i.e. when not consciously contracting) of the anal canal than the EAS. The IAS is responsible for creating a watertight seal, and therefore provides continence of liquid stool elements. [[Hemorrhoids]] are vascular cushions within the anal canal. These structures are present during health, but when they become inflamed, they are termed piles. They are also thought to contribute to continence, but to a lesser degree than the IAS (15 and 55% of the resting anal tone respectively). During [[valsalva maneuver]]s (sneezing, coughing, etc.), the hemorrhoidal vascular cushions fill with blood to resist the increased pressure from rectal contents. Distension of the rectum causes the IAS to relax (rectoanal inhibitory response, RAIR) and the EAS initially to contract (rectoanal excitatory reflex, RAER). The relaxation of the IAS is an involuntary response, thought to be present to allow descent of a small amount of rectal contents into the anal canal, bringing specialized sensory mucosa into contact to detect its nature (solid, liquid or gas). The EAS, by contrast is made up of skeletal (or striated muscle) and is therefore under voluntary control. It is able to contract vigorously for a short time. Contraction of the EAS can defer defecation for a time by pushing stool from the anal canal back into the rectum (essentially a type of [[reverse peristalsis]]). Voluntary contraction of the EAS produces a doubled pressure in the anal canal (maximal squeeze pressure). Contraction of EAS and puborectalis together also acts to lengthen the anal canal.<ref name="ASCRS textbook" /> The mechanisms and factors contributing to normal continence are therefore many and inter-related. The consistency of stool may contribute - stool is easier for the muscles to control if it is solid, and liquid stool is more likely to leak out than solid stool. Similarly, the size of formed stools - small, hard stool requires more muscular contraction to expel than bulky, softer stools. Other factors include the specialized anti-peristaltic function of the last part of the sigmoid colon, which keeps the rectum empty most of the time, rectal capacity - the rectum must be able to accommodate and stretch to a degree (rectal compliance), the pelvic floor muscles - to maintain the anorectal angle when contracted, the IAS and the hemorrhoidal vascular cushions together give a watertight seal to the anal canal, sensation in the lining of the rectum and the anal canal to detect when there is stool present, its consistency and quantity, and the presence of normal rectoanal reflexes and defecation cycle which completely evacuates stool from the rectum and anal canal. FI may be exacerbated by abnormal internal anatomy of the anal canal and rectum, e.g. non-emptying reservoirs which may cause incomplete evacuation of stool, (e.g. a rectocele or internal rectal prolapse). Problems affecting any of these mechanisms and factors may be involved in the cause.<ref name="ASCRS textbook" />

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. -- tariqabjotu 00:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

DefecationPooping – As per the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA; titles should be recognizable ("pooping" is much less obscure of a word than "defecation"; a five-year-old could see the title "pooping" and know exactly what it's about whereas many people would fail to understand "defecation"); natural ("pooping" wins by a landslide; let me quote "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English"; if you personally typically refer to the process of dumping out solid waste as "defecation" I don't even know what you are doing on this planet. The gerund form "pooping" is the one we'd need to use on WP for a title, but look: the base form "poop" is even more common in Google Books! [3]) precise (both the current and proposed title could really only refer to one thing); concise (clearly "pooping") and consistent (dang, I'm pretty sure that WP:USECOMMONNAMES is a policy!). Currently, there's an editor that doesn't even think "pooping" should be in the lead sentence of the article as a synonym of "defecation"; not only is that position pretty doggone silly, I think the case can be made and am indeed making it that "pooping" is a far more appropriate home for this article than the artificial, overly fancy and uncommon word "defecation". If you disagree, you're free to, but please do flush after you're finished opposing. Red Slash 03:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose if you're going for naturalness and recognizability, it would not be "pooping", it would the the four letter word that starts with "s" and adding -ing to it. And a five year old would call it "caca" or "poo", so it would be cacaing or pooing. -- (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose this ill-thought out (being very polite here) suggestion. Wikipedia is not "Junior's First Encyclopedia" and we use appropriate terminology. Pooping redirects here and that's enough. If you think defecation is "overly fancy and uncommon" then blame your education but don't turn Wikipedia into a laughingstock. --NeilN talk to me 04:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • BTW, the policy you cite states, "...the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what names are most frequently used" (as a regular at WP:RM you should know this). So what medical papers or scientific articles or biology textbooks refer to this act as "pooping"? --NeilN talk to me 04:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - speedy close. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Neutrality requires the least emotive title, and the juvenile "pooping" is not it. Neither is the vulgar "shitting" or the censorially-minded "crapping". Do note that all of those are blue links; anyone who wants to find this page can find it. (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per "Wikipedia is not 'Junior's First Encyclopedia' and we use appropriate terminology." --MicroX (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close, per WP:SNOW. — LlywelynII 09:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    On second thought, I will note that this proposal is appropriate for simple:defecation and simple:feces and I'd support a move there. They have no business putting on airs. — LlywelynII 09:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "Poop" for "faeces" is slang and the current vogue euphemism. For "faeces" there is a good colloquial word "shit". The word "poop" properly means the stern of a ship, and "pooping" is when a ship takes a big wave onboard from astern. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - poop is a word subject to geographical variation, mostly USA I assume, whereas defecation is understood more widely. Lesion (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Defecation Video

I just wanted to put my whole 2 cents in on the issue of adding graphic videos of sex acts/going to the bathroom to these articles. I get the justification used, that this is something just about all of the planet does once a day at least and it should be shown. The video on the ejaculation page is mentioned as well. Here's the thing though, I don't think some of those wanting to post these overly graphic videos have the goal of education or providing information. I think they get a kick out of putting what are basically scat videos off a porn site onto a major and very popular website for all to see. And I'm not even the kind of person to get offended very easily at all, I'm not a conservative and I don't give a damn about being politically correct. But even among children I don't think there's a person that doesn't know what it looks like to take a shit. Maybe except for babies? And I know the argument back will be that Wikipedia is not censored. I'll admit that I haven't read the page on that rule and I will do that, but I really doubt being "not censored" means you can just put whatever the hell you want on pages. I think that the anatomical drawings are fine. I'd really love to hear from some experienced editors here why it is justified to have these videos on this page. cteckerman (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. These two videos that were added are not adding any value and I have removed them. It might be possible to find more "scientific" videos, e.g. showing an animation, but these two were clearly just taken by an amateur with the purpose of adding something sexual to the page. If a video is to be added (I don't think we need one), then it would have to be a profesionally made one! An animation would probably b best. EvM-Susana (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to chime in also. I'm highly skeptical that anyone old enough to read this article would find any benefit to having a video. Also, I wanted to point out comparing this article to the ejaculation article is kind of comparing apples to oranges. Keep in mind not everyone is male, not everyone has had sexual relations with a man and many people for various personal reasons have no interest in watching porn so the ejaculation video is well founded in my opinion. Even people who have had sex with a man might not have directly witnessed an ejaculation. On the other hand EVERYONE defecates and are quite familiar with what it looks like. Kap 7 (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
As as i stated below some people can not see how this process goes. Just like the ejaculation video most people do not see fecal matter coming out of the anus. This video is a great way to education people. (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Please read page WP:NOTCENSORED98.117.33.218 (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

[moved ip's comment down to be more coherent] Kap 7 (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If you read our comments we agree with you about censorship, however, we don't agree a video is of benefit. Feel free to state your case Kap 7 (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

my case is most people can not see fecal matter coming out of the rectum during the defecation process. This video shows that and can educate a user on what it looks like. (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • EvM-Susana and Cteckerman might be interested in this. It could even go to wp:rfc if it gets outta control. Kap 7 (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not agree with your undoing of the video the discussion above shows that there is consensus. (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I assumed good faith the video was um ... welll very obviously meant to be disturbing. I reverted video Kap 7 (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Kap 7. I am sure there is a guideline somewhere in the Wikipedia MOS that clearly states that videos that only serves to add some strange shock value but no real substance to the matter are not to be included! Probably Doc_James knows where it is in the MOS. EvM-Susana (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:SHIT and WP:LEADIMAGE come to mind. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 10:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is against a video sorry if I came off that way but if there is to be one it should be more appropriate and helpful not a video of some guy blowing shit straight in your face. I reverted the video once I'm done here and won't revert anymore I'll let others decide what is best suited to be in this article since I honestly have little interest in this topic to begin with. Kap 7 (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I was going to say the same. A video might be OK but then it has to be a very good one; I don't regard this one as being good (note the sound effects). Maybe more an animated one that might be used in medicine if there is such a video. But also, anyone can just use a mirror and observe one's own defecation as everyone defecates. So I am still not sure if such a video is really needed at all. But as a compromise it would have to be a good one. - Anyway, let's not waste too much time on this. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh there was sound too? Thankfully I didn't have my sound turned on. Anyway, his "consensus" is just him and another person. I checked the ip's def looks like two different people one in ashburn, virgina area the other in ontario,canada area and both using different internet companies - I was skeptical two people could be so overly enthusiastic about a video like that. Would be nice to get some other people in here with opinions but I agree not really worth spending much time on this but maybe these guys would like that - wear us down then post whatever video they want so I plan to keep an eye open. Kap 7 (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Not a good video. We need something more educational. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel there should be a video to show how this is done!2600:1003:B113:4CB2:8EF:7FB6:D54:2E4E (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to chime in and say that I also agree there is little value added to the article by having this poorly self-shot video in it, and I have grave doubts as to the good faith of those anonymous users trying to have it added. I suppose in concept a sober video produced by a reputable medical expert might have some value in the article, but that is not the video being added to the article is. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC).

Symptoms of Pre and Post Defecation

Someone more knowledgable than me would greatly enhance the article by discussing in lay persons terms the physical feelings associated with Pre and Post Defecation, beyond 'discomfort' and 'relief' . I know constipation can cause discomfort, but where and how much, and is orgasm upon defecation an urban myth, etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see something that explains, physiologically, the enjoyment men get on occasion from a bowel movement. Is it exclusive to men? If not, that would rule out the prostate as a cause. I haven't been able to find any studies on the subject, but I have found a lot of amateur discussions and we know how those can go. (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove photo from Spain?


Would you mind if that image is somewhat smaller at least? As it is, it dominates the whole page, kind of making a (disgusting to me) joke of the whole article. It could be made much, much smaller instead of the largest image in the article. I didn't mean to offend you! Best wishes, EChastain (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC).

Hi, yes, that would be a good solution. As you can imagine, non-offfending photos of defecation and feces are hard to find... Have a look on the talk page for the article on human feces - long discussion there until I finally found one that was OK because the feces were in a drying process (intersting for psychologists: wet, fresh feces look much more disgusting than dry, "older" feces!). This particular photo is OK I think because this tradition in Spain of depicting this really does exist, how strange it may sound... See also here:
But OK if we find better/other images to illustrate defecation somehow, we could substitute this one. EvM-Susana (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


From the fourth paragraph to the end, the article is entirely anthropocentric without actually stating that it only applies to humans. (Valsalva maneuver, assuming use of toilets, etc.) Perhaps the greater part of the article should be dedicated to humans, but it shouldn't assume that the reader isn't looking for information about defecation as it applies to the whole animal kingdom. (talk)

I agree. The article is sparse, also quite culturally limited in perspective. The comments on this page even indicate a lot of silliness and the topic is addressed in a squeamish way. Poop is often a humourous topic. I think the Flatulence and Fart articles are good examples of how to address such a topic as this in a more complete way. Humourous content might be directed to a sub article. Biological and medical sub topics as well, as appropriate. I'm sure there are other articles already created not connected to this, this article is surprisingly incomplete and I'm guessing too much vandalism at some point has lead to that. It would be wise then, to redirect the humour topics early on in the article so that playful individuals or others wanting to play with wikipedia by writing something funny about a topic such as this have an appropriate direction to connect their content with in a way that doesn't become vandalism on the biological information etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Roman toilets

The recent edit by Dfrench430 assumes (without any reference) that Roman toilets were used in the sitting position. This site contradicts that assumption. Also, the edit removed a valid reference and replaced it with an unreferenced claim.Jonathan108 (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not going to happen. clpo13(talk) 19:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Defecationcrapping – More common name. (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not the slang dictionary. --NeilN talk to me 14:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Stop wasting your time and annoying other editors! Your repeated proposals are in direct conflict with Wikipedia policy regarding WP:TONE, and will be soundly rejected, as you are discovering. You can go try at Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia, but I doubt they will be any more enthused. If you insist on crusading for a simple-minded colloquial encyclopedia, you're welcome to start your own elsewhere. You are not welcome to take over a long-standing collective work, whose policy and style have been hammered out over a decade and a half of discussion and compromise. If you are not interested in understanding the culture and rules here, go elsewhere and start your own version. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose same disruption as this. Is it half-term already? Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 19:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^ [4]