Image talk:Ancient-roman-squat-toilets.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The toilet article itself says that these were probably used in the SITTING position, not squatting. It cites a reference as well. This should probably be deleted. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The toilets discussed in the quote you're referring to were not Roman toilets, but were from 2800 BC in Pakistan. I contacted Dick Teresi, the author of the quote, asking him how he knew that these Pakistani toilets were used in the sitting position. He refused to reply to my question. I suspect that he has made the same mistake that is often made by tourists who sit on the ancient Roman toilets. They see footpads as "seats", due to their cultural insularity. --Jonathan108 (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am referring only to the quote concerning the Roman Toilets: "Roman toilets, like the ones pictured here, are commonly thought to be used in the sitting position. But sitting toilets only came into general use in the mid-19th century." They provide a citation for their claim, but it's in a book, so I can't check it online. You need to wait longer for the person who provided the citation to reply, it has only been a few days. Also, I had to remove the link to your website as it's not considered a reliable source and it's considered an original source violation because you used your own website. What is needed is an authoritative/academic type citation to back up either claim. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that "a case has been made for the squatting hypothesis" is indisputable, whether or not the case itself is valid. So, if you add back the reference to my site, it should not violate any rules. (You would be adding the reference, rather than me.) --Jonathan108 (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest reading the reliable source page. Regardless of who wrote it, or even how accurate it may be, it doesn't qualify. It needs to be from a source such as an authoritative expert, book (usually self-published and otherwise low circulation books are excluded), journal article, etc... The reason for this rule is to allow Wikipedians to verify the validity of statements with a source they KNOW is reputable. From our perspective, your website is just some random website written by some guy no one knows, hence, there isn't anything to establish it as reputable, which is not to say it's inaccurate.

That said, simply having someone put on another Wikipedian's website for them, especially by request, still makes it original research because it's coming directly from a Wikipedian and a Wikipedian who is not some kind of known authority. It would be greatly appreciate if you could find a source, considered as a "reliable source" under Wikipedia's definition, that would help to verify or refute the statement. For example, what source(s) did you use to verify your statement when making your website? All we need is a specific citation, preferably one that can be verified online or one you have quoted (for books check Google Book Search --- this isnt required but it's nice to have). Your work on Wikipedia is greatly appreciated! -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that important, so I'll let it go. But I'll leave you with this quote from WP:UCS: "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule." --Jonathan108 (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The image itself needs revision, as the illustration of the man is not properly aligned with the hole. He'd make quite a mess for himself as is. D Boland (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Done! --Jonathan108 (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)