Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:56, 9 February 2013

Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

If you find some images offensive you can configure your browser to mask them.

Archives

Archive 1

Bulbo-WHAT?

"Urine remaining in the urethra of the male is expelled by several contractions of the bulbospongiosus muscle." Um, on what planet? Urine remaining in the male's urethra is expelled by shaking the penis furiously. How could a muscle contraction shunt urine forward through a tube? This article seriously needs to mention "the shake" and the role it plays in male culture. It mentions piss shiver, after all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

What??? So piss flies everywhere? It's the same muscle you use to hold it in. The couple of squirts you hear after the long stream? That's what that is, in case you were wondering.

That doesn't eliminate the 'urine remaining in the urethra' though. Again, how could it? It eliminates the last bit in the bladder.

The bulbospongiosus muscle is the musle that contracts during ejaculation or when the glans of the penis is squeezed. It does involuntarily contract during urination expecially towards the end to expel the last bit of urine out of section of the urethra that it surrounds, at least for me. I would suggest that it be mentioned in the article. It is a rather important aspect of male urination as a failure of the phenomenon to occur could lead to the problem of post-micturation dripping, which could cause stains and odors in one's undergarments. 24.158.225.15 (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Spraying in multiple directions

How is this not addressed? Having an erection is the main cause, but sometimes your dick is just simply a dick for no reason and oh, you've pissed on your ankles.

Dried semen can definitely cause that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Dont delete photos

DO NOT delete the photos put at the top. they are good and fine the way they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.171.0 (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

man urinating at beach photo.

That photo IS SHIT AS. Please stop putting it on. The photos that are currently on are better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.171.0 (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I do think that the photo is a little too small and indistinct to properly illustrate the article. Unfortunately, most of the photos you have been posting are totally unrelated to subject at hand. If you stick to posting on-topic photos, it is less likely that they will be deleted. Uncle Dick (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have restored that photo. Calling it "shit" and justifying the others as "good and fine" is not valid reasoning. There is not need for gratuitous images to be put here. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the photo of the woman is better. While one may argue that the photo seems to illustrate nudity more than urination, the beach photo also seems to illustrate the beach scene more than urination. Alternatively, a more relevant photo could be taken and uploaded instead. 20 2.156.14.100 (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be receptive to considering other photos. I appreciate that the beach photo is not particularly illuminating, but the same could be argued, in a different way, about the nude woman. At a minimum, the photo of the woman would need to be cropped to focus on urination, and not the rest of her, to be appropriate here, and one would need to balance it with an accompanying male image. But ultimately, I think the Grey's Anatomy images lower down on the page serve that purpose adequately. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the German wiki page here: http://de.wikipedia.org/Miktion they have some much better photos. I don't know how to edit them myself, but I particularly like the statue! It is neither gratuitous nor with too much focus on another area e.g. nudity / beach. (87.194.144.173 (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

That's an excellent idea—thanks! I'm going to move the statue up to the lead, replacing the beach photo, and replace the statue with a Rembrandt etching. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

female urination

Why does the article advise women to "put your legs together and lean forward" because it "helps direct the urine downward"? I'm a female and I've been urinating all my life and I never put my legs together, that's just asinine. The urine goes downward anyway if you're sitting. It never goes up! It's called gravity, people, look it up, there's a wiki for that, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scroblachoir (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it worth to mention that women urinate at a higher flow rate than men? It is well known and i guess there are publications out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.177.171.142 (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. It probably won't happen, though, unless someone actually tracks down such a source. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the article shouldn't be telling complete strangers how to pee anyway. I'm a dude, but Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a how-to book. --72.230.135.196 (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Urination vs Micturation

The term urination is used incorrectly in this article. Urination is the formation of urine from the kidneys to the bladder. Micturition is the actual act of releasing the urine. These terms are not synonymous. Please use the correct term if you want properly educate the public :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.27.198 (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We would need sourcing to back that up. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

vids from goats and others

do we really need the vids, how they peeing? doh...-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I AGree. Not Nesacary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.190.6 (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Urination Frequency

\The bladder takes about 7 hours to fill up. add to article --85.12.88.17 (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. The length of time that a bladder takes "to fill up" depends on a variety of things: the amount drunk by the owner during a given period of time, and the ability of said bladder to expand and contain a given amount of liquid, to name but two factors. For proof, visit a bar and consume a few beers, then a few more. It will take less than three hours to do that, but the urge to piss will be present. The suggestion that any bladder takes about (or exactly) 7 hours to fill up seems to ignore both those factors. So do not add any such thing to the article. 74.226.105.231 (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

photo request

i want to request a photo to this page

File:Public female urination.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.237.146 (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC) one vote from me for this photo that shows how a female urinates whilst outdoors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.156.31 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:PERENNIAL

There is some difference of opinion about a photograph, yet again. Please take a look, for example, at Talk:Urination/Archive 1#Appropriateness of photo, and the archived threads that follow it. Do we really need to start this discussion again? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the edit summaries re-instating the image. Do you have any statistics of how many human females, when urinating outdoors, take off all of their clothing to do so? Of those who do, how many are in the presence of a human male holding a camera? Something tells me that this photo is not really about showing the reader information about either the squatting position or about urination without facilities. Whatever, not worth reverting about. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've swapped in another photo. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

...which has now been deleted. I'm not going to revert the deletion, and if someone restores that image, I won't revert that either. But if anyone restores the earlier image, I will revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Urination without facilities

Seems a bit one-sided. Why mention the Hackney Carriage Laws, but not for example the law in Belgium where women, unlike men, could not be charged with indecent exposure for urinating in public? Men, not having to squat down to urinate, were considered to have enough opportunity for urinating discreetly, while women couldn't always avoid "exposing themselves".

Not sure about the relevance of some sources. Does a blog complaining about men peeing in public really supports the statement that it "tends to be socially objectionable for females in most customs"? Ssscienccce (84.197.178.75) (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it could do with a revision, and that it wouldn't be controversial, so please feel free to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Social factors

I was watching a film with a small group of well-dressed, apparently well-educated men and women sitting around a banquet table. A man arose, continuing to speak, opened the sideboard, and (without exposing himself!), relieved himself in a container that he somehow knew would be there. I was quite surprised, not realizing that this was ever acceptable anyplace. The topic of film conversation, I think, was Bonaparte. The venue seemed to be Britain in the 1820s or so. Sorry that I can't name the film. Student7 (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Photo of urine leaving a man's penis and a woman urinating

I have added File:Male Urin - DSCF7654.jpg. It appears to me to be a straightforward foto, with no pornographic element, and I believe it belongs in the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point to WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, especially

Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Misplaced Pages project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals.

I have added another image in line with the suggestion above File:Miktion.jpg. I think it is a straight forward image, with no pornographic element. File:Miktion.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me suggest that you take a look at #WP:PERENNIAL, just above, and then follow the link from there to the archived discussion. Editors have had this kind of discussion before. Again and again and again. In the past, the consensus has been that the Gray's Anatomy images cover this need. If you disagree with that consensus, please explain what additional information the reader derives from the photographs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated, having read the two long discussions on the issue in the archive http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Urination/Archive_1#Appropriateness_of_photo and http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Urination/Archive_1#Consensus_about_the_picture both of which show a consensus to retain existing photographs of male and female pissing. The last comment I can see on the subject is "An IP has now reverted the image without an edit summary. History: diff and diff. I'm not going to interject myself by restoring the image, but I continue to be interested in whether other editors would actually like to discuss it responsibly. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)" While I am happy to discuss it, I would be grateful if you would present your reasoning for removing the images, since your previous arguments seem to favour retention, and from the archives, it seems that an anonymous IP editor removed the images without discussion, and in contravention of consensus. I found no serious discussion about replacing photographs showing urination with anatomical diagrams of body organs that do not show urination seems to have taken place, indeed you yourself argued in favour of retention of images throughout most of the discussion. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Both photographs have been removed by Anthonyhcole "Unnecessarily offensive. Add nothing to the reader's understanding.)"

In http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Urination/Archive_1#Consensus_about_the_picture the following appears "I've been holding back on getting into the debate. However, today my ten year old son asked me where does a woman's urine come from? He knows where babies come from, but was unable to figure out how the female urethra and vagina were put together. I thought for a moment and then said that I would find a photo on WP which while was contentious showed the mechanics of female urination perfectly. I admittedly wondered if I was doing the right thing and then remembering that a picture is worth a thousand words, I went through the article history and found Aether22's oft deleted photo and showed it to him. He looked at it a moment and then I asked him if he had any questions. "Nope, Dad. That shows it perfectly. Thanks." And off he went and built a new bridge out of Knex. I'm really wondering what we are all hung up about. Put it back I say. It is anatomically accurate and incredibly useful for educative purposes. Gillyweed (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)".

93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:00, July 21, 2012‎ (UTC)

IP93, stop the edit warring. I left a warning on your talk page. You have already violated 3RR and will be blocked shortly if you don't stop immediately. I suggest you follow WP:BRD, which isn't written BRRD. Don't even think of attempting to restore your edits until a consensus has been reached. If it goes your way, then great for you. If it doesn't, then walk away. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I got rather irritated that Anthonyhcole deleted the images twice, without joining the discussion.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I know all about irritation, but don't let it get you to edit war. When your edits are reverted, stick to discussion until consensus is reached. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just hated those photos so much I couldn't help myself. They're very, very amateurish. The lighting, composition, cropping, detail are terrible. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Low-quality images are better than no images. It seems we might have better images, but those aren't included either. I'm for including the most educational, clear, and relevant/non-porn-looking pictures possible. — Ian01 (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I was here when the archived discussion took place. The cherry-picked comment from that discussion dates from a time when there was no illustration at all of what the female urinary tract looked like. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Prehistory? There were illustrations of the female urinary tract in my school biology books, and I think everyone has been aware of their existence.87.194.46.83 (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Urination in Sex

I have tried to add this section to the article, but it has been deleted twice without explanation. I think it should be included

Urolagnia (also urophilia, undinism, golden shower and watersports) is a paraphilia in which sexual excitement is associated with the sight or thought of urine or urination. Some participants may drink the urine; this practice is known as urophagia, though uraphagia refers to the consumption of urine regardless of whether the context is sexual. Urolagnia enthusiasts may participate in urolagnia as part of a domination and submission scene, though not all sexual activity involving urine is so. These activities are often described with the slang terms golden showers, water sports, or piss play. As a paraphilia, urine may be consumed or the person may bathe in it. Other variations include arousal from wetting or seeing someone else urinate in their pants or underclothes, or wetting the bed.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY STYLE. And I'm a bit amused by the juxtaposition of this argument, with the one at the top of the thread above, that goes to pains to point out that there is no pornographic aspect to the images discussed there. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by citing WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY STYLE. Happy that you are amused, but don't understand your argument.93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This page is primarily about a physiological function. It's reasonable to mention how this function is involved in pornography and paraphilias (and it's worth noting that I actually expanded what it says when I reverted the lengthy section, relative to what the page said before), but having an in-depth discussion of it is UNDUE. Instead, we have urolagnia et al., so having a brief summary with links to the main pages is appropriate use of Summary Style. As with the images, the WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate that the material needs to be added here because you feel that linking to the other pages is not sufficient. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, this is mentioned only as something that is depicted in pornography. Given that this is a common sexual act, this is a bit weird, and counter-intuitive!93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A "common sexual act"? If it were so common, you, and others like you, wouldn't be so fascinated by it. You are the exception that proves the rule, IOW it's not that common as a sexual act, and when depicted it's usually classified as fetish porn. When it's not "a sexual act", it's just a normal activity which isn't usually depicted with images, even in medical textbooks, and is usually considered a private act in most societies.

Are you suggesting an improvement to this section (if so, please provide the wording you'd like to see added, with RS), or are you just airing your opinion? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC - Should this article be illustrated with photographs of urination, or just anatomical cross sections of the penis and vagina?

Should this article be illustrated with photographs of urination, or just the anatomical cross sections of the penis and vagina File:Gray1142.png and File:Vagina-illustration.jpg? For example File:Male Urin - DSCF7654.jpg and File:Miktion.jpg Previous discussion is at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Urination/Archive_1#Appropriateness_of_photo and http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Urination/Archive_1#Consensus_about_the_picture . 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes Photographs convey information that it is impossible to convey verbally that aids understanding of the article. There are no current images in the article that illustrate the process of urination. Previous vigorous discussion showed a consensus in favour. Images were present in the article until removed without discussion.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Initial thoughts: Yes. I'd like to see a clear, good modest-sized thumbnail photo of both male and female human urination "below the fold" (lower than the typical user's first screen view). If anybody uses the word censorship in this discussion, I'll scream. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry - was about to post WP:NOTCENSORED includes "However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content". I am not sure how this relates to shrinking and hiding images, but it is their total exclusion that I am opposed to. Are you happy with File:Male Urin - DSCF7654.jpg and File:Miktion.jpg ?93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• IP93, it's not a matter of censorship, but of "how" to do it best and tastefully. Not everyone has a penis fascination. There are better images to choose from:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Human_male_urination

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Human_female_urination

• Brangifer (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you in favour of including photographs? If so which ones do you suggest. I think that it would be best to show a penis and female ureatha urinating, but I welcome alternative suggestions and have no particular attachment to File:Male Urin - DSCF7654.jpg and File:Miktion.jpg.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite partial to http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Urin.jpg , in terms of lighting , sharpness, composition. Almost all of the others, including the three you're suggesting IP, are total, amateurish crap. (Just my opinion.) And we need something at least as good on those parameters for woman urinating. The ideal would be genuine studio-quality anatomical photos of man and woman under the same lighting.

IP, check out Pregnancy. A while back there was a long debate, culminating in one or two highly-attended (including many influential veteran editors) requests for comment, over whether the article should include an anatomical photograph at the top of the page. Consensus was to include such an image, but below the fold. I think we can safely rely on that case for guidance here. But you're entitled to disagree of course. I'm just pointing you to the way the community went then. Some of the discussion is in this archive but it went on for six months or so before that (in earlier archives). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think this RfC could well be closed, and I would suggest that there is some over-thinking of the issue by those discussing possible photos. We currently have two images, a drawing of the human male urinary tract from the Gray's Anatomy textbook, and a color drawing of the human female external genitalia. I think the WP:BURDEN in this discussion is on the IP, to explain what additional information the reader could get from adding the photographs. Do the photographs tell us anything about the anatomy or physiology that the current content does not? Does showing a stream of urine add any informational value? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• No I think Tryptofish is right. I've been persuaded by his/her's, Andy's and Brangifier's arguments here, at WP:ANI and elsewhere. Though there is some small added educational benefit to high quality photography over drawings, the added value is undermined by the significant offense it will cause many readers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm just asking: would it be justified to close this RfC? Does it really need to continue? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed the RfC as a disinterested third party editor. Consensus to exclude the photos has arisen. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 20:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Urination in Sex - RFC

At the moment urination for sexual pleasure (Urolagnia or Water Sports) is covered only in the "Depicting urination" as something that is featured in pornography. I think it deserves its own section, but it others argue that it is something that only happens in pornography and should not be encouraged, or admitted.87.194.46.83 (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is above (I am the IP editor there). My suggested text was

Urination in Sex

Main article: Urolagnia

Urolagnia (also urophilia, undinism, golden shower and watersports) is a paraphilia in which sexual excitement is associated with the sight or thought of urine or urination. Some participants may drink the urine; this practice is known as urophagia, though uraphagia refers to the consumption of urine regardless of whether the context is sexual. Urolagnia enthusiasts may participate in urolagnia as part of a domination and submission scene, though not all sexual activity involving urine is so. These activities are often described with the slang terms golden showers, water sports, or piss play. As a paraphilia, urine may be consumed or the person may bathe in it. Other variations include arousal from wetting or seeing someone else urinate in their pants or underclothes, or wetting the bed."

87.194.46.83 (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm an involved editor, and you can see my views on this question above. The posting editor has also initiated similar RfCs at a couple of other pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• The involved editor has expressed views opposing some of the following - the inclusion of pictures of human penises to the phallus page, and the penis page, including photographs of urination in the urination page, the inclusion of photographs of urination on the watersports (BDSM) page, urination being mentioned in the penis article, and sexual pleasure as a use for urine. Where he has opposed adding inappropriate sexual images to relevant pages, and inappropriate sexual behaviour to articles about sex organs and bodily functions.
• This is a universal encylcopaedia of knowledge. There are clear instructions at the top of this page on how to configure your browser to avoid seeing images, so those who wish to self-censor can do so. Knowledge here is not meant to be censored to be like a child-friendly prime-time national graphic tv programme, and yet censors seem to have had a good job here at wikipedia.87.194.46.83 (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I guess you are talking about me, but I don't remember having commented at that many other such pages. And in fact, you are mischaracterizing what I have said in archived talk at this page. I'm aware of WP:NOTCENSORED, but I'm also aware of WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Aware of, or have read WP:UNDUE? What exactly do you mean by referring to it? Just citing guidelines is not helpful. That said, it seems to refer to the inclusion of doubtful opinions rather than provable facts. Do you question that urination is involved in sex? At the moment there are sections on Urination without facilities, Alternative urination tools, and Talking about urination. What makes Urination and Sex so WP:UNDUE that WP:NOTCENSORED is not breached?87.194.46.83 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Do you question that urination is involved in sex". Not usually, it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Alternative urination tools aren't USUALLY involved either, and yet there is a section on them here. Please explain how WP:UNDUE is relevant to your reasoning.87.194.46.83 (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Support It's icky, but the Urolagnia article indicates that it's not an insignificant aspect of the subject. It's certainly big enough so that UNDUE does not apply, in my view. So where? A top level section is too much. The Social factors section is a bit strange in this article as it contains the Alternative urination tools subsection. That could use some reorganizing. I think Urolagnia could be a subsection Social factors, and we could consider renaming the section to Society and culture or something. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and tone the suggested paragraph way, way down, and shorten it a lot. We're not censored, but hey, this is a family joint. The main article can contain all the details. Would that be a fair compromise? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, we do discuss it briefly in Urination#Depicting urination. And my argument has nothing to do with ickiness. What more needs to be added to make a WP:Summary style treatment that you would regard as due weight? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Urination#Depicting urination bit sort of stumbles onto the icky thing at the end. It isn't the subject of the paragraph, art and pornography is.

I think due, is its own subsection, or at least its own paragraph. That's seems fitting. Take out the ick factor, and compare to how we treat other subjects like umbrella (Umbrella#As_a_weapon_of_attack, which could use the addition of the poison-tipped spy assassination bit). Content about all the significant aspects is encyclopedic, and the icky thing seems to be a significant aspect. The ick factor seems understandably to magnify UNDUE, so, keep the bit short, with as little ickiness as possible. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's something we can work with. (But, again, please hear me when I say that I'm not talking about ickiness.) Actually, the section on "Depicting" is pretty sketchy, referring simply to the lead images before a sentence about pornography. Perhaps depiction in art is what is "undue" here. Should we, perhaps, delete the sentence about the two statues, and change the section header to "In sex"? I don't think we need to make a paragraph as long as what the IP proposes, but how detailed should it be? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts and responses:

• Change social factors --> social and cultural factors or something. This would broaden the scope and could invite some international content. There are probably some cultures out there with some interesting takes on the whole thing.
• The issue with the Depicting urination subsection is that it needs more substance to show that it merits a subsection. Now it just seems fringy, and makes the two statues bit seem undue. So, yes, unless there's more in art, I think changing the section header to "In sex" is a good plan. There, we would have the icky thing with the porno mention. I suggest we take the IP's paragraph, chop it in two, and tone it down.
• We could start a Facilities section, and move Alternative urination tools subsection into that. Also, some of Urinals subsections can go there too, with "...People who are affected by paruresis, or "shy bladder syndrome," ..." staying behind in the newly-titled subsection Shy bladder syndrome.
• Aside: Where can we find an illustrator. Ideal would be to replace the very black and mismatched statue images with side-by-side line drawings in the airliner passenger safety brochure style.
• I can't believe I'm involved in this. I hope nobody I know is checking my contribs. I started with the Babies and toddlers section and it got watchlisted. Now I'm stuck. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Scratch what I said about Umbrella#As a weapon of attack needing the poisoning thing. It's already there and I must have been reading the wrong line. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean about not believing how you got involved. I responded to an RfC a couple of years ago, and I've been here since. You've raised a lot of ideas that go beyond the scope of the RfC, so I'll leave those for further discussion, but I'll boldly go ahead and create that "In sex" section. My interpretation of toning down the suggested paragraph may be a bit more aggressive than what you had in mind, but nothing is final. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to boldly enact any of the points I made above that you agree with. If you don't I probably will. As for the toning down: way, way, way, way, way down is fine. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Feel free to, um, mop up. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Very funny. :) Mopping.... Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sure it's better. Please revert or further refine. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Have done, added a reference to the oxford dictionary too. Think there should be something about womens fear of urination during sex, and need to urinate after - cleansing effects of, short ureathra, infection, as is quite often in womens magazines, but hard to find a good source.87.194.46.83 (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Images

I have found someone who will make images. I have no idea what they will look like. I suggested naked figures, equal scale, airline safety brochure style. Any other suggestions? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, because it depends on how we would use them on the page. I'm guessing from what you said in the RfC section just above that you are thinking of substituting the new images in place of the statue images in the lead. At least in principle, I like the statue images better. The female one was added very recently, and the one thing I see as a problem is the very obvious mismatch in size between the two photos. That could be fixed pretty easily by cropping the male photo, to make both photos similar. If we would just do that, I'd be quite happy with that, and I'd probably prefer not to have to deal with discussing a whole new direction. Please also keep in mind that we have a perennial issue with drive-by replacement of whatever is in the lead with stuff that's chosen just for "lulz". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. The mismatch probably can't be solved with cropping. The scale issue remains. Also, the dark colouration makes it hard to see. And, the one above the other has an obvious problem.

A clear, black and white line drawing could really do the trick. Let's see what the artist comes up with. I will post them here at talk, or, if they're really great, boldly swap them in. The last debate was different. This would be about which set of images is better. I suspect that there will be not be a 50-50 split in opinion, and it will be easy to decide. But who knows? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not fotos? they would show more information, and are available. Censorship?87.194.46.83 (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Urination in Art

For some reason this section has been deleted without discussion, or debate. It should be reinstated, and improved. Sources such as ] and ] look promising, and I think it is obvious that a reference should be made to Duchamp's urinal, and Warhols piss paintings, and a link to Body_fluids_in_art.87.194.46.83 (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Those are good points. It wasn't so much a lack of discussion as a lack of awareness of the material (see just above). But with this new information, there's no reason not to add material back. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Piss Christ also comes to mind. However, we should consider distinguishing between "urination in art" and simply "urine in art". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Urination and Execution

Suggest adding the following text from urophagia - is well referenced, and represented an otherwise unmentioned use of urination.

Execution

Pathan women in the North-West Frontier Province (1901–1955) of Pakistan during the Anglo-Afghan Wars used a method of execution involving urine, Pathan women urinated into prisoner's mouths. Captured British soldiers were spread out on the ground and fastened with restraints to the ground, then a stick or a piece of wood was used to keep their mouth open to prevent swallowing. Pathan women, taking turns one at a time, then squatted and urinated directly into the mouth of the man until he drowned in the urine. This method of execution was reported to have been practiced specifically by the women of the Afridi tribe of the Pashtuns. 80.57.81.114 (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This sounds interesting, but I see at Urophagia that some of the sourcing is contested. It would be helpful if the URL links would go to the exact pages being cited, instead of just to the cover of the books. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No mention of either form of diabetes

I find it really surprising that this article does not mention either form of diabetes. Increased rate of urination is - along with loss of weight and increased drinking - one of the three classic symptoms of diabetes mellitus, whether Type One or Type Two. Just having excessive rates of drinking and urination can be a symptom of diabetes insipidus. Does any one think that references to both of these diseases should be made in the article? It would certainly make a lot of sense to me. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. With a link to polyurea. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

water sounds promoting urination

In my upbringing and experience sights, sounds, and thoughts of water in motion can cause someone to experience a greater urge to urinate. Does anyone have a reliable source documenting this phenomenon? -- Frotz(talk) 10:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Animals

I'm concerned that the new material about non-human animals is WP:UNDUE. Although I agree that the material should be covered here, I think it should be a shorter WP:SUMMARY STYLE, instead of the many-sectioned taxonomy. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The many sections, with barely anything in them, are completely unneeded. Jarble, the editor who added all of that, does this often -- makes unnecessary subheadings. If a topic also occurs in non-human animals, we should also have a section about that with any of the following titles: In other animals, Other animals, or In non-human animals or Non-human animals; only having it titled Animals gives the impression that humans are not animals. There are, of course, times when the section will need to be divided into subheadings; single-sentence paragraphs or a paragraph made up of a few sentences is not one of those needed cases. As Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs states, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading..." I don't like seeing a section divided up into subsections when the subsections barely have any text in them; such formatting often makes an article look much longer than it actually is, as is the case with the Animals section Jarble created. All we need is one section summarizing this text, unless the section requires some division (as in "divide when needed"). If there were an individual article about urination among non-human animals, then we'd of course have an even shorter summary and direct readers to the main article on that for the in-depth details.

I suggest asking Jarble to comment here about the Animals section he created. And since this article is also currently tagged as being within WP:MED's scope (and even if it was not, there can sometimes be a medical issue regarding urination), you may also want to contact them about weighing in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to reduce the number of unnecessary sections. Jarble (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have condensed several of the short sections, so the article will hopefully be easier to navigate now. Jarble (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I trust, therefore, that you won't object if other editors shorten it further. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If the article is to be shortened, then the deletion of reliably-sourced information should be avoided, if possible. In general, I consider the deletion of reliably-sourced information from Misplaced Pages to be counter-productive (although this is a matter of much controversy among inclusionists and deletionists). I still think it might be possible to word parts of this article more concisely, without removing any reliably-sourced information. Jarble (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking especially about shortening the parts that are already tagged as "citation needed", as well as finding ways of saying things more concisely. This isn't about WP:AFD (where inclusion and deletion are typically discussed), of course. My concerns, instead, are about WP:UNDUE. Also, since I think we have other pages that focus on some of the material, WP:SUMMARY STYLE is applicable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with these deletions by Tryptofish; I agree similarly for the reasons I stated in the following edit summaries two days ago:. It should go without saying that not everything about a topic is always going to be mentioned in an article; not even most of the time. Covering every aspect, the ones that require due weight, is more important. Whether or not more, or specifically a lot more, should be mentioned about whatever topic is a case-by-case matter. Also for the record, I feel that the current size of the section (seen in that first diff-link I provided) is fine as it is. But I also don't object to Tryptofish cutting it down a bit further. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll be guided by that, in terms of how far I should go. I'm not sure when I'll get around to it, so anyone else should feel free to go first. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

There's only two citation-needed tags. The rest of the tags are further-explanation-needed tags...and one clarify tag. That's another thing I disagree with Jarble on, because it's usually not clear what he feels needs clarification (though he sometimes leaves a note within the tag about what he wants clarified) and because the sources themselves usually don't clarify further. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to explain what needs to be clarified wherever the "clarification needed" tag is used, but I'm not sure which tag I should use for statements that require additional citations (if the statements are already cited). Jarble (talk)

I wasn't aware that you use the WP:Watchlist feature, Jarble. Since you weren't contacted about this discussion, it appears that you do. Either that, and/or you check talk pages without a watchlist having brought it to your attention. Flyer22 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I changed the heading to include the word "other", per above. Such a heading can also be seen at WP:MOSMED. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

1. George Devereux (1976). Dreams in Greek tragedy: an ethno-psycho-analytical study. University of California Press. p. 237. ISBN 0-520-02921-6. Retrieved 5 April, 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
2. John Masters (1956). Bugles and a tiger: a volume of autobiography. Viking Press. p. 190. Retrieved 5 April, 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
3. Donald F. Featherstone (1973). Colonial small wars, 1837-1901. David & Charles. p. 9. ISBN 0-7153-5711-5. Retrieved 5 April, 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
4. Charles Miller (1977). Khyber, British India's north west frontier: the story of an imperial migraine. Macdonald and Jane's. p. 359. ISBN 0-354-04167-3. Retrieved 5 April, 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
5. Donald Sydney Richards (1990). The savage frontier: a history of the Anglo-Afghan wars. Macmillan. p. 182. ISBN 0-333-52557-4. Retrieved 5 April, 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
6. Charles Chenevix Trench (1985). The frontier scouts. Cape. ISBN 0-224-02321-7. Retrieved 5 April, 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
7. H. S. Mahle (1985). Indo-Anglian fiction: some perceptions : including some lectures on Karnadʾs Tughlaq. Jainsons Publications. p. 24. Retrieved 5 April, 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
8. John Clay (1992). John Masters: a regimented life. the University of Michigan: Michael Joseph. p. 62. ISBN 0-7181-2945-8. Retrieved 5 April, 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
9. John Masters (June 13, 2002). Bugles and a Tiger. Cassell Military (June 13, 2002). p. 190. ISBN 0-304-36156-9. Retrieved 5 April, 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
10. Robert E. L. Masters, Eduard Lea (1963). Perverse crimes in history: evolving concepts of sadism, lust-murder, and necrophilia from ancient to modern times. Julian Press. p. 211. Retrieved 5 April, 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
11. Robert E. L. Masters, Eduard Lea (1963). Sex crimes in history: evolving concepts of sadism, lust-murder, and necrophilia, from ancient to modern times. Julian Press. p. 211. Retrieved 5 April, 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content