Talk:Vomiting/Archive 1

Picture

Yuk. Do we need a picture of vomit? Dysprosia 09:11, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Very humorous picture which illustrates topic well. Keep it Klafubra 19:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

While it's not terribly appealing, I do think a picture is worth a thousand words. I'm mentally preparing myself to go fight this very same battle over at penis, where someone commented out all of the pictures. →Raul654 09:14, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

At least the photo was sized down to a reasonable (i.e., quite small) size. When the photo was first added, it was disturbingly large. If you didn't see it, count yourself fortunate. :) Moncrief 09:14, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

The pigeons make the photo very good taste tho'. Almost artistic. I wonder what Dierk ate that morning in the park. --Menchi 09:16, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No doubt it's artistic, but I think the pigeons do the opposite to it (Maybe it's just because, yes, I did see the large photo...) Dysprosia 09:19, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You have only your morbid curiosity to blame. Morbid! --Menchi 09:30, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It was an accident! An accident, I say! Dysprosia 22:05, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The picture was Image:Erbrochenes.jpg, for those arriving too late to see it. Marnanel 21:28, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

File:Vomiting woman.jpg (since Wikipedia is not a shock site, even in the TALK realm, this image will not appear on this TALK page - however, you can go look at it if you wish)

How about this picture, which has been circulating online for at least 8 years. It illustrates the topic very well, IMO. Bronwyn18 20:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

File:Haley2.jpg (since Wikipedia is not a shock site, even in the TALK realm, this image will not appear on this TALK page - however, you can go look at it if you wish)

This picture isn't so disturbing because it is so obvious what the substance is.Bronwyn18 01:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blech. If you put pictures up, make them little thumbnails please.  :-) - Omegatron 07:15, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Photo found when looking, not linked to this page. Put on page. Yes, vomiting is not an attractive event, yet a photo is needed in the article. 1000 words worth. For health care workers, and parents, vomiting always causes problems, regardless of the number of years working ro number of children. The photo causes me the same effect, and although I don't like it, it is improtant for the article. I copied it for use in lectures teaching health care as well, because good photos are rare, and this is one. Glen Larson

I think the vomiting woman picture is pretty good but the framed version was dominating the section and, perhaps, had too much of a shock effect. I've reduced to 150 pixels thumbnail. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Put the link to the photo back on the page with a cuation warning, to hopefully keep the faint at heart form deleting. Yes, the photo is not nice, but this should be acceptable. There are other un-nice photos out here, but why are they reading an article on vomiting, yet don't expect a photo? Engage in discussing the matter rather than simply deleting the immage. This type of going arround and deleting material is vanadalism, please note. Regardless, the link should be acceptable to all, and requires a second active step. They can go to ifd - Images and media for deletion - and address concerns, but as I noted above, actual photos of someone vomiting are very rare, and this one is a "good" photo of the event! Glen Larson

Actually I think the picture should go inline. This is an article about vomiting, not bunnies and butterflies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but "they" just keep being "upset." The link should solve the problem. Glen Larson

I put it back inline with the default size thumbnail. I do not support suppressing images behind a link; this image is no big deal. — Davenbelle 23:34, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

OK, agreed, leave the thumb photo in. Glen Larson

Two new sections

These should be added to the bottom of the article.

I am placing these here for review, modification, and inclusion by qualified medical or emergency personnel. They seem to me to be a necessary and desirable inclusion to the article, but I do not feel qualified to post these from a medical standpoint. These recommendations are only based on reading and personal experience (I have not vomited in a very long time, thankfully). Leonard G. 04:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll look them over. I'm a certified EMT. I'm looking to change the article quite a bit - we could include a lot more here. From a public health perspective we could at least include some poisoning emergency images, etc. Sandbody 21:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reducing nausea

As noted above, vomiting can occur as a physical response to an emotional situation, for example seeing the consequences of a gory accident. It is part of a general shock reaction, usually preceded by a "cold sweat" and a loss of peripheral blood flow leading (in fair skinned people) to a pallor (the skin, especially in the face, will turn from pink to white. In these cases there is no particular benefit to vomiting (as is the case with food poisoning, excessive intake of alcohol, etc.) It may be possible to arrest the vomiting reflex by sitting on a low chair or object and placing the head between the knees. If you are assisting another person in this state, place your hand lightly on the back and ask them to push up - as they push up, resist this motion. Smelling salts (specially prepared ampules of ammonia) may be briefly passed under the nose of the victim as they inhale.

How to vomit

There are two problems related to the act vomiting, one only an inconvenience, the other potentially life threatening. Both of these are controllable by an aware and alert vomiter:

• Vomit is expelled not only through the mouth but also through the nasal passages and nostrils. This can leave irritating vomit residue and solid food particles in the nasal mucosa, which take some time to clear by normal mucus expulsion. This can be controlled (only by the person vomiting) by pinching the nostrils closed at the moment vomit is expelled.

• If vomit is partially expelled or not cleared and is followed by inhalation then vomit may be inspired into the trachea and possibly the brachial tubes. It is this condition that is a leading cause of death when unconscious persons vomit - they asphyxiate. This is why a person who has ingested alcohol to excess should be carefully observed - it may be better to ensure that that person properly vomits before they pass out, especially as this may also reduce some of the alcohol overload.

It is the potential inhalation of vomit that is the reason behind the recommendation that a person who has ingested petroleum products and certain other materials not be induced to vomit, as such materials may be very damaging to the lungs. They should instead have their stomachs pumped out by qualified medical personel.

It is important that breathing be properly timed by the vomiter. It is not possible to breath during the moment of expulsion and there may be only brief periods in which to breath between convulsions, if the moment of first vomit can be predicted, it is best to have a good blood oxygen level and a good amount of air in the lungs. With lots of air in the lungs, any vomit that enters the trachea (windpipe) may be expelled by coughing.

regurgitation vs vomit

"Some adult birds regurgitate food to feed their young, triggered by a feather or a beak of their young. The food can be either incompletely digested or partially predigested, depending on the species. Some bird species may also use regurgitation as a form of defense, vomiting when wounded or molested. When an intruder or a predator comes near a fulmar on its nest, the bird vomits oil up to 3 feet at the enemy."

Apparently regurgitation is different from vomiting. We should be as accurate as possible. I don't know which is more accurate in this case. - Omegatron 07:15, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I would agree, if someone can provide more specific comments. Glen Larson

I call it barfing.- 12hernn ---

the image

how do we know the picture is in public domain? what proof do we have? if there is not proof provided within 48 hours of this post, i will remove the image from this article. if that image is a private image, wikipedia could get sued. Kingturtle 02:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with it going for cause... — Davenbelle 02:14, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• A clarification: by 'cause', I mean reasons such as copyvio or non-PD; the uploader does have an odd contrib-list.— Davenbelle 19:48, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

The uploader made a declaration that the image is in the public domain. I presume it was her own. It is the normal practise in these circumstances to take the word of the uploader unless there is good reason to doubt it.

May I ask King Turtle why he's so keen to remove a picture of vomiting from an article about vomiting? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because judging from the outfit and the pose, the image is from a vomiting fetish site. this brings up two issues: was the choice of using the image for fetish reasons, and is the image copyrighted by a porn site. Kingturtle 02:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think it matters whether some fetishist might find this picture interesting for their own reasons, it's a very good picture of a woman vomiting. I discussed the situation re copyright claims above. Find the site and verify the ownership, and you'll have demonstrated that the image is not public domain. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure sure, just what i want to do - sift through a bunch of vomit fetish sites. make me hurl! Kingturtle 03:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But seriously, the other thing that bothers me is that the image was posted by someone who made one wikipedia article edit, and uploaded two vomit images (both of women), and then disappeared. i will ask Bronwyn18 where he/she got the image, but i don't expect an reply. as for the images, judging that Bronwyn18 uploaded two images of young, thin women vomiting, it further substantiates my suspicion that they are fetish images. and i don't like the idea of wikipedia having images that degrade women through this sort of fetishization. Kingturtle 03:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's quite possible that Bronwen is a vomit fetishist. You may not like the idea of fetish images, you may even find them degrading, but in this instance they're pretty good illustrations of the subject matter of the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But we could certainly use an image that wasn't degrading. Kingturtle 03:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, she's vomiting. Apart from the obvious, are you attaching some special meaning to the word "degrading" here? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I respect Emetophilia to some extent, but when the images start to be of thin, young women, what begins to be fetishized are eating disorders - which are life-threatening. also, i have serious problems with men who fetishize young women in degrading manners. Kingturtle 03:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you've got a point, there. HOwever I think it's somewhat tangential to the question of whether this is a good illustration of vomiting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. A few points.

1. Bronwyn18 may be either male or female. The user uploded two images, on two seperate days, and had made a post on this page - the talk page not in the article. Kingturtle deleted them from this page as a personal view. Bronwyn18 has been absent since then. Censorship may be the problem here. Users leave when their contributions are deleted.

2. This is an article about vomiting. The value of a photo is not disputed. A better photo may be nice, but we do not have one to date. Most people do not like vomiting, in themselves or others. I did not know about this Emetophilia and fetish stuff! Regardless, an image does add to the article.

3. An interpretation of the photo has been advance, although I do not see that from the pose or clothing. I, as a health care worker, have delt with those in the club scene having consumed to much vomiting in this pose, and wearing this type of clothing. Anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa are serious problems. I can not tell from the photo the weight of the individual, but I don't think it is to far out of the norm. Although there is no hard and fast rules and this may be but simple points for discussion on a serious problem, but often vomiting is found with the binge bulimia nervosa who wants to prevent additional weight gain, with an already weight problem. Anorexia nervosa has the individual aready starving in a thin state, and the related muscle loss, and vomiting is rarer.

There are a number of methods for those that do not like the immage to deal with the problem and their questions or concerns. Take it to that forum.

Continued deletion may requre the page to be protected.Glenlarson 06:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The image will not teach someone about vomiting what they do not already know. Like with many confrontational images on Wikipedia, it has nothing but shock value. Let the young lady puke in peace. JFW | T@lk 13:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In fact, there is no indication that consent of the woman was obtained for wide circulation. As she is in a compromising situation on the photo, I insist on this stricture before it can be inserted. I have left messages on both the image talk page and the uploader's page. JFW | T@lk 13:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems fair. No problemo. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Censorship Censorship Censorship

Nick Berg did not concent to his photo. Nor have may others. The photo reflects an even. Teaches more than the words. Yes, I will use it in my powerpoint to teach in the health care environment. Images prevent "death by powerpoint" for students, and that applies to the article. Without an image, it is a shallow shell. There will always be a continued concern with this or anyother photo of vomiting, yet there are many other photos on Wikipedia that pass lesser hurdles. The value of Wikipedia is decreased. Glenlarson

Glenlarson, I have serious issues with this accusation. This women is hopefully still alive. If she did not consent to the image she can (and WILL) sue Wikipedia for defamation. UNLESS this is recorded, placing this image is unethical and unwise. Just keep the ***** c-word to yourself and discuss the issues, rather than bleating. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clarifying the final sentence of the first section

The first section currently ends in a sentence stating Nausea usually, but not always and not necessarily, precedes vomiting.

I find this to be ambiguous between the meanings "If you feel nausea, this is usually (but not always) a precursor to vomitting" and "People who vomit usually (but not always) feel nausea previously". I'm not sure which meaning is intended, but I think the sentence should be clarified to specify one meaning unambiguously. -- pne 11:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other Words for Vomiting

The section "Other Words for Vomiting" is being continually deleted and brought back. I know who wrote it, and was just wondering what you people thought about it.

All those terms are slang, and slang has a surprising turnover rate, limiting its relevance for inclusion in an encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk 20:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The lengthy list of synonyms i removed was based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which states that Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of items of information." Wikipedia is not a thesaurus, but Wiktionary is. Consider making your thesaurus entries onto Wiktionary, and then providing a link to it on the Vomiting article. Kingturtle 20:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Boking" refers to marijuana, derived from baking.

birds eating vomit

You know, I think it's absolutely repulsive that anything would even think about eating vomit. Why do birds do it anyway? Does it taste good to them? Scorpionman 15:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

It probably has undigested food in it. Pigeons don't suffer from repulsion. I think the picture is rather poetic and serene. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The photo is juvenile. The article doesn't really need a photo anyway. It should be removed. 24.20.236.188 (talk · contribs).

Articles need image support, and absence of image is grounds for failing feature article candidacy. This photo shows the nature of vomit without being confrontational. I'm in favour of retaining the photo. JFW | T@lk 17:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, articles need image support. However, birds eating vomit in no way adds information to this article. Do people not know what vomit looks like? How in the world would birds eating vomit get an article closer to feature status? Perhaps photos are available of the related organs. Of most interest seems to be the medulla's role. Maybe a photo of that. I'll 'refrain from deleting' and see if i can find any images to add. But please, save this one for Wikipedia: Grade School.

'READER DISCRETION ADVISED :' Well, around six years ago, at my grandfather's village, his chickens ate my vomit the following morning after I threw up my noodles. :-p Gosh that place was disgusting. Sillygostly 06:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fecal vomiting

Does that actually exist? The only similar phenomenon I know of was in that episode of South Park when Cartman crapped out his mouth. That was disgusting. Scott Gall 07:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Imagine any obstruction of the colon (i.e. cancer, constipation, paralysis). Faeces is produced but has no other way to go but ....... This is a serious condition, and most will be operated to correct such a stenosis.--Nomen Nescio 08:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Emesis also a butterfly family?

Isn't "emesis" the name of a butterfly family too? Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? cun 20:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we have an article about it? Perhaps {{dablink}} will help here. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Porcelain

What does porcelain have to do with vomiting? Praying at the porcelain alter? Talking to ralph on the porcelain phone? What does this mean? Does it have something to do with porcelain toilets? I don't get it Stanley011 01:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Ralph" is a slang term for vomiting and yes, porcelain refers to having one's head in a toilet while vomiting. 68.32.60.187 18:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't drink fluoride.

Even a tiny drop will make you throw up withing ten minutes.

This is not true. 74.68.112.149 (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo, Again

Once again their is no photo for the article. I think a tasteful picture should be found and added. Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia, encyclopedias are for learning purposes and thus should contain an image related to the article...

Yeah, and there should be a picture of a couple having sex too.- ???

Should be made easier to read

This article is difficult to read. I understand what "the chemoreceptor trigger zone which lies in the fourth ventricle" means, and I do not suggest one should try and write articles like this one without correct medical terms - but the least one can do is try and explain those terms in context. I might give it a try one of these days. // Habj 11:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

cat vomit

My cat vomits alot. My dad got wasted one night and was the first to break-in the new toilet seat.

Really?

Conscious control of reflex

There should probably be some mention of exerting conscious control over the reflex. I've been able to prevent it by a sort of biofeedback exercise with deep, slow breathing. Obviously there are many occasions where it is absolutely beneficial to go ahead and hurl, but likewise it is often desirable to prevent.

Photo essential to scientific accuracy

In the interests of scientific accuracy, a photo would be of benefit to those genuinely wanting information on the subject. If the subject of vomiting is available for reading in Wikipedia, why not a photo to support it? If people find the photo offensive, perhaps they should isolate themselves from day-to-day life, so that they won't be 'tainted' by such ghastly images as breast-feeding and other natural bodily functions and activities. These things should be embraced as such. I have attempted to place a personal photograph of a friend engaged in emesis in the article, only to find it repeatedly removed by someone more interested in his or her conservativness than freedom of information. Sad.

You find a photo with the right tags - I insist that the patient/person has explicitly consented for wide circulation. Would you like your face mirrored on 100s of sites? I'll prescribe your ipecac! JFW | T@lk 01:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Polycystic liver disease

I made a silly edit summary[1]. Of course the article mentions emesis. My real problem is that vomiting alone would be an odd presentation of liver cysts - there would be many other symptoms. Too rare a cause for vomiting to list here. JFW | T@lk 01:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The acoustics of emesis

It would be interesting to know exactly what causes the unique sound that often accompanies vomiting. It obviously varies, for instance, my brothers and I sound like roaring lions, but just last night I overheard my girlfriend vomiting and didn't even realize that that was what she was doing. Does anyone have any information on what produces these sounds? Am I subconciously growling from deep in my throat or are my vocal chords actually being vibrated by the retching reflex? ThePedanticPrick 15:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Treatment

Could we have a treatment section like the Diarrhea article?TNTfan101 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the cause. The article already mentions antiemetics. JFW | T@lk 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected

This article is receiving continuous vandalism and cruftesque jargon additions. I've sprotected it, and recommend long-term protection. JFW | T@lk 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Carrots?

It's commonly said that vomit always contains pieces of carrot, even when you haven't eaten carrots for days beforehand. When I think about it, my vomit always seems to have orange lumps in it. Perhaps someone who knows could add some info in here on what the orange lumps are (I assume, of course, that they aren't simply undigested carrot). Dazcha 10:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Street image

I do not see how a photograph of someone's lunch on the sidewalk is informative or contributes to the article. Per WP:IUP: "Do not upload shocking or explicit pictures, unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for the relevant article." Seeing as the image was added to the article without discussion or consensus to support its inclusion — the last substantive discussion regarding images on this talk page is from two years ago — I will be bold and remove it. -Severa (!!!) 08:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, there is nothing shocking or explicit about this image. Seeing actual vomit does add to the article, although we might try to get a better picture in there. Superdix 09:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering: How precisely does the image add to the article? Do I understand vomiting better? How so? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two images at Diarrhea: an illustration of the human G.I. tract, and a series of illustrations depicting the Bristol scale of stool consistencies. The latter might not be pleasant to look at, but it isn't terribly graphic (i.e. detailed), and it illustrates a medical concept discussed in the article. My question, I suppose, is how does a photograph of vomit on the street contribute to the reader's scientific and general understanding of this subject? It's there, really, only because it can be, and it's my opinion that the the image doesn't have enough informative value to compensate for how it detracts from readability. I know Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we have individual articles for all 500+ Pokemon, but, really, is a picture of vomit on the street the sort of thing one would expect to find in Brittanica or Encarta? I'm all for open-endedness in terms of content, but this is a stretch. -Severa (!!!) 11:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there are two viewpoints here; 1) that the image does not add anything to the article, and 2) that it is not appropriate.

As for 1) I have only one argument: how does an actual image of the subject of the article NOT add to article?!

As for 2) then certainly, we won't find an image of vomit in the street in a paper encyclopedia. But then again this isn't a paper encyclopedia, as you said yourself. Superdix 09:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Arguing the negative is useless. How does the image add to the article? Make a case for this, please. Do not ignore the question or attempt to reverse the onus: the onus is on you, as desiring to add content or images, to persuade, not on those who object to the content. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I could obviously have told you the very same, that it's on you to persuade me. There is no "exclusion ranks higher than inclusion" policy on Wikipedia. But I am happy to provide you with some examples as to what this image tells me:

• That I might encounter vomit in the street.
• If I previously had encountered vomit without knowing what it was, I now might have a clue as to what it might have been.
• I can better understand an example of the consistency of vomit: part liquid, part solid.
• I see that vomit might be of a yellowish coloration.
• I can infer that vomiting might occur in inappropriate situations, like when walking down the street. I could also better understand that controlling the vomit reflex is difficult, or even impossible.

I could go to great lengths to describe a pancake with words. That would not automatically exclude using an image to illustrate the article Pancake. So, unless you want to argue that the image is shocking or explicit, please leave it as it is. Superdix 11:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You are in error regarding "exclusion ranks higher than inclusion". Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence specifically states, although in a different context, that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." This logically applies for any contested content. The burden of context, or rationale for inclusion, lies with you. This image adds nothing to the article and frankly, is a silly addition. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, I was wrong about inclusion vs. exclusion. I do, however, feel that in order to exclude a photograph of the very subject of the article, policy needs to be violated before exclusion is warranted. You may or may not agree with me on this.

I did, however, state some examples of what this image might tell a potential reader. You would have to either a) disagree with all the statements above or b) show that the image violates policy, in order to justify removing the image. Even I might find the image "silly" but that has nothing to do with this debate. Superdix 11:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is central to this debate. Policy need not be violated in order for content to be excluded, for a number of reasons. You are, therefore, once again in error. Your reasons, pardon me, are nonsense. This article is about vomiting. An informative illustration might be one of the various muscles and organs involved in the event itself. No one has not seen vomit, and your statement that vomiting is involuntary is not only extremely well understood, and covered better in text, it is not illustrated by the image. The image provides no information concerning the voluntary or involuntary nature of vomiting. I am perplexed as to why you are fighting for inclusion of a non-informative, silly, possibly offensive image. You are a medical student; why don't you try to improve the article instead? Possibly even locate or create an actually informative illustration? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The article vomit redirects to vomiting. Thus, an image documenting vomit should have it's place in this article, as it is a merge of vomit and vomiting. We could always split the two, but right now this article covers both the act and the "product".

Just a couple of days ago, I added information on retching, the process that occurs just before vomiting. Frankly, you have no business telling me where to focus my energy.

You assume no one has not seen vomit. That does not discredit this image, nor is it necessarily true (unless you can prove it). I could apply the same logic to the photographs in the article on feet, since everybody has seen feet.

Again, for this image to be 'non-informative', you would have to disagree with my statements like "vomit might be of a yellowish coloration". Do you disagree with this statement?

I can tell you that the appearance of vomit of a patient is not silly. It might, in fact, be an indication of various diseases (traces of bile and/or blood, coagulated or fresh, present in the vomit). In my previous edit, I said "Even I might find the image silly", I didn't say I did.

I have never said that this image is the perfect illustration; I do, however, resent the notion that an image is simply "inappropriate" or "silly" or "adds nothing to the article" when it simply is not true. Superdix 11:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Whoa, a suggestion is not "telling you what to do"! Calm down, apparently you read things into my post I did not intend. Perhaps you could request clarification before becoming angry or indignant at something you may have misunderstood. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not angry, but hey, you could have requested clarification for whether I really were angry, couldn't you? I simply told you that what I decide to do on Wikipedia is my business, and not yours. That the inclusion of this image is not improving the article, and thus not a cause worth debating, is your opinion.

I also tried telling you that the appearance of vomit iself provides information of value in disease assessment.

As I posted in my last edit, there are valid reasons for having an image of vomit on this page, and the image is neither shocking nor explicit. Again, the image is not perfect; it could, for example, be replaced by several images, each with different characteristics typical of various diseases. I don't have these images, and they are not posted here (yet). Until we can get better material, this is what we have. Superdix 12:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Three comments and a question:

• "you have no business telling me where to focus my energy." I didn't.
• "Truth" (re: "simply is not true") is inherently subjective. Clearly, I do not agree with you.
• Edit warring: You accuse me of edit warring; yet two editors have removed the image, and all three times you have replaced it. Pot:Kettle
• What precisely do you think this adds to the article, other than some indication of possible color? And please clarify: do you feel it would be benficial to have mutiple similar images of different colors/textures? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Showing the types of vomit that nurses identify every day in hospitals all over the world, would be beneficial to this medical article, yes.

My point was that this image has been on this page for a long time; this is the first time someone wanted to remove it. And the reason why is that he/she was pointed to this article through a similar discussion on the article on amniotic sac.

You did bring up the following general idea: that I should leave this alone as other issues are more important regarding this article. You did this in the context of me being a medical student. As an admin, you should refrain from those types of statements.

Once more, this is an image of the very subject of the article. I have stated several things I believe this image tells a viewer, yet you focus on just one of them (coloration). It does show variable consistency, for example. Again, this logic could be applied to the article pancake, as everything contained in the image is also part of the text. Should we remove all images where the content by and large are included in the text? Superdix 16:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It was added 02:41, 26 March 2007 by Miltopia[2] with the caption "Vomit found on pavement, suggesting unexpected vomiting occurred. Vomiting resulting from social drinking is often sudden and uncontrollable." This caption indicates the image was intended as a "drink til you vomit" bad joke. Further, the editor who added the image has been blocked seven times. Two of those were indefinate, and have been overturned. The most recent block is for abuse of process. In other words, not someone whose judgment about Wikipedia policies and guidelines I would rate very highly. To address the other part of "been here a long time" - not only is three months not long, but the Seigenthaler edit was in place for four months before being noticed - and it was not noticed by a Wikipedian. "Its been there a long time" often means "gee, nobody noticed this was crap" rather than "this has consensus."

This leaves "it shows types of vomit" and/or "it shows consistancy" as your only remaining rationale for inclusion. This is patently false. It is a very poor picture of one type of vomit, and the consistancy is unclear and not informative in any meaningful sense. It does not, in short, illustrate a type of vomit; it is placed in "social repurcussions" which underlines the poor joke nature of the addition. Get drunk and throw up, and people will not be pleased, in other words.

As regards your very original and bizarre interpretation of my comments, somehow reading into them that I said something which indicated "that I should leave this alone as other issues are more important regarding this article" I can only tell you that you are most emphatically missing the point. Finally, do not admonish me on what I as an admin should or should not suggest, when the suggestion had nothing whatsoever to do with my sysop functions. Stick to the article on this page, please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"You are a medical student; why don't you try to improve the article instead?" is directing the debate to a personal level, as well as pushing your own viewpoint. Admins are expected to keep discussions on a constructive and professional level, no? Or are you free to do whatever you like unless you put on your admin-suit, in which case you would have to act like one?

The context in which the image was placed originally hardly has anything to do with this debate, since the accompanying text is not a part of the article.

I have never said that this is a perfect photo of vomit. It is, however, the best we have as of now, and it illustrates the article in question. Just like the image of pancakes illustrates that article, or the picture of a candle illustrates that article. Or is vomit in some special situation? Superdix 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

<Reduce indent> This picture does not add anything to the article. First of all, although the picture is probably vomit, it is not necessarily so. It could be fake vomit. It could be the contents of a blender. Although inspection of vomit could be used for clinical analysis (and if you watch CSI, it's used to find the guilty party), by placing a picture of a random patch of what could be anything is not very useful to the article. I looked up a copy of a Gastroenterology textbook (admittedly, one I used in medical school 30 years ago), and it did have pictures of vomit, but only for analysis. It didn't have pictures of hot dogs or anything, but how to interpret colors, bile, whatever. Now that could be useful. Right now the picture looks like a frat joke rather than an addition to what could be an interesting article. For example, I completely forgot about the vomit center. I had to look it up to make sure it was terminology that was actually used, and I was pleasantly surprised. This picture does not have to be an edit war. It's not very useful to a medical article. Not only can we do better, we can make it germane to the article. For example, the oxidize blood or coffee grounds discussion of color could use a picture. Orangemarlin 17:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we could do better, and the ideal situation is one where we have images like those from a textbook. We don't have that yet, though. In the meantime, why not keep one image that does in fact demonstrate vomit in real life? If it really is questionable whether it actually is vomit, then the discussion is another entirely. I don't see the rationale for removing something just because it could be done in another, and more tasteful/better way. A "bad" image of a pancake would not just be removed (unless it had extremely bad photographic quality), it would be kept until a better image of pancakes was available. I don't see how vomit should be any different. Superdix 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"We don't have a good one" is a poor reason for keeping a crappy image. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Pancakes are not a universal phenomenon, so, although having a photograph in the article might seem unnecessary for people who eat them for breakfast every morning, it might not be so for readers who live in a place in which pancakes are not a part of the local cuisine. Vomitting, unlike aniridia or smallpox, is something which everyone is bound to experience at some point in their life (or see someone else experience), so illustrating it seems redundant. I don't think a persuasive argument can be made that a photograph of vomit on the street is informative or appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Content should be included in an article because it is useful, not simply because it can be included. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. An encylopaedic image for this article might an illustration of what occurs in the body during the process of vomitting, or an illustration showing the diagnostic characteristics of different types of vomit, like the one at Diarrhea. -Severa (!!!) 04:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw this argument when it was going on, and meant to post here, but got distracted. I just want to say I completely agree with Severa and KillerChihuahua. The image is of poor quality. It's silly, offensive, and unencyclopaedic. It was added by a borderline troll whose most recent block, as far as I know, was for adding his userpage to the category of Wikipedians who are HIV positive with the edit summary "I've got AIDS. LOL", and who had that image on his own userpage for ages, along with the word "penis". Everyone knows what vomit looks like, so any possible informative value is overruled by the offensiveness. I can't imagine any reputable encylopaedia including something like this. "Not censored" doesn't mean we can add anything we like without regard to whether the advantages outweigh the shock value. The article is about vomiting (the action), not about vomit. As people will probably guess, I oppose adding it. ElinorD (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

While the particular image in question may not be the best availible, this is an article about vomit, and a picture of vomit would be a good idea. The most informative available picture should be included. Wikipedia is not censored. 58.153.51.248 16:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

GA

OM, you have a medical degree, yes? So now there is an MD and a med student editing this article? This is an excellent opportunity to work towards GA. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I must admit I have gotten a little fired up over the debate, and most of it is because of a separate discussion. I'll do my best to get some good images and help improve the article in general when my exams are over. Superdix 18:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I have started a to-do list for the article; I think we all agree on the two items on it thus far, yes? Sourcing and Find some decent images for illustrating the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

MD who went to medical school 25 years ago and who's been in business for the last 15. About the only vomiting I see these days is my teenager coming home from a party! I don't think it does the article well to have a random piece of tossed cookies in a picture. I've noticed that GA's include photos that are uploaded (and of course, meet all of the fair use standards), then used for the article. We really don't need the picture for the time being. A couple of things that I noticed to improve the article is of course referencing the clinical details. More discussion of antiemetics (including the fact that they shouldn't be used by pregnant women given the history of anti-emetics) should be given, including the types of medications that are available prescription and OTC. I'd put in more historical information (historical information in medical articles is part of WP:MOS)--we could toss in (get it) some information about Roman culture, as something at the top of my mind. Lastly, I think discussions of eating disorders should include some of the medical effects of excessive vomiting. These are just some ideas. Orangemarlin 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I added historical to the to-do, but it has ?s and could probably benefit from some more specific goals. And MD from 25 yrs ago is better than myself, with no medical degree at all, so no excuses! And you're doing great so far with the suggestions, why not dig out those old books and do what you can with the article? :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

References

I did throw a reference tag on the article. Although well written, and from what I see fairly accurate, it is not referenced at all. This article could be GA with a little work. Orangemarlin 17:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Etymology?

Does anyone know where the words vomit & emesis come from? (I'm guessing at least one of them is from Latin.) Trcunning 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

vomit at the Online Etymology Dictionary and the emetic entry -- MacAddct1984 00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Image "consensus"

After being reverted on my reinsertion of an image, I analyzed the reverter's claim of "consensus" above. I don't see this as a consensus at all. The arguments against the image are, as I understand:

• "The image adds nothing to the article" - it's hard for me to really address this. An image of vomit, in an article about vomiting... how can this not add to the article? Visual depictions of article subjects are pretty commonplace. This seems like a grasping at straws "I don't like it" argument. After all, a photograph of Stephen Colbert doesn't add much to the scientific understanding of him as a public figure, does it? It merely identifies the subject of the article. Furthermore, the vomit is actually relevant to the section that lists "alcohol consumption" as an example cause - how often do people vomit on the driveway after all? Clearly the location is suggestive of unexpected vomiting.
• "It's offensive" - invalid, as Wikipedia is not censored, as demonstrated by the Muhammed cartoons, for one. There are "gross and offensive" photos in many many medical-related articles, see penis clitoris vagina anus scrotum erection etc. etc. This is not even a consideration as it is directly contrary to an important article policy, and smells like another "I don't like it" argument.
• "It's fake vomit" - HELL no. It is not fake vomit. I'm the one who downed the hunch punch and ate the excessive chicken wings and prayed for death in the car and rolled out the door and threw up on the driveway, so I WOULD KNOW. Not up for debate.
• Various uninformed personal attacks by ElinorD, who should not participate in this renewed discussion if she plans to distract from the topic again.

There needs to be a more convincing reason if this image is to be left out. Milto LOL pia 21:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including ... personal or semi-personal photos" (WP:COI). Please do not reinsert your photograph. If it improves the article, another editor will add it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice G, but maybe you consider taking a look at what I just wrote and commenting on the same. Milto LOL pia 05:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, what? People putting their own photos in an article is not a conflict of interest. That doesn't make any sense. Are people who upload free photos just supposed to wait around until other people happen to stumble on those photos and add them? That's not policy, because that's not what happens. Maybe the WP:COI policy needs to be updated to match actual practice, not to mention basic common sense.

Let's skip the three-letter acronym duel and talk about the picture and its role in the article. I've outlined my case for adding it; if you can't respond to the meat of my post with more than a policy clubbing, I'm going to re-insert it. Milto LOL pia 17:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Exercise IS a valid 'other' reason for vomiting

I have edited this page *3* times to add an 'other' reason for vomiting - intense exercise. It is a well-known phenomena which happens to many, many people who start an exercise program. I have even included a link to an existing Wikipedia article on the subject (exercise induced nausea). I cannot understand why editors keep removing my addition. This is the only thing I have contributed to Wikipedia and I am feeling very frustrated that my efforts are being erased without justification. Please either give a good reason for removing my edits, or leave them alone. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.119.28 (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving this message. Several contributors have reviewed your contributions, and most feel that exercise-induced nausea is not an established condition; the problem is that your edit has no sources and is therefore not verifiable.

You also wrote exercise induced nausea. When searching PubMed for "exercise induced nausea", I get a only a few hits, suggesting this subject may not be notable enough for an encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "You also wrote exercise induced nausea"??? Do you mean that I wrote that entry in Wikipedia? I assure you, I did not. I simply linked to it as evidence of this phenomena. I was not even aware of the exercise induced nausea wikipedia article until I did a search to try to find sources to justify my edits, which had been reverted. Also, I find it odd that such strict criteria are being used to judge my particular contribution when other reasons for vomiting ("violent emotions", "violent fits of coughing or hiccups") have no references to justify them *at all*. At least I provided a justification for my entry based on an existing Wikipedia page.

Would you like some additional evidence to make my contribution even more well-founded than other text on this page?

From http://sport.independent.co.uk/golf/article2866756.ece:

"The former Open champion John Daly had a vivid and emphatic response yesterday to Tiger Woods' sermon on the benefits of physical fitness in golf.

"Every time I worked out I threw up and I thought to myself, 'I can get drunk and throw up, I don't need to do this!'" was Daly's view of Woods' comments after he won the 13th major of his career in the USPGA Championship on Sunday."

From http://www.fitness.com/fitness_exercise/v1034501830.php:

"Title: Vomiting Due To Excessive Exercise

Although I've never experienced it myself, I've seen a number of people who vomit either during or after heavy cardiovascular exercise.

Can anyone offer a technical explanation of why this occurs? Thanks in advance."

(this page goes into a lengthy discussion on the topic)

From http://www.drpribut.com/sports/spthrowup.htm:

"Dry Heaves or Vomiting

Assuming you have no specific horrible medical malady - dry heaves have been associated with training that goes into the anaerobic realm and a buildup of lactic acid used to be considered one of the causes of it.

In years gone by, some runners have reported that their coaches would keep a bucket at the side of the track for runners who threw up or had the dry heaves. If you didn't stop at the bucket he'd think you weren't giving it your all."

I could go on and on, I found those in about 10 seconds with a google search for "exercise throw up" and "exercise vomit".

And as for anecdotal evidence ... I personally have vomited from too many sprints at rugby practice, and from tackling too steep a hill while mountain biking. I have also witnessed other people vomiting from intense exercise such as running or mountain biking.

Anyway, I give up. I still feel that the actions of the people who have reverted my contributions are unjustified, and that the attempt at justification which has been given is not credible because it ignores even less-well-referenced parts of the page in question. This was my first, and will be my last, attempt at improving a wikipedia page. I will continue as a user but not as a contributor. 118.90.11.7 11:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)