Talk:Constipation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I added a paragraph about the possibility that constipation may be caused by an extra bend or loop in the descending colon, a condition which an experienced radiologist will agree is not so uncommon. This paragraph was simply removed. It seems that by editing out anything which is not strictly in accordance with the textbooks Wikipedia is losing what could be a valueable source of discovery for people in general and for those so-called experts who think they already know everything that can be know about a subject.

If this needs a cleanup to a higher standard of quality, that higher standard is beyond me. This strikes me as a more practically useful article than almost anything I usually read on Wikipedia. Maybe the usual quota of obscurity would keep people happy. Art LaPella 02:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the tag, it looks pretty good to me now. --Kbk 16:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] jfdwolff Edit Approaches Vandalism

It seems to me that the massive edit by jfdwolff approaches vandalism. Who is he to be annoyed and essentially replace an entry which has been worked on collaboratively for an extended period of time with something of his own that looks like it belongs in the Merck Manual?

I would like to see balance restored reemphasizing the practical aspects of correcting constipation without resorting to the medical profession. Constipation is common and is caused by the typical low bulk Western diet. Most people are unaware of this and will not be able to extract the most reasonable solution from the current terse medical jargon. The article is now directed to the medical profession instead of the general public, in my opinion, and its practical aspect has been destroyed. At a minimum, the dietary recommedation section needs to be restored.

How can Wikipedia meet the needs of its less technical users if articles are 'upgraded' like this? --Kbk 19:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You are free to reinsert the dietary intervention section, but please avoid the ghastly style of the previous version, which addressed the reader in second person and contained lots of unproven nonsense. I take firm offense with your suggestion of "vandalism"; apologies would be appreciated. JFW | T@lk 20:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I see no reason to apologize (as yet) as you have not addressed the rest of the issues I have raised. And you have not apologized for aggravating me by deleting the section I've been working on.
Why must all medical articles look like the Merck manual, especially those which cover subjects which may interest the average reader? What justifies your essentially tossing the whole article overboard instead of massaging it? Which entries are "unproven nonesense", to be corrected by you without justification? Wholesale elimination of other people's Wikipedia work (with a dismissive comment, even) is tantamount to vandalism, even if your work is adequate. When I work on an article, I try to be careful to do it piece by piece, justifying each change with appropriate comments. I would never replace the article without prior discussion and a decent waiting period.
I recognize that you are a medical professional and that you have done a lot of good work for Wikipedia, but that doesn't justify high-handed behavior.
I agree with your comments on not addressing the reader directly. Also, your style is definitely an improvement, but IMHO you went too far and eliminated the practical aspects of the article.--Kbk 20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Your edits to the article have been marginal[1], and have included second-person instructions like "Don't chew on the bran, it will just begin to act like a piece of chewing gum".

If you wish to reinsert all that dietary advice, you are free to do so. Also, please be mindful of the line at the bottom of every edit page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." If my merciless editing disturbs you or uncomfortably resembles the Merck Manual then please improve it further. JFW | T@lk 23:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I was responsible for the whole section on bran. Thanks for your opinion, but I was simply following the style of the article, and I have already agreed with you on the second-person issue.
You have not addressed the other points I raised, so my opinion of you as being high-handed stands. In the future, please don't scrap whole sections or articles without adequate discussion. That's not "editing". Rather, massage articles into shape in the spirit of Wikipedia.--Kbk 02:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sick of your personal attacks. Just be quiet and edit the article. JFW | T@lk 07:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Bingo. I guess we agree to disagree. I'll revert the section after a bit and then revise it as we've discussed.--Kbk 14:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


Phew - Wikipedians, as the Wikipedia:Introduction states 'we encourage users to be bold...but don't be reckless!' and 'Civility is a rule here on Wikipedia'. Personally I thought the edit was an improvement, but:

  • I agree with Kbk on the risk of us doctors making entries too dry & clinical, but it is sensible to keep entries on a health/medical nature having a layout that has a logical senquence
    • i.e. define a condition, features of the condiion, how to diagnose & assess causes and approproaches to treatment (whether self-help or therapeutic) and then social-historical background.
    • slavish following of a medical page style is too rigid and will not always give the best entries, but completely idiosyncratic layout will not give wikipedia the polished-look we all hope for.
  • JFW's edit gave a much fuller description on constipation and its investigation and treatment, I agree though that self-management was then lacking.
    • Kbk's previous version had many good points on addressing the issue, but I think was a little jumbled across the whole article
  • The previous version mentions taking the time to go to the toilet. This is particularly important in children or those who try over-regulate their lives. I was always taught technically "heed the call". Infants often get constipated and then exacerbate the problem by trying to hold on (because they know it will hurt) and this just allows the bowels to reabsorb more water and make the motions even harder.
    • But I think the previous version was a little "wooley" (a) style was rather too chatty (fine to a certain extent) (b) slighty too wordy and some tightening up of english needed (c) long list of vegetables and discussion on types of flour.
  • The long section on sources dietary fibre perhaps would be better on a separate page:
    • It then could link to constipation as a consequence of insufficient fibre, but also what to reduce back on if experiencing diarrhoea (amazing the number of patients I see with diarrhoea worse each morning after their breakfast of weetabix+milk or prunes !)
    • High fibre also of course thought helpful for cholesterol levels, sensible diet for weight and diabetics. More controversial is the issue of high-fibre and degree of reduction colon cancer.
    • So high fibre, or higher fibre than typical "western diet", really should not be tucked in exclusively under constipation.
  • Can we agree for:
    • Kbk to help ensure English not that of a medical under-graduate textbook, add back a tightly written 'Self management section'
    • JFW & myself ensure within accepted Medical practice (we would worry over some 'nutritionist' POV items) and that article keeps its depth on medical causes and management, using our clinical knowledge.
    • Kbk, do you think the sources of high fibre could be set up on a separate page (can't immediately find any existing WP article) and place some links to diabetes, cholesterol(hypercholesterolemia) etc?
      • I've yet to search WP, but their should be an entry in WP on 'healthy diet' ('healthy diet' gets overused/misused, so I would redirect to 'Sensible approaches to eating') and fibre, saturated fats, high-glycaemic foods, weight/exercise etc. all get mentioned and link appropriate to other articles.

David Ruben 20:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Spoke to soon. Healthy diet (helps to search with correct spelling) exists, but seems very stubby. David Ruben 20:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks DR. I'll be nice to Kbk, but unkind to unproven nutritionist waffle. JFW | T@lk 21:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Further sources of high fibre should be on Dietary fiber. Changed the link in the article from fibre to dietary fibre. --WS 13:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bananas or Apples: Cure

I have a question. Fruits and vegetables are suggested as a cure, but specific fruits or vegetables aren't named. I've been told by some people that bananas are a good cure for constipation, while apples are a good cure for diarrhea. I've also been told the opposite is true. Which is correct? Some friends and I were trying to give advice, however; we were all contradicting each other. Now we have a bet. The half that wins has to buy the other half dinner.

[edit] What foods might help cause it?

To put it bluntly, I enjoy a stool that's on the firmer side (less wiping and it all comes out a lot faster), but I'm unsure as to how to stimulate it. Dieticians list a plethora of foods known to be mild laxatives, but all I know that supposedly gums up the works is meat and cheese. As I enjoy laxatives like dried fruit in my diet but don't wish to suffer from the resulting inevitable diarrhea (or at best, loose stool) it would be helpful if we could perhaps compile a list of foods that are known to counteract the laxative effect, which presumably in large amounts would induce constipation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.48.43 (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Talk%7EConstipation_b81b.html"