Talk:Pissing contest

Celtic lore

I think the Irish (female) story is in one of the Ulster Cycle articles but I haven't located it yet. Biscuittin (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Found it, it's Derbforgaill in the story Tochmarc Emire. Biscuittin (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, wrong Derbforgaill. It should be Derbforgaill, wife of Lugaid Riab nDerg. Biscuittin (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Figurative v. literal

If a 'pissing contest' is defined by the article to literally be a contest involving urination then the article cannot also describe the other uses of the term; because the wikipedia is not a dictionary- articles are not about terms. OTOH if you define it to be about pointless ego-contests, then urination contests are just a special case, which is OK.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pissing contests are figurative and literal competitions. The two meanings are not unrelated, but closely integrated. You've been reverted a couple of times now. If you'r like to change the article so it is only about the literal meaning please seek wider consensus to do so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you've failed to grasp the point twice now. The point is:

1. in encyclopedias right at the top of the article it has to define the overall topic
2. anything not specified by that topic is off-topic and needs to be removed (or the topic changed).

If you define the topic as a urination contest at the top; then the figurative uses are gone, because the wikipedia is not a dictionary- it is not about the term.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a subjective interpretation of the policy, that I and others disagree with. Please please stop presenting it as Unassailable Fact or The Only Truth. Many editors believe there is a deserved place for lexicographical information, within the encyclopedia articles. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, if there's more than one of you... FWIW I don't have a problem with lexicographical information at all, it just has to not overlap with wiktionary or other dictionaries. Because that's the policy.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a dicdef. Wikt:pissing contest is a dicdef. This is an encyclopedic treatment of a phrase. How is that not clear? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Another source for definition

[1] I will wait until after the present disruption to add it in. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC) [2] not sure it's very significant. But a literal P.C. is noted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wolf

Why is the scene in this film described as a literal pissing contest when only one person pisses? Epbr123 (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what the source calls it. I thought about putting it in quotes. Perhaps it can be said that it was a literal and figurative pissing match? Is there better wording? I didn't want to take too much liberty with any rephrasing of what the source said. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Anyone want to work up a nom? Or is this subject too riskee? The Celtic bits about a female pissing contest is rather novel. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say don't push your luck. Biscuittin (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of dicdef box

Another editor has added it. I'm the second editor (I think) to remove it. This is the box: {{dicdef}}

It simply doesn't seem to apply to an article that discusses the practice, not just the phrase. We have information in this article that would be just inappropriate for a dictionary but appropriate for an encyclopedia. The box also appears to be WP:POINTy in that this point has been discussed at the current AfD and there is no consensus that this article is properly considered a definition. There is a box at the top of this talk page pointing to a whole WikiProject about Etymology, indicating that -- even if this article were only about the use and history of the metaphor -- articles on notable phrases are acceptable in Wikipedia provided they get encyclopedic treatment. Simply including a definition and information on the metaphor shouldn't, by itself, disqualify the article as a proper encyclopedia topic. JohnWBarber (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a hidden agenda here. I suspect that some editors are using technical arguments to get the article deleted because they regard it as obscene. If they think it is obscene, why don't they just say so? Biscuittin (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with that conclusion. The editors who regularly delete information that they deem "dictionary info" don't restrict themselves to obscene titles. See this thread, and those above it, and many of that page's archives. They simply have a different interpretation of the NAD policy - one that I view as exceptionally aggressive (verging on extreme m:deletionism/m:exclusionism). However, I do suspect that they are picking at the low-hanging fruit, both because it is easier to push through changes there, and in an attempt to create precedent for further deletions. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not the only person to suspect this and I wrote my entry above before I had read the quote below:

"It ought also to consider the implications of deleting this article on the many articles on Latin legal phrases, which really are nothing more than dictionary definitions. One can't help but wonder why so many haven't pursued them to the grave; could it possibly have anything to do with a certain puritan distaste for the vulgar? Surely not. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)"

From: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pissing contest Biscuittin (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Who are you calling a fucking puritan Fats? ;-)- Wolfkeeper 01:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Among females

I have restored the refs to photos. Why should they be regarded as unreliable? The second one could be posed but the first one certainly isn't. Biscuittin (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt really show that women can urinate standing up "almost as easily" as men. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 12:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've removed that bit. Biscuittin (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

1. The images are not great sources for a few reasons. Content-wise - the first shows almost no control, and the second is completely unclear as to what it is depicting. WP:RS-wise - I can't readily find any information on 'using images as sources'.
2. However, there should be plenty of information on the web about females peeing whilst standing. Apparently Herodotus mentioned it![3] (One of the very few useful looking sources in Urination#Female urination) I don't have the time/inclination to search right now, but searching for "pinch" methods might help, to get a more WP:RS version of the information at http://www.wikihow.com/Urinate-Standing-up-As-a-Female
3. There are also many Female urination devices. Surely a journalist somewhere has used one of these in a pissing contest?

Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Duration?

The article defines pissing contests as measuring distance, height, and/or accuracy. I agree with all that, but think duration should also be included. My source is a men's room wall above the urinals which contained something like:

Long Pee Contest
75 seconds Chris, Mar. 12
89s Alan, May 24
1m40s, Robert June 3

I'm proud to say that I had my stopwatch and my sharpie with me that day, and was able beat the then current high score and add my name to the wall of fame. I realize that this may not be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. (It may not even be a verifiable source. I haven't visited that restroom in a while and the record book may have been painted over.) Nevertheless, this is true, and I think the article should be expanded to include this version of a pissing contest.

69.208.7.129 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How is this Wikipedia entry notable, exactly?

Are contests nationally televised? Is there a degree of difficulty involved? How about illicit substances: are contestants tested for the presence of alcohol or caffeine in their systems before they are allowed to participate? Is there an entry for "longest piss" in the Guinness Book of World Records?

Jesus.

Do we need a Wikipedia entry for throwing spitballs too?

There already is an article on Spitballs. As to your other questions: I have not seen a contest televised; there is some difficulty involved depending on the specific contest; contestants are not usually tested (and alcohol and caffeine are often involved). I do not believe there is an entry in the GBoWR for longest piss. Nor is this an Olympic event, although it may be some day. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

pissing contests in the natural world

Using lobsters as an example of pissing contests in the animal world is pretty obscure. I think it is more likely that the phrase and the activity references the dog's habit of urinating to mark territory. A common sight familiar to dog owners is the spectacle of one dog peeing over the spot where another dog has just urinated. 68.198.13.18 (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)