Talk:Squat toilet

Regional preferences

We have run a qualitative survey on where squat toilets are common and have produced a summary report, see here on the SuSanA discussion forum. I will take key results from the survey and include them in this article soon. If anyone knows of better sources where regional differences between squatting and sitting toilets have been compiled, please bring them to my attention. EvM-Susana (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

They would need to published in a good WP:RS to merit inclusion. Alexbrn (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Information about which country has squat toilets and which doesn't is not health related information. So I think a well written report report based on a qualitative survey is better than nothing and would merit inclusion as a source. It is useful for the readers to have an idea of where squat toilets are common and where they are not (and such information can be improved over time once a start has been made). As I said before, if someone knows high quality sources for this, please include them. If not, then having such a survey compilation is far better than nothing at all, in my opinion. At least the source of the information is traceable in this case. EvM-Susana (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see why you are against including this information in the article: +++++ Regional preferences: Squat toilets are commonly found in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, but can also occasionally be found in some European and Latin American countries. In certain regions, including Japan, Korea, China, and Southern Africa (except for South Africa), squat toilets are found in about equal amounts as sitting toilets.[citation needed] Squat toilets are not common in Central and Northern Europe, North America, Australia.

In Latin and South America, toilets that use water for flushing (flush toilets) are nearly always of the sitting type, whereas toilets that do not use water for flushing (pit latrines and urine-diverting dry toilets) may be of either type, i.e. to be used in a sitting or a squatting position.[citation needed] +++++++

Any resident of the mentioned regions or any traveller there can easily confirm the information provided! Also, note this has been in the article already for a long time. Not every topic has the luxury of peer-reviewed papers, newspaper articles and so forth to draw on - but it is basically common knowledge which can easily be verified by anyone living in that country.EvM-Susana (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's not health information - but the normal WP:PAGs still apply. We need to be summarizing 'accepted knowledge' ... and if material is not found in secondary sources it is unlikely to be such. We are a tertiary publication, not a secondary one. Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Some things are simply common knowledge (for residents of a certain country) and also no danger to anyone if it needs adjustment in future. For example it is common knowledge (for a German) that Germany has no squat toilets, and it is common knowledge for someone living in India that they are common there. So if I add in the article a sentence about the absence of squat toilets in Germany you want me to find a source for that before you would allow me to add that sentence? It's probably mentioned in some newspaper article somewhere, so you really request that I first run a full Google search to find an article about it? It may not even exist because why would a newspaper article write about something that doesn't exist in Germany (squat toilets) - just as an example. I think for a Wikipedia reader it is useful to know in which regions squat toilets are common and where they are not common. There is no "danger" of providing wrong information here (unlike with information which is on health for example). To make the information that I intend to provide more reliable, I even ran a detailed survey over the course of several weeks (which took me quite some time to do! Wasted time because it would not count as a "reliable source" anyhow?). - Well, let's see what others have to say about this issue. EvM-Susana (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

If something is so obvious that no publication ever has mentioned it, then why should Wikipedia? Your primary research would not count as reliable unless assessed by a secondary authority. Original research is of little use: I have (for example) never seen a single squat toilet in CJK (I have in France). My original observation would be no more acceptable than yours. We are meant to be skimming the top off accepted knowledge, not pioneering new areas. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

What is CJK? And yes, they exist in (Southern) France, I will (would) mention that. What's "obvious" is always relative. For an Indian, it is "obvious" that squat toilets exist, how they are used, anal cleansing with water... For a person from the U.S., this is not at all obvious! As you know yourself, a lot of the articles are very U.S. centric. One should never take for granted that everyone knows what you think is obvious. A reader from India might find it a useful fact to know that Germany doesn't have squat toilets. If you are going to delete every single sentence that is not connected with a reference (and a secondary one from a reputable source!) then you have a lot of deleting to do, particularly in the field of sanitation where a lot of the knowledge is in the grey literature or in people's heads. Just take a look at the articles on toilet and on flush toilet and you will find a lot of sentences and information that is there without a reference. I thought Wikipedia is there to make the sum of human knowledge accessible to all. Not to make only that knowledge accessible that has been assessesed by a secondary authority. As Wikipedia has many readers and editors if there is a wrong statement about where squat toilets are used or not used, then this should be quite quickly corrected by the mass of other editors. Anyhow, we are probably at a stale mate here. I would really like to hear the opinions of other editors. Let's put a straight forward question: Can I re-insert this sentence in the article: "Squat toilets are commonly found in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, but can also occasionally be found in some European and Latin American countries."? We can add "citation needed" to the end of the sentence, I would have absolutely no problem with that. Then if someone has the time, they can search the internet and find the missing citation. It probably exists somewhere, but I don't have the time right now to search for it. EvM-Susana (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

CJK = China, Japan & Korea. If you want to insert text it needs to be verifiable, so a supporting source is required. Alexbrn (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Never heard of the abbreviation CJK before. Yes, you probably didn't see squat toilets in China because probably you didn't travel to the rural areas. This is another aspect that we will mention on the page (backed up with the survey results and local knowledge): that squat toilets are more common in rural areas, less common in urban areas and that there is a trend to fewer squat toilets in some countries due to the feeling that sitting toilets are more "modern". The same issue about geographical occurrence you by the way find here on the page for bidet: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bidet#Geographical_occurrence --> the countries are mentioned but the need for more citations is also mentioned. For me, that is a perfectly good way of doing things. The reader knows: when I read this, I shall treat the information with care (as with anything on Wikipedia!). And if I find a good reference (of if I have time on my hands to search further), I will add it. I would like to do it in the same way for the geographical occurence for squat toilets. Just because we haven't yet found a superb supporting source, doesn't mean we cannot make some general statements, especially if I have a survey amongst a group of sanitation experts to back this up. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I certainly don't wish to become involved in this argument but thought I would add a morsel of information about China. In 2011 I travelled by train half way across China - from Dunhuang to Beijing. The train carriages had a flushing squat toilet at one end of each carriage and an upright flushing toilet at the other end. Hope this is of some small interst. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi John Hill, thanks for your note, interesting! As a Wikipedia reader (and editor), would you find it useful and justifiable to have information about the geographical spread of squat toilets in this article even with minimal in-line citations? EvM-Susana (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure - so long as the information is clearly marked as being without documentary support, is not controversial, and is replaced with supported information when that becomes available. If ALL information in the Wikipedia has to be supported by information published in recognised sources we are going to find it extremely difficult to write coherent, flowing articles and they will soon be overburdened with quotations and references. John Hill (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It is controversial, as I suspect it may simply be wrong. WP:V is a policy we are obliged to follow, and all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. If in doubt this could be raised at WP:NORN? Alexbrn (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Whilst it might be hard to prove that in certain countries "squat toilets are found in about equal amounts as sitting toilets", it is relatively easy to prove that squat toilets are common in the above mentioned regions from the literature.

"Squatting type toilet still commonly used in Japan"

"Much of the world's population including Japan, China and the Middle East use an Eastern style toilet whereby one squats over a hole or bowl embedded in the floor"

"fixed in-ground commodes (squat toilets) common in many parts of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa; these require the individual to squat on bent knees over an opening level with the ground"

"In parts of Korea, Japan, Taiwan, China, and several other Asian countries, squat toilets are still prevalent"

Clearly this is not controversial and requiring references for things which are plainly obvious is a pointless exercise. OK, fine add a ref need if you really think that this would help, but removing the whole line is an extreme edit, and suggesting that something cannot be true because one has never seen them is just disruptive. JMWt (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, JMWt! At Alexbrn, what did you mean by this sentence?: "It is controversial, as I suspect it may simply be wrong." What do you suspect to be wrong? The statement about the equal numbers? OK, that can be made more vague, no problem. If I have to find a secondary source reference for any statement whatsoever about where squat toilets are common and where not, then I might as well give up editing this and other pages. I would rather have a page that gives interesting information (with a tag that more citations are needed) than a page that leaves a blank space about geographical occurrence of squat toilets! We are not discussing here live and death type information of very high relevance. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This ref says squat toilets are common in many Asian countries [1]

This ref says "still somewhat common in public restooms in southern and eastern Europe" and "highly popular in Southeast Asia" [2]

This ref discusses the changing prevalence in China and the uneven distribution [3]

This one some of the changes in toilets in Japan [4]

And another [5]

Lonely planet also provides this general knowledge in print [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

References

OK, that's great, thanks. When someone has the time, please add this into the main article. I doubt though that you will find much "high quality" sources for lesser known countries liked Cameroon or Ghana. Keeping in mind we are not talking about flush toilets here but about the defecation posture, i.e. squatting or sitting. This is actually not a medical issue but a cultural one. When I get around to it, I will add information accordingly, trying as best as possible to use good references. EvM-Susana (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

These additional references that had been unearthed by others above have now been included in the article. Thanks. EvM-Susana (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Using standard headings

Thanks for your copy editing work, User:Reify-tech. However, I would like to stick to the standard headings as much as possible - see Manual of Style for sanitation-related articles: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Sanitation) This helps people for quick reads of new articles. You removed the standard heading "Society and culture" - I would like to put that back in. EvMsmile (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

splashing

re:

They have a lower risk of soiling clothing (urine is less likely to splash on shoes and bottom parts of trousers).

Couldn't this risk from squat toilets by averted by some kind of raised guard against the heel and inner foot to protect the shoes/pants? Are there no models which do that? ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

New Research in 2018

Does anyone think these studies from 2018 are worth incorporating?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30645917 Diverticular disease and posture during defecation : a prospective comparative study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30346317 Implementation of a Defecation Posture Modification Device: Impact on Bowel Movement Patterns in Healthy Subjects. Jonathan108 (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm undecided. Are these studies big enough to warrant inclusion? I thought we were meant to focus on meta studies. The second paper in particular had only a very small study group. EMsmile (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Potentially confusing sentence

The first clause doesn't support the second, in my opinion: "The waterless trough reduces the risk of splash-back of water during defecation, which means that sitting toilets are generally preferred in many instances." I don't doubt that sitting toilets are generally preferred, I'm just not sure how a reduced risk of splash-back with NON-sitting toilets would lead people to prefer sitting toilets. Am I missing something? Thanks. ThePedanticPrick (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you and have deleted that sentence. EMsmile (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)