Jump to content

Talk:Urolagnia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hitler...?

Yeah that hitler thing is a LIE. Just because you dont like what he did doesnt mean you have to lie about him. I deleted it btw.

The quote's back in there. The source is: Infield, Glenn B. Eva and Adolf New York:1974 Grosset and Dunlap, Page 50. We know [http://www.amazon.com/Eva-Adolf-Glenn-B-Infield/dp/0448013258 Glenn Infield] is a liar.

>>> "removed so it can't be copied" [1].<<<

This sounds rather... and the citation leads no where.

Negative Image

If there are no objections, I'm going to change the quotes from saying "so and so admitted to doing such and such." Admission implies wrong doing or embarassment, niether of which are the case here. This should also help clear up some of the inherent negativity of the article. 68.158.106.192 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Can we have some pictures please? --131.111.8.96 11:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think pictures of watersports can be found easily enough on Google and Fleshbot that it is not necessary to put them as part of an article on Wikipedia, since they would not further the informational value of the article more than an iota.

I would say no to pictures of some of the more disparaging acts, however, if something could be found that was related.. 68.158.106.192 06:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 

: Wouldn't really add to the article.

There is a video used as a cite for Rockbitch in the Notables Section. Is this different then a picture used for demonstration purposes? 02:18, 7 July 2006 (FHU)

Allergy

I removed this, substituting a reference to "skin rashes":

There may also be secondary effects, such as an allergic reaction in the skin of individuals sensitive to urine.

IMO, anyone allergic to urine has a very serious condition not particularly relevant to urolagnia: internal exposure is unavoidable except by (i suppose) "kidney" dialysis! Allergy means an immune reaction. Someone might be allergic to certain people's urine, bcz of substances in it that are not inherant to urine. More likely, what is referred to here is IMO some kind of chemical damage to the skin, similar to that produced by bleach or "harsh" detergents; those who are described as "allergic" may heal such damaged skin more slowly than others, or may just have had a heavier recent exposure.

I could be mistaken, but if so, IMO it's worth documenting. --Jerzy(t) 04:37, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

Safety Issues

Rereading more carefully, i have removed to here the entire existing health discussion, namely

In contrast to practices such as coprophagia, it is generally considered harmless, as in healthy individuals urine is sterile. However, a small risk exists if there is disease present, or bacterial infection of the urethra. There may also be secondary effects, such as skin rashes in individuals sensitive to urine.

I am not qualified to write a discussion this detailed, but i know enough to know this one ignores some facts and IMO is therefore suspect as a whole, in an area where misinformation is dangerous and where there is personal motivation for exaggerating safety. I have substituted a much more cautious statement. I assume a less cautious and more useful one can be prepared, but first document on this talk page any stronger statements of safety. --Jerzy(t) 14:24, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

Removed from article:

Urine is inherantly toxic, as suggested by the evolution of the body's elaborate mechanisms for concentrating and excreting it. Therefore it is false to make blanket statements that absence of infection ensures harmless ingestion; ingestion by a person with reduced kidney function would multiply danger. Various urolagnic activities may also be secondary effects, such as skin rashes in individuals sensitive to urine.

Unlinke Jerzy, I am qualified to discuss this matter, having been a trained and practiced sexuality educator for the past five years.

Although urine contins body wastes, it is not toxic if ingested. The body's filtration system will send the wastes back to the kidneys for removal. One can ingest a toxic dose of concentrated urine or urea, just as one can ingest a toxic dose of caffeine or juice or anything else that is relatively harmless in moderate amounts. - UtherSRG 14:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that's pretty convincing, as long as you'll also confirm that people kidney disease are either to sick to want to participate to a sufficient extent to be harmed, or sure to have been warned by their doctors.
I would guess this talk page won't end up growing to where it needs archiving, but i would hope that if it does get archived, at least a summary of this discussion will be kept on the talk page itself. I'm making a section out of it, to facilitate that. --Jerzy(t) 23:00, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Yes, in fact, UREA is threapeutic for some forms of cancer.. and there is a rich, long, asian tradition of urine ingestion daily to restore health. [this is pretty significant.] Can someone look this up and add?

Dispelling jokes and myths

"Male porcupines use urine to soften the females' quills before mating." And thus, all the jokes about procupines mating are dispelled.




--Why is the contents list almost at the bottom of the page? Bob the Pirate 23:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It isn't. It's at the top.


Hepatitis

In contrast to practices such as coprophagia, it is generally considered harmless, as in healthy individuals urine is sterile. However, a small risk exists if there is disease present, or bacterial infection of the urethra. There may also be secondary effects, such as skin rashes in individuals sensitive to urine.

I think it should be made more clear that one can get STDs, like hepatitis, from urine (this is true no?). Some people might take the part about it generally being considered harmless taken together with "a small risk exists if a disease is present" to mean that IF a person has an STD, like hepatitis, then it is only a small risk of acquiring it--which I don't think is true, hepatitis is usually transmited through urine and feces if I'm not mistaken. --Brentt 05:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an important distinction. The risk in general might be small, but if the partner is known to have a particular disease, then the risk might be significant. Eg, normally the risk of getting struck by lightning is low, but the risk is quite high if you insist on flying a kite during a thunder storm. More information is needed. 58.107.87.183 07:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Expansion Project Scrapped

I wanted to split the main paragraph into subsections based on types of practices. Each section would give in detail the how and “why” of this practice. I felt that the sections were not ready to go into the main article and asked for help. Two problems arose. The main one is as the article states there is minimal scientific research into this topic. I drew tentative conclusions based on eight years of reading internet message boards etc. Although I clearly stated what I was doing it is not the policy Wikipidia to bridge this knowledge gap due to the ban on Original Research. The other problem was due to the nature of the topic the normal vetting process that might have made the article acceptable did not take place. 13:25, 11 March 2006 (FHU)

What 'normal vetting process' is that? As one who did read and comment on your suggestions, I just feel that (the OR aspect aside) it's just too easy to fall into the trap of losing objectivity in the subject and ending up adding material that appears intended to titillate rather than inform. Graham 23:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Doubtful, very doubtful. There are specific differences in these here, and ought to have their own subsections. In fact, I find it very important that they be separated.

Well... maybe not subsections, but at least a clear distinction. It looks like we're taking everything and piling it all up into one thing, and it's main focus appears to be the drinking of urine. This should not be.

MOST Urolagnia fantasies do not include the drinking of urine at all, and is in fact not very popular. Writers of this article are turning it into something bigger than what it really is.

"Other variations include arousal from wetting or seeing someone else wet their pants or underclothes, or wetting the bed." -- this should strictly be the other way around. The article fails to include the tickling part of things, undressing while wetting, and does not emphasize that females are usually the ones doing the wetting and the guys looking on or urinating on them.

Urinating while completely nude is amongst the top of popularity. On a lower and tasteful scale along with that comes female urination in undergarments, a top favorite, and the lesser favorite, purposeful accidents while fully clothed (which includes the desperation. In fact, while in desperation, some refer to it as a dance.

You don't really need or require more research. You have an addict right here. Colonel Marksman 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my basic points which were that my words were not ready to go into the main article for several reasons. While the long time observations of two addicts have some value it is not equivalent to a real scientific study. And the basics of should there be sections or subsections and what should be in them have not were not vetted enough. Since you have unscrapped the project remember my subsections remain in the archives. My purpose from the beginning was to improve the article so I am always willing to help. 20:00, 2 April 2006 (FHU)
  • Ok, ok, ok, I see what you are saying, but I am basing a lot of this off of the great number of websites available. If you want a statistical study of most or all of these sites, you will find most of what I say pretty accurate. You can also look at stories, videos, pics, etc. on this stuff. It obviously wouldn't be a specific scientific study, but you could still get in some statistics. Colonel Marksman 19:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I could do that but that would directly violate the Wikipedia policy against Original Research. A case could be made that due the lack of scientific research there should be an exception to the rule here. I felt that way for awhile but changed my mind. Remember there are links to websites in the article. 2:08, 5 April 2006 (FHU)

Main section too negative

The article implies that for most people who have this fetish their sex lives are messes up due to this fetish and therefore they are in need of deprogramming. In 2006 is deprogramming recommended for all who practice this? For only those whom it causes problems for? Or anybody?. 11:58 14 March 2006 (FHU)

I reverted the additions that make these points. They are POV, inaccurate and smack of a personal perspective or original research. Besides, we know what a 'fetish' is, so it's not necessary to spell it out again. Graham 23:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It might not have been necessary to take the whole deprogramming thing out I am sure people become addicted to Urolagnia as people become addicted to anything else. The fact that the article said attempts at deprogramming have been unsuccessful implies that the person who put it there had a legitimate reason to do so. My objection was more point of view and the fact that it needed more detail or a citation or so (If deprogramming is used or recommended in 2006) 17:41, 16 March 2006 (FHU)
Changed "tendency to be sexually aroused by smelling urine soaked pants or body parts [thighs,knees,etc.] that usually become contaminated by urine when a person wets himself" to "tendency to be sexually aroused by smelling urine soaked clothes or body parts". The word "contaminated" is a POV word. 20:12, 2 April 2006 (FHU)


I am a real enthusiast, & in my experience for most folks drinking it is the ultimate pleasure.

R. Kelly

Should R. Kelly be added to this page? Katana3333 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I already removed an earlier attempt to add him here. While this might be linked from there, it's not notable enough to be added here. Graham 05:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Notables Section

What is the R. Kelly reference about? 04:14, 8 May 2006 (FHU)

The Wikipedia Page on Chuck Berry shows this

In 1990, Berry was sued by several women who claimed that he had installed a video camera in the ladies' bathrooms at two of his St. Louis restaurants. A class action settlement was eventually reached with 59 women on the complaint; Berry's biographer Bruce Pegg estimated that it cost Berry over $1.2 million plus legal fees. A Miami distributor is currently marketing video footage purporting to show Berry urinating on a young woman in a bathtub. Although the voice heard sounds similar Berry's face is never visible on the tape making his positive identification impossible.[1]

I am not sure if he belongs in this section or not. I am leaning against putting him in based on this. If I was forced to bet my house on it I would bet that he is an urophile. The fact that he did settle while making him look very guilty is not proof that he is quilty. And even if there is solid evidence he put the camera in the bathroom the motive might have been to see nudity not urination. 04:26, 8 May 2006 (FHU)


This whole section is questionable. For instance, there's no evidence that Shirley Manson is actually a urophile - her quotation is probably not meant literally or seriously, and song lyrics are evidence of nothing. Annie Sprinkle, OK, seemingly no problem there - but then it might just be her act. She includes many other things in her act such as using a speculum to show her cervix, which has nothing to do with this. My view is that where someone has come right out and said that this is their thing, then perhaps the article on that person might link back here, but I really don't see how a list of people here is useful in any real way - it's just sub-Sunday paper type titillation for the feeble minded. Graham 09:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia articles have a section similar to this. The title name might have to be changed. A new title might be “Notable Urolgnia Proponents” but that would exclude somebody saying “I am into it but to each his own”. So eventually this might be divided into subsections. But it has to start somewhere and I feel that the nature of the topic should not exclude this section or should cause this article to be judged by a higher standard then that of others dealing with a less salacious topic. The decision to put in or leave things out should not be based on what we think the reader’s intent is.

As far as Shirley Manson quote goes yes it is possible she said it as a joke or to sell records. Every quote cited in the history of Wikipedea has that type of question surrounding it. I doubt you would ever get an interview that goes like this. “Are you into Urolagnia?”. “Yes my preference is for the golden shower variation” . So you have to go by the old but flawed what a reasonable person would think. She says it in an article titled “Sex 2000 “ and not only does she say it but she puts a context of being into bodily fluids in general. Then she puts in a song lyric. Together it seems pretty reasonable to conclude she is a urophile. 13:45, 8 May 2006 (FHU)

Changed this section to stub status. 15:34, 8 May 2006 (FHU)

Drawing such conclusions from such flimsy evidence would appear to contradict WP:OR. Graham 12:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Well then I guess I am really stupid because short of following the women over a three year period I have no idea what it would take to prove a she is a urophile. 01:47, 10 May 2006 (FHU)


Put citation needed for both Jim Norton and Rockbitch. There is nothing in the Jim Norton description that has anything to do with urolagnia. The Rockbitch description claims urination as part of their act but gives no proof. Quick research finds that a “golden condom” is thrown out to members of the audience. The members that catch the condoms get sex backstage. The “gold” in the condom may be urine but may also be the sex backstage. 02:12, 10 May 2006 (FHU)

Dunno anything about Jim Norton, but in adding Rockbitch I'm not referring to the golden condom. Many of their past shows have included members of the band urinating directly on the audience. They may still do this. I'll see if I can track down a citation. Graham 09:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, well that wasn't hard. The first link I googled returned this: [2]. You have to read down a bit. Graham 09:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's another, this time a video clip. [3]. Need I go on? Graham 09:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Good find 00:01 22 May 2006 (FHU)

Some common variations of Urolagnia Section

This section at this time is Original Research. The issues relevant to this are discussed above in "expansion project scrapped". I understand that this is a low traffic site and that is why instead of deleting the section I put a citation needed statement and have left the section in for a month or two. But at some point soon citations should be put in or a convincing argument needs to be made as to why this section should not be deleted 03:56, 11 June 2006 (FHU)

Not sure how this is OR. Any perfunctory look at a porn site or browse though erotica will see significant subcultures related to all these themes. Are you arguing that these things exist or??Bridesmill 03:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on reading those sites since 1997 and by being a regular poster on the Message board of the clothing wetting site linked in the article from 2000-2003 when it was a more general Urolagnia board I basically agree that what is stated that section is correct. What is needed are citations where a reputable authority says they are true. Citing individual postings are not enough. Writing that section based on my reading and participation on those boards is the definition of Original Research which is the major no no in Wikipedia. If a reputable sexologist or journalist does the research and I cite it that is fine. To my personal regret this has rarely if at all been done. But as I stated in the other section this is not the fault of Wikipedia. 02:15, 16 June 2006 (FHU)

Not sure if the OR issue applies here; OR would imply sorting through individual posts or doing investigative reseaarch; in this case, anyone could do a simple google and find this. I'll dig for some cites, but what is the line between common knowledge and OR? (Believe it or not, on another page, someone was insisting on a cite for the statement "no one is gramatically singular"...)Bridesmill 16:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is a grey area. The Wikipedia article on original research does not mention message boards. The closest mention would be “records of field observations” which could be interpreted as similar to a message board post. What it does say is specifically in the “Why Original research is excluded” section is that editors “personal analysis or interpretation of published material” is specifically excluded. I believe this accurately describes how this section is currently written. As far as common knowlege I would agree that the voyeurism aspect is fairly well known due to news reports but I doubt the desperation aspect is common knowlege. 02:36, 19 June 2006 (FHU)


Sorry but this section is still Original Research and citations are still needed. I do not want an edit war so if you take the citations needed thing out again I will not put it back in. Which would be a shame because this "pussing" thing is new to me and I would be very interested in reading more about it. 03:53, 11 July 2006 (FHU)

Urolagnia

I am about to marry a gentleman who has confided to me that he has practiced urolagnia -- wetting his clothing -- for many years. He does not know why he started it or continues to do so and has said he wants to stop. I believe he wants to stop. Does anyone know of someone who was able to discontinue this practice successfully and what method was used? Thank you for any insight into this issue. Hortens 03:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and thus the purpose here is to give the basic facts as to what urolagnia is. Another words this is not the proper place to have this question answered. However on the bottom of the article there is a section called “External Links”. Many of those links will take to websites where that question is an important topic of discussion. Some of those links will take you to message boards where many members will be glad to discuss your specific case. 03:11, 14 August 2006 (FHU)

Rockbitch

I had to take the link out to the video I used as a cite because it no longer worked. The Google lookups I did only produced message board references and not an article or review describing the on stage golden showers that were part of their act 69.114.117.103 07:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (FHU)

Robter Cormier book taken out

The entry for Robter Cormier book has been deleted. Just because as in this case a character in a book wets himself or even a character is into urolagnia does not necessarily mean the author is a urolagniac. Stephen King has been a subject of speculation in the urolagnia community for years but no proof has emerged of his predisposition so no entry. The Borat entry was taken out for the same reason. Discussion of should there be a section devoted to depictions of urolagnia in the arts is a topic for another thread. 69.114.117.103 19:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (FHU)

Is it Urolagnia or Urolgnia?

The article spells it the former way Microsoft Word suggests a correction towered the latter and Firefox 2.0 likes none of the spellings. 69.114.117.103 19:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (FHU)

Bye Bye Pussing

So the Pussing section gets deleted because because of a July discussion claiming the practice is not notable and the cite is not reliable yet all the other practices remain without any cite at all. Just goes to show there are many things in life I will never understand 69.114.117.103 06:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (FHU)

The Hidden Cameras taken out of notables section

According to the cite they flatly deny the song is about this topic. "People have a tendency to refer to the song 'Golden Streams' as 'Golden Showers,' but that's not what it's called. And it tells me what they're thinking. But the song isn't really about anything sexual - it's about building an architectural device to get to heaven using frozen piss.". As said above mere suspicion the person is into this is not enough 69.114.117.103 19:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU)

Oh so it's about "building an architectural device to get to heaven using frozen piss."? Oh Right. We all recognize that aspiration don't we? Don't you think that the comment in this interview might be just a little bit satirical given the well-known sexual content of his lyrics?[4] Paul B 19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree based on the pattern you described one might deduce that he is a raving urophiliac that feels the need to deny it. One can also deduce that he views urine as normal part of life without any sexual connotations that he is having a bit of fun with. Another interpretation is that since most view urine as waste he wrote a song about "building an architectural device to get to heaven using frozen piss" as a statement of irony. Wikipedia is not here to try to read between the lines. Doing that is Original Research and Original Research is the biggest no no here. Debating which celebrity is giving a "wink" to a knowing audience the a fun thing that is best done on the message boards listed in the article. The facts are the man flatly denied any sexual connotation so he should be deleted 69.114.117.103 08:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU)
But there was no "original research". The section is fully footnoted and gives all points of view, including the heavenly-tower-of-piss explanation. That's the antithesis of OR as defined by Wikipedia. BTW, "recognise" is the correct spelling of the word in British English. Paul B 08:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
True everything is cited and the denial is listed.The original research is done by you in deducing that this band is a "Notable urophiliac" based on "the comment in this interview might be just a little bit satirical given the well-known sexual content of his lyrics".Truth be told I agree with you in that I THINK he is a urophiliac. A person does not belong on the list based on our THEORY. 69.114.117.103 06:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU)
There is no ban on "original research" on Talk pages! It is not our theory, but a widespread interpretation of the song. There is a case for renaming the section "notable and claimed urophiliacs" or something similar. After all Rembrandt is rather unlikely to have been one in reality (though that's only included here as Ellis's speculation). Paul B 10:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Putting in any type of claim or interpretation is dicey for this format.It will open a hornets nest as to what is a "credible claim"(In this case the most credible person is denying it). That is why most Wikipedia articles deal with proven facts. There are exceptions to the rule the 9/11 conspiracy theories article jumps to mind but some celebrity's proclivity for urolagnia is not of the social and political import as the 9/11 stuff. 69.114.117.103 06:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU)
No that's not the case with works of art, literature etc. Giving accounts of interpretations is perfectly normative. It's precisely what encyclopedias do - for example the discussion of possible motives for Iago. Paul B 07:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
While encyclopedias may give accounts of interpretations it is not the usual policy to give an interpretation that the artist has flatly denied. But you did not do what the person who wrote the the "Othello" article did "lago also plays an undeniably important role. For one, he speaks more lines than Othello. It is also Iago who manipulates all other characters at his will, trapping them in an intricate net of lies. A. C. Bradley—and more recently Harold Bloom—have been major advocates of this interpretation.Other critics, most notably in the later twentieth century (after F. R. Leavis), have focused on Othello." 69.114.117.103 08:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU)
Another idea and this is stretching it would be to write a line at the beginning of this section or a separate section devoted to depiction of urolagnia in the arts that looks like this "While it has become a popular pastime in the urolagnia community to speculate which celebrity has this proclivity (message board cite),(message board cite) this section only lists people who have confirmed their proclivity" or "have depictions that meet the strict definition of urolagnia as part of their artistic expression". With this unless you have a question I for now end my part in this discussion. I do not think you or me can add anything new at this point. Hopefully somebody else jumps in with a fresh perspective or suggestion at which point I might jump back in. I have a life and am not going spend the rest of it deleting the section it so you can put it right back in. I do hope you reconsider the validity of this section. 69.114.117.103 08:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU)
By the way, I did not write or add this section. I merely formatted it after it was added by Summerbell. I like it because it is well written and constructed. I am not sure what point you are making about the Iago page. It is unreasonable to expect that major literaary critics can be cited commenting on the lyrics in this case. Paul B 09:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The point is that the Othello page has a reputable cite for it's interpretation and that this page has none. While there won't be literary critic confirming this since the interviewer is asking this question the interviewer has to be getting that interpretation from somewhere. Without this cite I am not unreasonable in assuming that interpretation is from Summerbell's original research?. If I live to be 85 years old and am still in a reasonable state of mind and I am reading this rhis article with this particular notable I will still not get what part of "Its not sexual" people do not understand 69.114.117.103 06:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU)
You answer your own question. Clearly the interviewer is getting the question from common interpretations of the song. While a citation for these interpretations would be desirable it is not reasonable to expect it to be easy to locate bacause of the nature of the subject - a part of recent popular culture debated by fans verbally and in weblists etc. I think we need to allow a bit of leeway in such cases otherwise the citation-obsessives will delete reference to anything on the grounds that it is not discussed in a peer-reviewed journal. This section is in fact better cited than almost anything else here. Paul B 11:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hidden Cameras (Cont)

If you read the above discussions I agree with you that the nature of the topic makes finding reputable cites difficult and there should be some leeway. But one should try and meet some basic standard and if it is difficult to bad. If the journalist can find this interpretation so could you. Agree or not message board or instant messaging cites are considered disreputable. You do not need a peer-reviewed journal just a music magazine or zine. But that misses the main point of why Hidden Cameras do not belong. The most reputable source you will find is not as reputable as the person who flatly denied it 69.114.117.103 18:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU)

Hitler?

Does anyone have a reference for the paragraph about Hitler? It was removed recently, and I'm wondering whether it was a fact, or just made up.

xCentaur |  talk  17:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The claims about Hitler originated with Otto Strasser, who was an ex-Nazi. Otto's brother Gregor, who had been a rival of Hitler's for the party leadership, had been murdered on Hitler's orders. Otto obviously had a grudge, so he's hardly reliable, though he certainly did know Geli. See Ron Rosenbaum's book Explaining Hitler for a detailed discussion of theories about Hilter's sexual practices. Paul B 01:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Alleged urophiliacs is a good idea

It does not need as strict a proof as notable. Just make sure that the standards are kept as strict as the the first two entries 69.114.117.103 06:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (FHU)

I feel the need arises because while an act may depict Urolgnia the artist who created it may not necessarily have that proclivity. Rockbitch and Cat Chaser would be moved from the notables to the new section for that reason. I would open the section declaring “This section lists depictions of activities that fall under the definition of urolagnia listed above or a depiction that the artist was quoted as saying the depiction was meant to "show" activities that fall under the above definition". I do intend to use the Patches “Pee movie list” as a cite. It is a for profit website that does sell “porn” but that section itself I feel is unbiased and not directly related to the selling. A sticky issue is a situation like Shirley Manson who has stated a proclivity and has a depiction(“happy hours Golden Showers”) in her song. I have not found a cite that specifically says that she meant that line as a depiction. It is a very logical assumption that given her statements that she meant it as a depiction but me or you assuming that is Original Research. Despite that I strongly lean towered keeping the quote and song lyrics in the notables section to prevent the reader from having to look in two places. The first movies that I intend to put in are “Last House on the Left” “Vice Squad”,”Holy Smoke” and the recent Borat. Howard Stern has had his microphone follow desperate women into the bathroom several times and had Wetset models do a demonstration on his show in the late 1990’s. But I feel cites would be hard to come by so I ask for help from the hardcore Stern fans out there. Due to the low traffic for this article I will wait a week or two before adding this section to the article. I will add this section in if there is no reaction to this proposel after a “reasonable” amount of time. 69.114.117.103 07:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (FHU)

  • Since there were no objections I added the section. I am a bit unhappy with the wording of the introduction to the section and request some help with that. The request is still open for Howard Stern cites. I think he belongs but have not started research on it yet. 69.114.117.103 00:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC) (FHU)
Moved MC Frontalot up to be with his fellow musical acts and added that he coined the term nerdcore hip hop. Movies, Music acts should be listed together. Also very brief descriptions of what the artist does. A wide variety of people read this and everybody will not know an artist that to the poster would be obvious. As a middle aged person I was not familiar with the rapper or nerdcore but found the Wikipedia articles on the subjects an interesting read. Anyway good find. Also I am glad for the interest in this section and feel we are off to a good beginning 69.114.117.103 23:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC) (FHU).

After editor took out "The Cook The Thief The Wife and Her Lover" saying it was humiliation I took out "The Last House on the Left" for consistency. But this needs to be fleshed out. Sadism even to the point of being criminal is a factor for some urolagniacs 69.114.117.103 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC) (FHU)

Tycho Brahe

A new edit was added for this person saying that he died because he held his urine at a dinner for to long. However the Wikipedia article about him say that recent studies have suggested he died from mercury poisoning. For me this means that the new addition should be taken out however for now I just added that information to the article because it keeps the article factual and it is my assumption that people look at the main article more then the discussion pages. 69.114.117.103 00:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC) (FHU)

Changes

Added a Wikipedia link for Omorashi. GREAT FIND. As a person with a lifelong proclivaty to that side of things and having read many message board postings on this topic I had never heard of the word.

Added to the depictions section a song by Hole “20 Years the Dakota” with a reference to “pee girl”

A brief search of Tommie John, Anton Bird recently added to the notables section revealed no references. Eventually a cite will be needed. 69.114.117.103 08:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (FHU)

James Joyce

The Patches Pee Movie list description for the movie "James Joyce's Women" states that Joyce liked to watch women relieve themselves. He might be a candidate for the alleged or notable urophiliacs section. But a Wikipedia and Google search leads to no more references so I am not adding him at this point without more proof 69.114.117.103 05:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (FHU)

Humm. There's a scene in Ulysses in which Bloom and Stephen urinate together, which is depicted as a "male bonding" moment, but that's all as far as I know. Paul B 10:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Should this be in ?

  • Maladolescenza - 1977 German-Italian Movie. Laura Lara Wendel is a 12-year-old girl who has gone out hiking with her boyfriend Fabrizio artin Loeb At one point he sneaks away from her. She looks for him for awhile and then finally decides that she needs to pee. She pulls her denim skirt up and her panties down and squats on a hillside by a waterfall, as Fabrizio secretly watches from above. Later, Laura is tormented by Fabrizio and his new girlfriend Silvia Eva Ionesco. They threaten to shoot her with an arrow unless she shows them how she pees. Under protest, she pulls her skirt up and squats but has trouble getting started peeing because she does not have to go. Suddenly a stream of liquid falls on her, and Silvia laughs as the camera reveals Fabrizio zipping up his pants after having peed all over Laura.

Review of DVD and discussion of film. [[5]] 69.114.117.103 06:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (FHU)

I decided to put it in. Wikipedia has articles for films such as Lolita and Pretty Baby that deal with underage situations. I will put the nature of the film in context and describe the scenes in general terms 69.114.117.103 05:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (FHU)

Removed Courtney Love reference

The song "20 Years in the Dakota" has nothing to do with a urine fetish. She refers to herself as "The Pee Girl" in that song because that was a (creepy) nickname her parents gave her when she was a little girl, because she wetted the bed. She makes two references to this nickname. In "20 Years in the Dakota" she sings, "Pee Girl burns to be the bride/Your ever lovely suicide." In "Softer, Softest" (off of the album Live Through This) she sings, "Pee girl gets the belt." The song is about child abuse. Nothing to do with a urine fetish. Best Friend with Benefits 08:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Images?

This article should have at least one image. Images greatly enhance articles, making them much more useful.TrevorLSciAct 01:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove items without giving a reason

I put back some of the my dipictions that were deleted. If a reason is given for deleting an item I will listen. When another editor deleted my item and said the the movie in question did not dipict urolagnia but pure humilition I agreed with the user and took out another movie with a similar theme. However if another editor deletes my edits without a reason I will assume it is for reasons of pure spite or ego and will put the item or items back as I see fit. 69.114.117.103 05:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (FHU)

Currently this section is listed by the type of popular art such as Television or Movies and then by year. This is not set in stone and can be changed after a discussion in these talk pages. For the last little while most editors have making additions by putting the new addition at the top of the list forcing unnecessary extra work. Most of us take time from our busy lives and do this as a labor of love. This type of laziness makes this task more labor and less love. (FHU) 69.114.117.103 06:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Team America World Police

I was just wondering where the scene referenced for the movie Team America: World Police was. I've watched the DVD version and the scene in question and I haven't seen any watersports. Is it on a special edition? I'd like to see that scene. I love the movie. Sukima 15:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not referenced in the Patches Place Pee Movie List so I will have to put a citation needed warning (FHU) 69.114.117.103 06:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It was cut in order to get the film an R certificate rather than a NC-17 cert in the USA. The video of the uncut scene is floating around various video sharing sites, but they don't meet WP:RS. I'm not certain if any of the DVD versions have the uncut scene. Exxolon 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out in the article the list is now very lengthy. Should the list be split from the article ? 69.114.117.103 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Example of a Wikipedia Link List of New Wave bands and artists 69.114.117.103 23:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC) (FHU)

I noticed that the modifying of this section in the main article occurred after the two attempts to remove this section without consensus or comments. I take this as a show of support for this section and am very much appreciative. Also I noticed there has been no reaction to the suggestion in the article or above to move the section to a Wikipedia list. Hard to know what to make of it but as of now since there is no consensus to move it will stay where it is. For now is the operative word. Your comments and suggestions are not only wanted but needed to make this a better article. Thanks again for your support 69.114.117.103 16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC) (FHU)
It's way too long. Move to a list. Paul B 12:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed all uncited examples. Each example added should have individual citation. A blanket: "All movie depictions are from the Patches Place "Pee Movie List" [6] unless otherwise noted," is not sufficient citation when anyone can add uncited examples to the list.207.69.137.41 02:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Using the current definition "derive sexual pleasure from urine and urination" - Do any of the cited references in popular culture actually apply for this article? I am not sure that 'sexual pleasure' is inherrently part of any of the items. Sure someone with Urolagnia might recieve sexual pleasure from viewing the particular item, unless the 'sexual pleasure' part is an inherent part of the reference itself, it is a record of peeing and the 'Urolagnia' connection is subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.29 (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Brian Eno

Removed a reference to him per WP:BLP. It was sourced to a personal website or what seemed to be an unreliable source, original research.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting the use of cites from the Pee Movie List

If you look discussion above for the Depictions for the popular arts I stated that I was going to use that source. I stated the pros and cons for using that source. With no objections I used it. Since January 2006 I have added many depictions and other editors have contributed as well. While no whole sections should be deleted at one editors whim just because it has always been there does not mean it always should be there. The deletion of depictions from that source will leave only teo or three depictions remaining. I plead again for participation in these discussions. The non participation in these discussions has lead to editors doing things on a whim, edit wars and readers poorly served. 69.114.117.103 08:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

see above for reasoning - 'blanket citations' are NOT proper form in a context that anyone can add new uncited items to the list which a later reader would asume are covered by the 'blanket' citation. Only in-line citations should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.8 (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Done for that section. Might have to check other sections. Will deal with if depictions fit definitions after this issue settled 69.114.117.103 08:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the in-line citations! Now the effort should be to find the prime examples / those of 'historical/cultural significance'- rather than a dumping ground for every appearance of the subject. 207.69.137.10 20:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not know where you find a reliable source to make the distinction between important and non important depictions. I still think what I proposed above would best. Have a link on the bottom to a Wikipedia list. But it would be nice to get a consensus for such a move. 69.114.117.103 08:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not a fan of 'List' articles for items with very subjective content and no definitive number of entries. A 'category' is my preferred alternative since most of the items the proposed list have an article that can be flagged with the category.207.69.137.15 12:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Give a partial example of what that would look like for this article 69.114.117.103 03:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe something like:

One of the first portrayals of Urolagnia in commercial film was __________________. In such and such year BIG STAR BIG MOVIE BIG PUBLICITY surrounded _________________. THIS ASPECT OF Urolagnia was featured in X Flim.

Then go on to a paragraph about Urolagnia in print, and one about popular song and one about live performance.

The article would then place these 'popular culture' appearances within a context that would help illuminate the subject for the reader rather than a mind numbing list of everytime someone peed or mentioned peeing on camera.207.69.137.11 23:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have to think about it. Maybe I can do this in the main article and link to a list for those that want such a thing. There as far as I know has never been been big star big publicity for a a urolagnia scene. I did not use any "adult" films that is why I call it depictions in popular arts(Although adult films are popular) nor did I take any scene off the list just those that reasonable fit the urolognia definition. What has surprised me is that there were not more objections to the reliability of using the list. 69.114.117.103 23:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's nonsense, using this list as a citation. It's non-noteworthy, not reliable (you have to create an account to view any of the cites - a bozo no-no in WP). If you find more reliable citations or find some more noteworthy reason for including it, then we can proceed. I am pulling the entire section to the Discussion page until it gets the citation treatment it needs.

Removed Section

The following section was removed from the article because the citations were - pun intended - piss-poor. We need better citations than a registration for example movie list. First, we can only include truly noteworthy examples and then only truly reliable examples. maybe the efforts would be better spent on investigating why pee humor is funny.

Depictions in the popular arts

This list is limited to those depictions that depict activities that fall under the description of urolagnia listed above or where the person who created it explicitly stated that it was his or her intent to create a depiction that falls under the above guidelines. Depictions are American in origin unless otherwise noted.

This is NOT the place to discuss why pee humor is funny as the article is not about that topic. The efforts made on behalf of this section were NEVER about why pee humor is funny or about pee humor at all. Depictions were chosen based on whether they showed/described urolagnia period. The depictions chosen somethimes showed urolagnia in a humorous vain but that was irrelevant in the decision to choose them.

The real issue as it has been from day 1 is the use of the the patches place pee movie list. It is both piss poor cite and in my opinion based on the nature of the topic the by far best you are going to get. You are not exactly going find to many if any scholarly or popular media reviews on urolagnia in the popular arts to cite for "noteworthy" depictions. Without this and notable/alleged urophilliacs you will have a piss poor article. I think that this article should not be held to a stricter standard then other popular arts articles or lists. I look at articles for movies and I see blow by blow descriptions of the plot. Unless they have a copy of the script I would guess they those editors saw the movie and wrote the section based on that which would strictly speaking be original research. Due to the difficulty of obtaining the original scripts my guess is they settled for the best that can be done which I would hope we could come to a consensuses to do here. I do understand why you would feel otherwise but if you do I would ask you to not just complain but show me I am wrong and find better cites.

I really do not know what else I can say or due at this point I have given my reasons and have made a a suggestion above that I felt was best course of action. If you have a question of me I will answer you but I am done with this article for now. I wish you all luck in trying to come to a consensuses. If you are successful in that endeavor I would be glad to contribute again. (FHU) Nov 6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.117.103 (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could turn off the rant for a bit and actually address your issues here. You say the citation source is not very good and you used it anyway?? What's up with that? We don't do that here; if the citation isn't noteworthy, then we don't include the information. Period. End of story. Too bad and so sad, here's your hat, what's your hurry. I am sorry that you feel that this article is being held to higher standards than other articles. If anything, its recent handling indicates clearly the opposite. Those other articles that you feel are largely uncited were movies and the plots for films do not have to be cited. However, you will note thant everything else in those very same film articles is cited. If you had found a movie where they discussed how they were perpetrating urolagnia, that might be able to be included. However, I see none of that in the list. What I do see is a grand list of largely uncited information without a truly noteworthy connection tot he subject. We don't include uncited sources. We don't include a go-to list for urolagniacs to seek out those films which feed their fetish, as any one of a number of websites that compile lists of occasional famous female actor/model nudity. It isn't really all that encyclopedic. I am sorry that you are upset by the lists removal, but by your own admission, the material is poorly cited. Find a citation speaking about the fetish and the films in question, and you might have something includable. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
To Arcayne: I will retry and answer your "Whats up with that" question. I felt that was the best that could be done based on the nature of the topic. Should it have been done? We disagree. For most other topics I would not use a cite of that nature. Plots do not have to cited. Why?. This is not a sarcastic question I want to know it seems inconstant to me(I did notice sales figures for movies etc. were cited). Lists such are generally not cited. Take a list like List of disco artists (A-E). I might be wrong but it seems to me it was cherry picked based on a definition of disco. There are no cites. There are hyperlinks to the artist/band articles which at best might link to a reference a reputable source that said that band was in the disco genre. At least my stuff had some sort of cite. When I first came upon lists like these they did seem quite unencyclopedic to and to me they look like go to lists done for the convenience of disco fans/fetishists. So while I agree with with you that this article has been held to lower standards then most I do feel it is being held to a higher standard then instances similar to this situation. I am sure you still disagree with it but I hope you understand why I did it. (FHU) Nov 6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.117.103 (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. FHU. You say that you noted that there were articles that were as bad off as this one was. I agree that there are a great many articles that are easily as bad as this, if not worse. However, to not bother to try and fix them, and indeed to point to them as reason to not strive for better is akin to the saying: 'If you live in a world of shit, why bother wiping your ass?' I say, if you are disappointed with the quality of articles, go forth and improve them. Don't rise to their level of mediocrity and allow articles you work on to remain there. Make the community better by making articles better, so that someone else doesn't allow a dreckish article to remain that way by citing other examples of dreck.
You have also pointed out how this article appears to be subjected to more scrutiny than other articles. I am not sure if that were true, but the scatological nature of the article means that it is going to get a bit more attention than say, articles about sunshine and buttercups. I would again suggest that rather than decry how it is being held to a higher standard than perhaps some other article, it would seem to me a better use of one's time to aim for an improvement. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to the discussion. Wikipedia Guidelines are just that Guidelines not hard fast rules. I try and balance the need to conform to the guidelines with the need to get as much information as possible to the reader. Take MC Frontalot it was not my edit all though I did modify it a bit. I might have never heard of him or his genre nerdcore hiphop. If we followed strict guidelines I might know about him or what he does which I found very interesting. I have learned that many more movies had depictions then I suspected and I gained off topic information about them which in some cases made me go out and rent them. In the case of this topic in being online for over 10 years and offline for more years then I care to admit I have never seen an article discussing urolagnia in popular (non pornographic) arts. I have seen one article from about 5 years ago discussing the increase in urination scenes in movies in general. If I had seen something along those lines it would be something I defiantly would remember. Something might be out there but I do not have time to spend hundreds of hours going through databases or old microfiche. Most science I have seen that deals with urination is done to solve incontinence problems and the like. And while I have seen many articles dealing with sexuality that do mention the topic that is all they do. That is why I said said I have done all I can do. You or somebody else might work at a university and have better access to research materials or have the time or the willingness to spend the time needed or are a better researcher than I am. Also it was and never my intent to dominate the article and I have asked for more participation and consensus but the result has been the opposite. That is a big reason why article is the way it is. That is why at this point I have stop editing this article for now and get out of your and others way FHU Nov 7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.117.103 (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncited info

I see my contribution has been removed on the grounds that it is uncited. While this is true, I should like to point out that information about urolagnia is almost inevitably uncited and anecdotal because of the nature of the subject. Biscuittin 09:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliably sourced, verifiable secondary sources of information. In short, if it cannot be cited, it cannot be included. It is an encyclopedia, after all. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia isn't an ordinary encyclopedia, see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Biscuittin 12:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i am familiar with IAR. It doesn't trump providing citations. look, I am not the bad guy here, and certainly not the final arbiter of such things. If you think it should be in, find an admin, tell them what you want to do, and get their input. They tend to interpret the rules with a larger view in mind. Have them come here an say 'yep, no citations are needed for that'; that way, its on the record, and we move from there. Until then, I am going to maintain that anything contentious gets cited, as that's just common sense. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big issue and I don't want to spend a lot of time on it so I'll just wait and see what other comments appear. Biscuittin 22:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Way ahead

I just read this page after not looking at it for some time, and its quality has declined a lot in the meantime. The basic problem, I think, is the absence of original research that can be referenced. Generally, the Wikipedia policy against putting original research in an encyclopedia article makes a lot of sense, but the problem here is that for some reason the research has not been published--it has been done, mostly by contributors to this page. What about somebody setting up a blog for original research on urlognia, complete with an anonymous peer review process? Then those who are interested in this topic can publish the research, sort out disagreements off Wikipedia, and then summarize it in a proper article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.195.179 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A blog with anonymous "peer review" would without question flunk the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Scholarly research certainly exists for the various sexual fetishes and subcultures, plus there is plenty of literature on the topic. This article needs someone to look into those sources and cite appropriately. A back door for POV and original research is not needed. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no rule against combining information from a variety of sources as long as it is not used to create a new argument. See WP:SYN. Furthermore there is no rule against including uncited material, contrary to what has been stated above. Many articles are full of uncited statements, but since they aren't controversial, that's not a problem. Uncited statements can be removed if they are challenged. If Urolagnia occurs in some movie or novel or whatever, there's no reason why that fact can't be included - though it's a bit silly to just list loads of examples. Long lists of that sort are discouraged, unless a specific article is created for the purpose. However there is some quite pathological deletionism going on here which is simply removing content for no good reason. The reference to Hitler is the most obvious case. It was in the alleged section with a clear explanation of why it was treated as an allegation. But it was deleted with the totally false assertion that "as I noted before, the citation is not reliable. Let's take this to the discussion page". The person who wrote this seems to have no conception of the concept of reliable citation. The reliability of the citation concerns the allegation, not the fact. There were several citations, one of which was to the detailed discussion in Ron Rosenbaum's book Explaining Hitler, a book so notable it has its own Wikipedia page. It seems that some editors her simply do not understand the policy concerning citation and original research. Paul B (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I am the lad who originally removed it, and I am still of the opinion that it isn't reliably-sourced. As I challenged or removed the listing, I am also the culprit there, too. None of the removals could be categorized as having been removed for "no good reason."
The allegations about Hitler's supposed urolagnia apparently have only one source, that of someone who had a falling-out with the Austrian dictator. Weigh that against Hitler's own fiancé's denial and the whole host of books (some once said that Hitler was one of the most-written about biographical figures after Christ and JFK) that make no mention of what would seem to be a fairly notable idiosyncracy. When you have one source - a second-hand one at that - weighed against the rest of the sources that make no mention of it, the one source is not going to get any play here - not because it isn't true, but because it is not a very reliably sourced accusation. While Rosenbaum does appear to have done his due diligence to maintain neutrality (and with a name like Rosenbaum, it is indeed an admirable accomplishment), his observations are but one voice. While truth is not the criteria for inclusion, reliability and verifiability is. As the reliability of Rosenbaum's supposition is easily challanged by at least three dozen other sources, it fails at least one of those criteria.
As for the examples of urolagnia occurring in film, they are in fact examples of synthesis, in that you are observing what you consider to be urolagnia, and are not citing a source specifically noting the occurrences as examples of urolagnia. Cite (reliably) the sources of actual urolagnia outside of a website devoted to the subject, and some examples can be prosified. Under no circumstances should we return to the listings of each and every instance of urine-specific scatology occurs.
I hope that clarifies matters somewhat for you. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really, because I think you missed the point. Rosenbaum is indeec Jewish, as you rather unnessecarily implied. As for this host of books - most of them are about his political ideology and military activity and are not personal biographies. Of those that are many of them do take the claim seriously. Walter C. Langer accepted it as fact as did Robert G. L. Waite in his book "The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler". Rosenbaum neither endorses nor dismisses the idea, he simply explores it as part of the content of his book - which is about different kinds of psychological models that have been used to explain Hitler's motivations. He looks at the evidence and examiones the wrioters who have discussed the theory. The point is that we don't have to accept it as fact or reject it as fiction. That's not up to us. We report what has been said. BTW Mimi Reiter, the fiancee you refer to, spent - according to her account - precisely one night with Hitler. Paul B (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
To begin with, the implication that he was Jewish was implied and not outright stated, as Judaism tends to pass via the matralineal, and not from the father supplying the surname; we cannot be sure in the absence of info in the affirmative that he is in fact Jewish. Either way, it isn't key to the discussion.
While many of the books on Hitler are not biographies, the ones that are by and large do not mention the possibility of the fetish. Waite's example is presented as a second-hand account by Otto Strasser - himself an inordinately unreliable source of Hitler's private life. Langer's profile of Hitler was completed for the OSS during WW2, and also suggested that Hitler was into coprolagnia. The reliability of this assessment - made when forensic psychology and profiling was in its developmental infancy - is in itself suspect. That the assessment didn't accuse of Hitler of pedophilia, the torturing of animals as well as worshipping the supernatural - oh, wait, Langer's assessment included that as well.
As for Reiter's having spent only one night with Hitler, I believe that is probably more time than either Langer or Waite spent in his company. Her denial, as well as the utter lack of substantiating support from anyone else not acting upon the OSS report make the reliability and notability of the source less than ideal, and less than the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia.
And determining the notability and reliability of the criteris in fact up to us as editors. When you have one view suggesting one thing and ten or more views either opposite or not noting the other view, the lone view is not notable. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"the implication that he was Jewish was implied". Are there implications that are not implied? You implied that he was Jewish, just as I said. Hence the word "implied". However, You miss the point again. You claim to be able to judge who is right and who is wrong. That's Original Research, pure and simple. Langer's detailed account, btw, is in his book The Mind of Adolf Hitler, not the OSS report, which only obliquely refers to the allegation. I had a look at 5 biographies. Of these five four mentioned it, so your statement that biographies "by and large" do not mention it is false. The five were Bullock, Waite, Fest, Redich, and Kershaw. Bullock, who is almost totally uniterested in Hitker's personal life, was the one who didn't mention it. Fritz Redlich's Hitler: Diagnosis of a Destructive Prophet (1998) discusses it in detail and does not make a final judgement on its truth. You claim that "the whole host of books" about Hitler make no mention of it. You seem to have a different library than the one I'm using. These are all reliable sources. The sources only have to discuss it to make it notable. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Really? You want to play semantical games with me, when I am trying to communicate politely with you? Is that really the route you want to go with this? On the off-chance that you don't want your snipe to be returned rather savagely, let's move on, okay pumpkin? Stay civil, or you will be relatively unhappy with the results.
I am quite positive that you have missed the point, Paul. We are not judging who is "right" and who is "wrong". We are judging who is noteworthy and who is not. A fairly significant difference in definition, and yes, we do evaluate notability, and that evaluation is based not on Original research or 'I don't like it' tantrums, but rather looking at all the statements. In case you missed it, I was arguing that the accusation of urolagniac practices wasn't very notable.
  • Langer's book is is OSS report ([http://www.amazon.com/Adolf-Hitler-Secret-Wartime-Report/dp/B000HJ2GR4/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195692248&sr=8-1 1]), albeit with expansion. to be clear, the bit about water-sports was included in the 1943 report, back when sure knowledge was impossible to come by, esp. info of that nature.
  • Other authors parroting this info (most of them mention the urolagnia in reference to Langer's report). You checked five books? How many books are there about Hitler not related to the military stuff....hm, I am guessing that the number is probably more than a half-dozen, right? As these other sources are only referring to the original OSS report by Langer, then no, it isn't notable. It is akin to counting the same vote five different times. Granted, I am not up on the latest character assassinations of Hitler, but I do know that for every rickety, unreliable fact about him that is allowed to be proven wrong, that is yet another argument for some putz to suggest that folk may be wrong about other things in his life, like how he was secretly trying to offer the Jews a great big bag of candy, and someone misinterpreted down the chain of command. Let's not muddy the waters with this nonsense.
I'll tell you what. I know I mentioned this before, but I'll mention it again; file an RfC on the matter and get some more insight from other editors and admins. Let's widen the circle and get some independent input on this. Clearly, i am not changing your mind, and you aren't relally presenting me with enough proof to help me change mine. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The information is clearly notable. You have made a number of clearly false statements and absurd demands (that I check how many the books on Hitler before it counts?). It's obvious from your comments that you looked up WP pages. Have you ever read a biography of Hitler? The only semantic games are the ones you are playing here and your threat is not appreciated. Paul B (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You are clearly welcome to point out my "clearly false statements" and "absurd demands", as I am not sure I see their presence in my post. Also clear is the observation that you appear to be getting cranky and frustrated. As I am fairly sure that my non-agreement with your POV is a likely part of that, perhaps it might be best for you to take a break and cool down. I don't make false statements or false demands, and your characterization of my posts as such is rather uncivil and can easily be perceived as a personal attack. People get blocked and banned for that, so keep a civil tongue in your head, or you may be 'given' a short break from editing.
I've recommended that you initiate an RfC to gain more input and commentary that that currently present in this discussion section, and I repeat it here. As mentioned before, you haven't presented me with anything approaching convincing evidence, and for my part, I find myself rather curious as to your odd resistance to wiki policies and guidelines. I am telling you point-blank that I am not in agreement with foisting into the article that which is likely propogandistic info promulgated and round-robined since 1943. Since this presents - at least for you - a stalemate, you should go ahead and file the RfC, so we can eventually move forward. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I shall list your false statements. The first was the claim about the "whole host of books" that say nothing about the matter. You showed no evidence that you have ever looked at any books on the subject. I looked at the five biographies of Hitler that are in a university academic library. You say "When you have one view suggesting one thing and ten or more views either opposite or not noting the other view, the lone view is not notable." This "ten or more views" seems to be plucked out of thin air. It's simply untrue, as the evidence I looked at indicates.
You repeatedly discuss the issue as though we should be judging the reliability of Langer or Strasser, or Rosenbaum. Even though you say you are not claiming to be the judge of the truth of the matter, your actual words suggest otherwise. You make comments about profiling being in its infancy and so on. That is not up to you or me.
Notability. Hilter is by far the most famous person who has been associated, shall we say, with this behaviour. While it may or may not be notable for the Hitler article, it is clearly notable for this article. We do not judge whether or not it is true, just that it has been discussed in the literature on him. Paul B (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you are considering my statements false because I didn't cite them? Really? LOL, okay. Perhaps you might want to consider that I don't need to point out the common knowledge of other sources. And no, the number wasn't pulled out of the air. Frankly, I am simply tired of debating the matter with you, and will hold my tongue until the RfC because quite honestly, you are beginning to bore me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I consider them false because they are untrue. That's what false means. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

R. Kelly Trial

Article states that the trial was to start in September 2007. That date has already passed. Resistance is Character-Forming (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Apparently, the trial was again delayed until October 27th, 2007. I couldn't find anything more current than that, though. Again, thansk for pointing out the stale info. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


RfC Whether or not Hitler should be mentioned in the article

Dispute about notability or reliability of sources.


The discussion is in the above section titled Way Ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Barlow (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the visitor is not going to want to wade through all the exposition, so I will sum up: Langer wrote a forensic analysis (that predates the science) for the OSS that suggested that Hitler was into water sports. Every author mentioning the subject since then has drawn from both the Langer report and that of a disgruntled ex-nazi. One side of the discussion feels that even though all the subsequent notations of urolagnia are based almost solely upon the OSS report (which is notable in that no actual contact was made with the subject or those who could possibly be aware of the fetish, except for an ex-fiancé, who denies the fetish), and the psychology taped on afterward. The other wise of this debate feels the subsequent mentions are not in themselves notable, as they are almost exclusively based upon a (WWII) wartime, propaganda report prepared by a man who never met either the subject or anyone close to him. As it is a biography, and specifically the biography of a particularly reviled individual, we are beholden to try and evaluate the neutrality of that which we receive as "sources". - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You are supposed to sum up in a neutral way. This doesn't even attempt to be neutral. I am content to let readers of the above debate decide for themselves. By the way, Reiter never actually denied it, pace the WP Hitler article. She never said anything about it. Paul B (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
And you think that she might have mentioned it, had it ever come up. Something as unusual as urolagnia seems like it would be notable, had it happened. thanks for helping to make my point, Paul. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you have made any point. As I say, others can judge for themselves. Paul B (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Weird

This discussion section is disproportionately large compared to the article, which really doesn't say much about the condition at all, beyond what most readers would already guess about it.

Fixbot (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Alleged section

I removed this as unnecessary and also possible BLP issues. Probably best to just stick to people who self identify with this behavior and have no problem with that. Adding a section about "alleged" indiviuals really isn't appropriate for this article. MAYBE can go on individual bio page but still is questionable. Anyways, thanks, --Tom 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ - concert video
  2. ^ Cat Chaser Conspiracy
  3. ^ [9]
  4. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  5. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  6. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  7. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  8. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  9. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  10. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  11. ^ Patches Place Pee Movie List
  12. ^ Patches Place Pee Movie List
  13. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  14. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  15. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  16. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  17. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  18. ^ Worldwide DVD forums
  19. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  20. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  21. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  22. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  23. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  24. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  25. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  26. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  27. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  28. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  29. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  30. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  31. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  32. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  33. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  34. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  35. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  36. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  37. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  38. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  39. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  40. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  41. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  42. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  43. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  44. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  45. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  46. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  47. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  48. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  49. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
  50. ^ Patches' Place Pee Movie List
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Urolagnia/Archive_1&oldid=1137290047"