Talk:Klismaphilia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): D. Doan, A.Chhen01, M.DuranUCSF, A.Kumar, UCSF.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

K

Kellogg is associated with Special K, which has nothing to do with enemas

Didn't you see The Road To Wellville?

I take it that the issue of whether Kellogg was a klysmaphiliac is the sole basis for the NPOV dispute header? If so, I'm going to remove it since it seems like a reasonable statement to make considering the details over on Kellogg's article. Bryan 01:22, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support the article?

This article sounds a bit like original research. Can anyone back this information up? DDerby 05:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Squeek!

Ghneeck, glg, MLEH!*

• (translation for non-prudes: there's been too many prudes editing all the sexuality articles lately. Kellogg would be oh so proud of y'all.)

Stephen king the klismaphiliac?

where did you find out that stephen king was an enema fetishist?

I was wondering the same. I can find no evidence to that anywhere. IINAG 14:21, August 31 2005

Any evidence on the other two, Marilyn Monroe and Mae West? Kent Wang 05:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I have no problem with the article as such Paraphilias and Klismaphilia (has b/w drawings). The problem is with Kellogg, Marilyn Monroe, Mae West, Stephen King, Bill O'Reilly and some of the claims in the 4th and 5th paragraphs. CambridgeBayWeather 05:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Kellogg seems to be a clear-cut case, judging by what is known of his life and works. The descriptions of the rest are, absent of any evidence, simply nonsense. -- Karada 07:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Still need specific quotes for someone saying that "many modern commentators" share the view, but without any references about that specifically. Ansell 12:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article seems to have become a drivel magnet. It needs a complete rewrite, with proper references added. I've started the process by removing the whole, extremely dubious, middle section of the article. -- Karada 07:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I've now added a small bibliography, and a cite of a paper with an online abstract: does anyone have a pointer to the Denko papers? -- Karada 08:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

bad reference

The enema.org or whatever reference not only isn't a proper reliable reference, it doesn't actually say what it is tagged to say: that most enema fans are heterosexual. Lotusduck 21:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe

I saw in a doco about the death of marilyn monroe that she used enemas not just for constipation but also during sex. Could she have been a Klismaphiliac? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.234.157.64 (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Milk

should it be mentioned that milk is frequently used in place of water, for those who just like to "squirt"? --99.101.160.159 (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not on its own, but there should probably be a section on the various concoctions(and there are a lot) that are used which such info would fit well into. Thanks for the info.AerobicFox (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the deletions in the edit of 05:27, 9 August 2020

"Added material from 3 references already cited in this article" was the edit comment of my edit timestamped 19:01, 23 July 2020. However, part of the text added there was deleted with the edit comment "Manifestation: WP:MEDRS. Don't restore this without WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing" in the edit timestamped 05:27, 9 August 2020.

The deleted text relied on 2 references that remained in use after that edit and I note that the resulting version contains the first of those references, <ref name=Agnew_1982/> remains used in 5 places shown in reference 3, and the second of those references, <ref>Agnew, ''Klismaphilia'':77</ref> remains used in 3 places shown in references 6, 11, and 14.

Either those references are:

1) Compliant with WP:MEDRS, in which case the deletion may be reverted.

or

2) Not compliant with WP:MEDRS, in which case many parts of the remaining text should also be deleted.

Unless there are comments here suggesting noncompliance, or unless someone simply deletes more text as suggested in 2), in a few days I'll revert the deletion as suggested in 1). Helen4780 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what else there is to state. I was clear that I removed the material because it is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. Do read and study WP:MEDRS. As is clear by your talk page, you've had ample time to do so. A source not being WP:MEDRS-compliant for one part does not mean that the source can't be fine for any other aspect. This is why WP:MEDDATE lists history material as an exception. Using the source to state "Klismaphilia is practiced by men and women"? I see no big issue with that, although a more up-to-date source is preferred. Using the source to state, for example, "Enemas can induce sexual arousal because the bulbospongiosus muscle which starts in front of the anus contributes, in women, to clitoral erection and the contractions of orgasm, and in males, to erection, the contractions of orgasm, and ejaculation."? This 1982 source should not be used for that. This source should not be used for medical or anatomical material unless discussing the matter in a historical context, or unless the material holds true today. And the way to see if it holds true today is to look to see if there are WP:MEDRS-compliant sources within the last five or ten years on the matter and what they state. Why use a 1982 source for this material unless one has no other option? I told you on your talk page, "I'm fine with you using the 2000 source as long as what you are adding is not out of date. But you still should not devote an entire section to things stated by Agnew in that source."

If you want to remove almost all of the remaining text in this article and reduce it to a WP:Stub because I rejected your desired source, I'm not going to state that that's okay. What you should be doing is looking for better and more recent sources to replace the existing sources.

In the future, please do not email me to tell me that you have posted to this talk page. I watch the article. So I'm going to see the post.

Crossroads, as an editor who edits in the paraphilia area, any thoughts on this? Should the article be reduced to a stub? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Let me begin with three comments about “If you want to remove almost all of the remaining text in this article and reduce it to a WP:Stub because I rejected your desired source”:

1) I do not understand why you think that I “want to remove” anything. To the contrary, I wrote that, absent further discussion, I intended to revert you deletions.

2) As for “reduce it to a WP:Stub”, that also does not appear in what you were replying to. The only “reducing” I proposed is, if either reference is not acceptable, then the remaining statements based on that reference should be deleted.

3) And I do not understand “because I rejected your desired source” when, in fact, you did not reject my sources. You rejected using them in one place each but allowing them otherwise.

I fail to follow why allowing a reference for "Klismaphilia is practiced ..." but not for "Enemas can induce ...” because “... unless the material holds true today” on the basis that the former may be acceptable because “...WP:MEDDATE lists history material as an exception.” Of all the matters discussed in the entire article, the item with the longest history of stability is our understanding of the skeleton-muscular system.

While I do understand quite well “Why use a 1982 source for this material unless one has no other option? “, I must note that I have spent endless hours trying to find anything more recent than the sources used here. The word "klismaphilia" was coined in 1973 (as noted in the article) and this is simply a topic on which precious little has been published. Helen4780 (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You stated, "I do not understand why you think that I 'want to remove' anything. To the contrary, I wrote that, absent further discussion, I intended to revert you deletions." I made that comment because you are doing the "if my edits don't get to stay because of that source, then all of the other material supported by that source should go as well" thing; it's something that newbies or other less-experienced editors commonly do. As as for intending to revert me, you gave the "unless there are comments here suggesting noncompliance, or unless someone simply deletes more text as suggested in 2), in a few days I'll revert the deletion as suggested in 1." conditions for not reverting me. Anyway, per may what I stated above, if you revert me, you would be reverted again, and I would bring in other WP:Med editors to weigh in on this. I might bring in other WP:Med editors regardless.

As for reducing the article to a stub? Look at what it's currently sourced to. Significant portions are sourced to "Agnew, J. (October 1982)." So, yes, cutting all of the material sourced to that 1982 source would essentially reduce the article to a stub. And it would certainly be a stub if most of the other poor sourcing is removed.

You stated that you "fail to follow why allowing a reference for 'Klismaphilia is practiced ...' but not for 'Enemas can induce ...' because '... unless the material holds true today' on the basis that the former may be acceptable because '...WP:MEDDATE lists history material as an exception.'" That is not what I stated. WP:MEDRS is about sourcing biomedical material. WP:MEDRS-compliant sources should be used when speaking of the body in the way that text I removed speaks of the body in relation to enemas. Stating that "klismaphilia is practiced by men and women" is not about how the body works in relation to enemas. But, yes, since it's about people engaging in a paraphilia that may result in medical issues, a WP:MEDRS-compliant source is best for this material as well. However, if men and women engage in klismaphilia today, which is the case unless we have reason to believe that no one engages it now, then all that an up-to-date source stating that some men and women engage in klismaphilia would be doing is confirming that the practice still happens today. WP:MEDDATE is about keeping articles up-to-date. Like it states, "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." We look at these newer sources to see if things are the same. So, yes, a Gray's Anatomy source, for example, is going to be fine for knowledge about anatomy that has not changed, but it's not going to be fine for knowledge about anatomy that has changed (unless using some updated version that touches on what we know today). For instance, we know a lot more about the human brain than we did at the time that Gray's Anatomy was originally published. If reporting on historical material, history sections are an exception to strict adherence to WP:MEDRS because, like WP:MEDDATE states, "History sections often cite older work."

You stated, "Of all the matters discussed in the entire article, the item with the longest history of stability is our understanding of the skeleton-muscular system." Understanding the skeleton-muscular system is not the same thing as stating "the body reacts this way, including with pleasure, when enemas are used this way."

You stated that you "must note that [you] have spent endless hours trying to find anything more recent than the sources used here. The word 'klismaphilia' was coined in 1973 (as noted in the article) and this is simply a topic on which precious little has been published." Yes, there is little published on this topic, which is why primary sources may be used for some of it. But you apparently haven't looked on Google Books. On Google Books, I see a few sources that are significantly more recent than 1982 for commenting on klismaphilia. Two are this 2007 "Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality" source, from Jones & Bartlett Learning, page 678, and this 2009 "Sex Crimes: Patterns and Behavior" source, from Sage Publications, pages 84 to 85.

No need to WP:Ping me when you reply to me. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Although I have many things to note in my reply, I'm limiting it to addressing these words at the end of the first paragraph of your latest reply:

"if you revert me, you would be reverted again, and I would bring in other WP:Med editors to weigh in on this. I might bring in other WP:Med editors regardless."

It should be clear that I have no intention, given our present impasse, to revert your edit since it is not the case "unless there are comments here suggesting noncompliance".

Please "bring in other WP:Med editors to weigh in on this"!! I perceive that you state that as a threat: myself, I would welcome others to weigh in and help resolve this issue and I would accept the result of consensus.

Meanwhile, I am proactively invoking [[1]]. I don't have the time to endlessly reply to your replies, and clearly outsiders should be involved to form consensus. Helen4780 (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Helen4780, I don't really see what is so problematic about Flyer's edits and comments here. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Drmies Very well; I will, of course, defer to consensus, but I'd like further input because I find the contention that although parts of a journal article are accepted as complying with WP:MEDRS, that does not imply that entire journal article complies with WP:MEDRS. Also, rightly or wrongly, I perceive belligerence in the exchange. Helen4780 (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen's reversion and explanation above is correct. That material fails MEDRS and does not belong. As she noted, though, that doesn't mean everything from that source has to be removed. I also don't see any belligerence on her part, just a statement of her intentions. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I also don't see belligerence, but even if there were any, that doesn't take away from the main thrust. Flyer is arguing that some sources can verify some things but not all things; that strikes me as correct both generally and within MEDRS. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Belligerence? LOL. No. And stating that I may bring in WP:Med editors was not intended as a threat. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

A brief reply may be forthcoming.

I was wrong and Flyer22 was right.

I apologize to all whose time I wasted.

And I thank all who replied.

Tribal knowledge, which I have encountered in many corporations I've consulted in, I perceive in play here. Out of concern that they would not be compliant with WP:MEDRS I would never considered using the sources from Google Books that Flyer22 found; and I do not understand accepting only portions of an article as acceptable under WP:MEDRS, especially the rejection of something anatomical.

This article resonates with me concerning my present dilemma. Helen4780 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)