Talk:Vomiting

Slang terms

I am inclined to remove the entire list of examples from the "In language" paragraph. It suffers from a very bad lack of verifiability, and there are numerous attempts to popularise newly coined terms by adding them to this list, usually without evidence of usage. JFW | T@lk 15:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Scalpy (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly inserting the term "shouting to Huey". When Googling for this term, one needs to embrace it with "quotation marks" to get the actual number of uses. I get 18 hits with this, none of which appear to be reliable sources. It isn't even on urbandictionary, usually an indication that it is one of thousands of colourful terms for vomiting that does not belong on Wikipedia. I am waiting for a response. JFW | T@lk 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The user has not responded here, but in an edit summary makes the fair point that many of these terms listed have exactly the same problem on being of unverifiable relevance. I have now removed the entire paragraph, and await responses here. JFW | T@lk 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the phrase "call for Hughie/Huey" (and "call for Ralph") for vomiting originates in a sketch by the well known Scottish comedian Billy Connolly almost 30 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger_proposal

I made the templates. figured Fecal vomiting had very little to add and so should be merged here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

technical terminology from heroin article.

Side effects of heroin were described by the first one to synthesize it as creating a "...slight tendency to vomiting in some cases, but no actual emesis." Emesis and vomiting are given as synonyms here in this article, is there / was there ever a technical distinction for the two? In the side bar in the article it also gives: "Vomiting (protracted)", any explanation as to what protracted vomiting is? Does it have something to do with "vomiting...but no actual emesis"? 67.5.157.65 (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Emesis = vomiting

"Slight tendency to vomiting" is known to normal people as nausea. Whoever came up with that convoluted phrasing. The error is there, not here. JFW | T@lk 14:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternative spelling of the word

Isn't the British spelling of the word "vomitting"? It might be worth adding a Spelling differences template. (I am not sure if the alternative spelling is standard British English, but it definitely does exist.) --NetRolller 3D 17:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. Perhaps it should be, but consistency has never been the hallmark of British English. (I'm English, so I should know!)

Tactical?

I do not agree that a "tactical chunder" is performed so that the person regains enough room in his stomach to continue drinking alcohol. Main usage of the term is at the end of an evening's drinking, to prevent a hangover next day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger

I don't think that they should be merged, as they are separate things (vomiting and regurgitation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.41.125 (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Regurgitation better describes what a [rumen] does. Rumens are grass eating animals with multi-chamber stomachs that "chew their cud" for this reason. RonEJ (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I posted the following on the Regurgitation discussion page before realizing the "Discuss" link redirected to this one. Disagree with merge. Despite the colloquial definitions in the dictionary, regurgitation refers to (among other things) a specific behavior of birds, by which they feed partially-digested food to their young and also sometimes as part of courtship. As nurturing behavior, it is the bird equivalent of the mammalian lactation. If anything, this article needs to be expanded with further details and some pictures added. At any rate, it is not the same as vomiting, which birds also do in response to poison, and trust me, the output looks very different from regurgitated food. Mbarbier (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merger of Vomiting and Regurgitation (digestion) because they are quite separate reactions in humans to medically recognized conditions. Vomiting caused by toxins or diseases, and regurgitation caused by GERD and other conditions. I have expanded the regurgitation article to reflect that difference. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

lol

lol ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.251.125 (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs Citations

Not sure about the original research limitations on something that is clearly verifiable. I hope to add citations in a few weeks when I get back to my medical notes and texts —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConvertfromIslam (talk • contribs) 05:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Drawing of Man Vomiting

I agree with some other comments on here: the picture should be deleted and replaced with a picture of vomit, chunks and all. After all, there is an arguably more disgusting picture of Meconium on here, so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.99.14 (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is this here? This is not an illustration which is up to Wiki's standards. I vote to remove. C.anguschandler (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is it any worse than that 14th century painting?81.154.178.9 (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just my opinion of course but I think it is an accurate and clear depiction of the act of vomiting. I haven't got a problem with it. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. 81.101.44.107 (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Crappy art? 75.15.218.118 (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)monz

I also agree it should be removed. I would argue for a much more modern, explicit depiction of vomit. I know it's gross and icky and what-have-you, but neither of the images in this article actually depict vomiting or vomit very accurately. The top one, the "14th century painting", seems to show a woman pouring blood out of a man's head. And the second one seems to be a guy lying in a pool of blood, or just leaning his head on a toilet. Neither image is "an accurate and clear depiction of the act of vomiting." Fuzzform (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The pictures don't seem to relate to the article's topic, and they are kinda disturbing. I vote to replace it, or even better, delete it. We all pretty much know what vomiting looks like. And for those that don't, you are really lucky and don't need to know what it looks like. I say we put it to a vote. Vote in the section below this one. The majority of the votes will decide whether or not it is deleted. Voting will end by 4/1/09 (April 1, 2009). If there is a tie, it stays. Rob657 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Rob657

I happen to know somebody who has agreed to a photo of him vomiting. I know it's disgusting, but this is Wikipedia. If you all want, please specify a stance and all that. We, between fits of laughter, have discussed a side view outdoors, (not too close up), plus another photo of the vomit itself. Sooner or later this article will get a photo, so why not something, er, tasteful. Any thoughts?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems unnecessary, we've all vomited or seen someone vomit. The article on defecation does not have, or require, a photograph of a human being taking a dump. WP:Profanity states:

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.

--CliffC (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but wikipedia also has the WP:NOTCENSORED policy. This must be looked at as an individual case, and not compared to other articles on bodily functions. After all, the Human feces article has a picture OF a dump having been taken, so under that logic you are ok with a picture of vomit, but not of the vomitting act.

I think using a video of someone vomiting as a tracer to draw an animated diagram of the stomach, esophagus, and mouth and show the entire act in a not so disgusting way would be the best way of presenting it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I must agree with CliffC. The Autofellatio image is a case in point. Nobody could say "Ohhhh, I see. It's like that. I thought it would be the other way." Ideal would be Floydian's suggestion, but animation would be laborious. Maybe some kind of frame-by-frame thing showing the convulsive action. A simple still image of vomit or of a person vomiting does not seem like it would be useful.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Get your friend to do the deed then (You couldn't pay me to do that, geez), and it can be slowed down.

Is he up for multiple takes? :P - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the best image we could get here is a video of an x-ray of someone vomiting a barium meal. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Should it stay? Vote here.

I say remove it. Rob657 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Rob657

I don't think it's necessary to have an actual photograph of someone vomiting, but the picture we have right now is definitely not a realistic enough portrayal. So yeah, I guess it should be removed. 74.33.174.133 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Other Reasons for Vomiting

What about intense physical activity, I think many people who have been on sports teams will vouch that sometimes people throw up after they have been made to do some sort of extreme training - usually in the form of vigorous running(suicides come to mind). I didn't think any of the other causes included this unless the emesis in these cases is because of one of the other causes, anyone else's thoughts? 70.250.215.116 (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Choking/aspiration of fluids e.g. water, smoke. Is this due to irritation of the pharynx, or nasopharynx? Does direct irritation of respiratory tract also cause vomitting? The article should be emended with the inclusion, under 'Digestive Tract,' of "irritation of pharynx/nasopharynx" and/or a new listing of "respiratory causes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anish1411 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Image currently available

Okay, I see they have removed the old illustration in favour of this rather nasty image on display. Wikipedia is not censored, sure, but the bloody guy is on a toilet and there is like a TORRENT of vomit coming out of his mouth. To me this is just gratuitous and there must be some other image that can depict the same act in a less vile manner. Please don't consider me a prude or anything, but it feels to me like someone was taking the piss out of Wikipedia here. This is more of a picture to share among mates, and I think a better image could be found for an encyclopaedia. Do you think you would find this image in EB? I doubt it. Also to support my idea that the person who posted it was taking the piss: it says "Human male" and "siting" [sic]. Human male sounds like the sort of thing someone would add to the image to make it sound more educational than it really is. -68.82.113.190 (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree and have removed the images. I previously suggested an mpg. I have since had second thoughts. I really think the article needs an image, but what? A pile of puke on the ground or a guy on the loo does not serve the article. Suggestions? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[[1]] This image to me seems to depict vomiting in a very clear cut manner (one which no one can mistake for anything else) and doesn't depict an actual person, which might cause problems (even citing fair use, it seems unfair to use someone's picture for this purpose). Does anyone else feel this image is helpful and that we could claim a case for fair use? -68.82.113.190 (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (Rapturerocks)

I feel the same way it shows someone vomiting i don't think you will get any better that that! it should stay. 98.117.40.154 (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Apparently there is an editorial dispute regarding the pictures currently available on this page. Wikipedia does not censor and so therefore some people seek the inclusion of these pictures. I am going on the record as saying the two pictures currently visible on this page as of Tuesday November 03 11:35 GMT are unnecessary. Please view [[2]] and consider my arguments:

• The image available, especially the first, is a gratuitous depiction of graphic vomiting where another less offensive image might be available.

• The image is under a CC license for non-commercial uses with attribution, but this person may not want to be the "face" of vomiting when people search the web. Even if he agrees to display the picture, he may change his mind about it. While he has no legal basis to complain, we could easily provide another image where an illustrated person is depicted doing same act.

• The second image, while less offensive to me personally, seems unnecessary. Does it add anything of real value to the article?

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available—however, when a cited quotation contains words that may be offensive, it should not be censored."

• To me it just seems that keeping this particular image because of Wikipedia's policy is misguided. Just because Wikipedia shouldn't be censored, doesn't mean we can't come to a consensus when images of equal merit but which are less controversial are available.

I am willing to hear other people's opinions, and I am not going to remove the picture because I think it defeats the purpose of actually discussing its merit. But I also don't think you will come to the conclusion that this picture is particularly necessary, or at the very least that another substitute couldn't be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapturerocks (talk • contribs) 11:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's true that Wikipedia is not censored, but that policy doesn't require us to use the most tasteless images available to illustrate our articles. Sexual intercourse, anal sex and analingus are effectively illustrated without resort to offensive/disgusting images, and similarly tasteful images could surely be found or produced for this article. In the meantime, the current images should at the very least be put in collapsable boxes so that readers have the option of enjoying the article without having to look at a picture of a man vomiting while shitting. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah seriously, people just want these images here "for the lolz," and then use the arguement that Wikipedia isn't censored so that they look legitamite. Come on, everyone knows what vomit looks like. 72.220.125.86 (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Other species

I think a section regarding other species is needed. The House mouse article, for example, states that: "House mice, like other rodents, do not vomit." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.110.95 (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I was wondering who had gone through the process to get this article semi-protected? Was it because of the image problem? To me there's two things we need to address now with images.

1) Does this page require images to better illustrate it, or does it at least stand to benefit from images? (in other words, it may not be necessary, but it might prove helpful)

2) If so, which images should we use?

I want to focus on images immediately because there were a few people besides myself who expressed dismay at the images previously available. After there's some consensus regarding images, we can go about selecting one (or more) and determining fair use.

After that, there is more to address (such as species with no ability to vomit, or those species which expel their entire digestive tract, and the difference and similarities between vomiting as an evolutionary response and regurgitation as a feeding mechanism.) But first I think we should address the image issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapturerocks (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please add the following...

I could not find the button to add this but it should say "Ralphing redirects here." JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It should only say that if there are other uses for the term "ralphing" (in which case it would link to those uses), and if Ralphing redirects here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a few words to redirect here too. I'm sure they will be contested for removal only a matter of time. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)