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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Superimposed

I'm going to have to ask where you got that backround image.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 02:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Wikipedia toilet article. It says it's public domain. --Jonathan108 (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 19:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use common sense and delete this hilariously wrong image

If you ever have the chance to actually sit on one of these toilets, you will immediately see the problem with this image. These toilets were to be sat on, not squatted over. Have you ever asked yourself what the hole on the front of each of the seats was for? It's for reaching your hand down between your knees to clean yourself without having to rise up and expose your rear-end to your neighbour. The water trough just in front of where your feet would be is for washing your hands after concluding your business. This image should be deleted - or better yet, moved to wherever Wikipedians keep the funny stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.79.9 (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've obviously never used a squat toilet. These toilets were designed for squatting. They're only elevated because an open sewer flows underneath. The opening below the toilets allows people to wash themselves without scraping their knuckles on the stone.

Ephesus is located in what is now Turkey. Even today, almost everyone uses squat toilets in that part of the world. They would cringe at the idea of touching such a defiled surface with their bare bottoms. --Jonathan108 (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:OR all the way. I'd report it to an admin with the power to make sure it is removed and stays removed, but you just reminded me of all the reasons I stopped caring about Wikipedia. Have fun on your personal crusade to convince the world of the virtues of squatting. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.80.74 (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have ever seen these types of "toliet ruins" in real life you would know that it is very hard to use them in a squatting position. The waste would spill onto the stone top and not into the hole (the hole is not placed far back enough). Seeing them in real life gives a good idea that the Romans intended the user to sit on them. The opening in the front also supports the idea that the were intended for sitting. The idea that they were squatting toilets because of the drainage underneath does not work either as the drainage basis is sunk underneath the road level. If the toilets were squat toilets they wouldn't have build such high structures over the basis. - Koba

Yes, "it is very hard to use them in a squatting position" if you have grown up using toilet seats. You've lost the natural flexibility that would allow you to squat compactly. But for people who have grown up squatting, these toilets present no problem at all. Secondly, I think that 14"-15" above an open sewer is not an unreasonable height at all. Wouldn't be too pleasant to be much closer, would it? --Jonathan108 (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the argument is about the flexibility but about the position of the waste hole- Koba

The position of the hole is perfect for normal humans, who have not lost their ability to squat. The buttocks rest on the ankles, so the amount of space needed is less than 12 inches from the tips of the toes to the back of the hole. Even 10 inches would be enough for most people, and people were even smaller in the Roman era. --Jonathan108 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely clear on why this image exists. Does this image in any way add to any of the articles in is attached to? It seems that its removal would in no way lessen the informative content of any of the articles. Additionally, it seems that appropriate use of the Roman toilets is debatable. Since the image does not improve the articles it is attached to (and arguably reduces their accuracy by presenting an unsourced opinion as a fact), it seems to me removing the image would benefit the Wikipedia project. The author of this image should being willing to put aside his/her pride and act in the best interest of the Wikipedia community. --Pakchooie (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an "unsourced opinion". This source (from the Toilet article) says that toilet seats are a recent development in the western world.

A History of Technology, Vol.IV: The Industrial Revolution, 1750-1850. (C. Singer, E Holmyard, A Hall, T. Williams eds) Oxford Clarendon Press, pps. 507-508, 1958.

Other sources have reported that squatting has always been used in the parts of the world occupied by the Roman Empire. Unless you can present a source that contradicts this evidence, it must be concluded that the common assumption about people sitting on Roman toilets is the result of cultural insularity.

The very existence of this debate is of value to Wikipedia, as it brings out an important fact that is very little known. Ignoring the issue, which you seem to be proposing, would be of no benefit to the community. --Jonathan108 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Bit of Googling Solves This

It's a silly debate. The National Trust, presumably having discussed it with experts, shows us how it was done:

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-chedworthromanvilla/w-chedworthromanvilla-villa.htm

The latrine in that image is just a wooden version of the stone ones being discussed here. The burden of proof has always been on whoever generated this ridiculous image. I think this helps put the debate to rest.--Offguard (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That painting is an artist's conception of a particular point of view, no more or less valid than the photoshopped image. "Proof" is impossible to achieve unless someone invents a time machine. We have to settle for logic and common sense. --Jonathan108 (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to have evidence that Romans squatted, though, before you provide the photoshopped image. If we're going for "logic and common sense" (as opposed to the interpretation of the consultants working for the National Trust), then it makes more logical sense that a seat-height hole will be sat upon, allowing the user to easily reach the water coursing at their feet to wipe themselves. This wiping is facilitated by the hole in the front of the latrine, which serves no purpose if the user "squats" over the top hole. Raising the platform above floor level is nonsensical and counterproductive if it's meant to be squatted on. The argument that it's meant to "raise them above open sewers" is silly, considering how deep the channels below were, and how they were raised to sitting height.

Image from Housesteads, England, showing how the latrines look today:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/139214720_cc3a64d94c.jpg?v=0

And how they looked in Roman times:

http://www.englishheritageprints.com/pictures_440440/roman-latrine-j000112.html

Until and unless you can come up with evidence showing that Romans squatted, your image fails your own test of common sense and logic, and should be deleted.

Added later: Following the link to your website, it's clear you're applying a personal bias to the issue. I'm not an expert on the "squatting or sitting" debate, and quite frankly I don't care either way, but "believing in it" doesn't make it true that Romans squatted on toilets. You need evidence to substantiate your claim that Romans did this.--Offguard (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen no evidence to substantiate the claim that Romans sat on these toilets. Pictures of tourists and paintings based on cultural insularity don't constitute evidence. I concede that, even in Roman times, there were people who couldn't squat, due to injuries. So, it's entirely possible that some people sat on these toilets. But sitting on toilets by the general population is a recent development (starting in the 19th century, as my reference states.)

But, since my logic continues to fall on deaf ears, I will delete the picture from all articles where it has been used. I can't afford to spend any more time on this. --Jonathan108 (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]