Talk:Insufflation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has previously been wikipedia:transwikied, as Wikipedia is not a dictonary. I'm reverting it to a Redirect. Eivindt@c 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a basic overview of the practice of insufflation, but it definitely needs expansion. Any help is appreciated. Plutoniumboss 18:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Transwiki

There appears to be a lack of consensus on whether this article should remain, especially since two users have changed this to a redirect and no significant improvements have been made since then. I think in it's current state is doesn't deserve to stay, and I don't think there's enough material to improve it. I've been wrong before though, and I'd be satisfied with a source for either of the 'uses' that that implied it was anything besides someone just speaking the english language. Vicarious 03:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this can be expanded into at least a short article. I have found multiple definitions in the American Heritage Dictionary
1. To blow or breathe into or on.
2. To treat medically by blowing a powder, gas, or vapor into a bodily cavity.
3. A ritual act of breathing on baptismal water or on the one being baptized.
Also, an article has been written on it here. Therefore, I think that it can be expanded. -- Kjkolb 14:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no doubt it's a real word, but referencing a dictionary is not a very compelling argument for why it shouldn't be moved to a dictionary. I'm still dubious but based on the link and your opinion I'll conceed the issue. Vicarious 09:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a large section on the liturgical (and related magical and folkloristic) uses. I still have a few things of substance to add, a few references to add, some tidying of references to do, intra-wiki links to add, and links to the online versions of the texts cited (most are not online, but the Ante-Nicene Fathers and Nicene Fathers series is, I believe). I'm aware of some bias toward Western religious rites; more detail on the Eastern (Orthodox, Maronite) rites would be nice. The medical use could, I think, also be considerably expanded, especially in the historical dimension: even in the 17th century, people talked about (medical) 'insufflations and exsufflations' with reference to specific, now antiquated, procedures which are worth documenting. PFSchaffner 19:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] possible seperate article for "snorting"

I found it odd that snorting and the religious aspects of this where to, should there be 2 seperate articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.177.220.1 (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

I searched wikipedia for "insufflation" hoping to get an article on the possible health concerns, safest methods e.t.c. I think this is a reasonable thing to expect from such an article. Why has nobody put anything of the sort here? I can't find much of anything on erowid or anything either, but I would have expected wikipdia to have a decent article on the subject. - Have no account, Ryan1711.

[edit] Possible neutrality dispute

Reading through the section on the religious debate, I found it rather suggestive of a more emotional debate on the system, rather than offering facts. It's attributed nicely, but the wording of it seems to bend it into something that's more 'not so neutral' to me. Particularly the 'closing statement' as offered.

Maybe I'm too sensitive about this one, but the reading-over left me wondering about objectivity, so I figure I'll put it up for others to peek at.

Kurasu 10:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


Yes, you are over sensitive...WAY over sensitive... That's a real problem here in the Wikipedia: How do we report on "emotional" debates... It is a fact that people got "emotional" over exsufflation... This was during the wars of religion afterall. If you remove all suggestions that even remotely communicate the fact that there is/was emotion involved you will be putting forward an out-and-out FALSE represention of the facts. That would be an actual BETRAYAL of the Wikipedia... THINK... Think better folks... Don't be sophmoric... A little knowledge and thought is extremely DANGEROUS...

Since there have been absolutely NO takers on this talk about "Possible neutrality dispute" either pro or con since it was put up there over 6 months ago, I am removing it. FWIW, my academic background is in Philosophy, Cultural History and Theology. This is a good article in this part. Not perfect, but this tentative, hypothetical dispute is nonsense. Whoever put it up there and then just left it is irresponsible. I'm sure that you are nice, interesting and dedicated... But please think this through even further. Thanks...

Emyth (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Small thing, but in the introductory paragraph it says "magical and quasi-magical uses" or something similar. Is there a difference between magical and quasi magical? I do believe that "quasi" means fake, so is this article implying magic is real? xyz (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"quasi"=semi or partail. I believe that it refers to the medical/recreational and religious uses, or some combination of both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.35.24 (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"The technique is common for many recreational drugs and is also used for some entheogens." couldn't the preceding remove the "and also is" as recreational drugs covers entheogens, or do they mean cultural, shamanistic use of drugs? It may be covered with a better term, as it seems like an odd way to drop the word at the beginning of the article. Nagelfar (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Insufflation as means to the bloodstream.

This article doesn't really touch on the fact that absorption into the mucous membrane into the bloodstream is the cause of intoxication from chemical substances via insufflation. It should also go into the facts as to what molecular level substances are fully metabolized into the bloodstream via insufflation; meaning; is it only possible to absorb chemical molecules like drugs, or could dietary supplements, amino acids & such, have as much bio-availability and enter the bloodstream through insufflation just as easily? 67.5.156.20 (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I fixed the lack of mention in regard to getting chemicals to the bloodstream as the cause & effect of recreational insufflation. However the other question of whether larger molecular structures, like amino acids, can be so absorbed, is a question someone else might be be able to answer. Nagelfar (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical accounts of insufflation should make reference to Shamanistic use

The Amazonian Shaman are known to insufflate a snuff made from the beans of the Yopo tree for entheogenic/spiritual purpose. This predates the Christian instances by quite a bit - I feel this needs to be included, but I'm laaaazy. KWaal (KWaal) 23:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

I'm proposing that we merge the stub-article Intranasal route into this article. Please list any support ("Merge") or objections ("Keep") in this section, just below this entry. After a reasonable number of votes accumulate, a decision will be made based on the consensus. Cheers, Fuzzform (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge - Intranasal route article is very limited. I agree it could find a place under the insufflation article.--Astavats (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)