Talk:Insufflation

Untitled

This page has previously been wikipedia:transwikied, as Wikipedia is not a dictonary. I'm reverting it to a Redirect. Eivind^t@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)

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)

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.

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)

I would like to suggest that there is a separate article on any of the sociological and anthropological crossover topics involved with In/Exsufflation and include a link in this article. The religious discussion whether neutral or not seems to be a completely different topic then the scientific and encyclopedic information one would expect in an article on "Insufflation"

Raeinar (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment under "Merger Proposal" on this page, thanks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I want to add that there is a very interesting entry in Jeff Karick's 'Forgotten English Calendar' on the topic of Insufflation being a means to revive the drowned, and the practice of this was popular enough to warrent insufflation kits provided by the London Royal Humane Society along the banks of the Thames in the late 1700's. It is described as a 'tobacco resuscitator kit' and is designed to provide a smoke 'enema', of sorts. I have no primary refernce for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.55.134 (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Merge - I also agree with the proposed merger, as well as the proposed split above. By merging the internasal route article with the medical/snorting section of this article, it should potentially provide enough basic, on-topic information for a pair of articles with disambiguation redirect. One for medical and substance abuse meanings (which could be expanded with the proposed information on the dangers and benefits of drug delivery via this method) and a second article with the religious, magical, and folklore aspects. [Care would have to be taken to make sure any redirects, such as the one for "Snorting" would then redirect to the correct article.] Cadrac (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Un-merge

I suggest an un-merge. Currently, the article begins with a few paragraphs about the internasal route and the medical use, while the remaining (and vast) majority of the article is about the liturgical use, but isn't even mentioned in the lede. Though perhaps a key point of the merge was "find a place under the insufflation article" (emphasis added), in which case a re-write may suffice. However, a split seems like less work ;-). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly suggest an un-merge. If not, the lede needs to be rewritten to reflect that the word carries two extremely-different meanings and connotations. arimareiji (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think Cadrac's comments in the earlier discussion ("...a pair of articles with disambiguation redirect. One for medical and substance abuse meanings... and a second article with the religious, magical, and folklore aspects") actually are more in line with what I have in mind. I'm not sure that anyone actually advocated merging the article into its current state. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I am wondering what disambig. titles we should use for the split articles. I'm thinking "Insufflation (medicine)" and "Insufflation (religion)", but I wonder if these are too narrow. E.g., the former would include cocaine use which isn't necessarily the field of "medicine". And "religion" might be too narrow, as the insufflation practice might be generally used for spiritual purposes outside of organized religion (and I wasn't sure about using "Insufflation (spirituality)" or "Insufflation (ritual)". -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Un-merge: As someone who just encountered this term for the first time, I would go with two articles. I found the term in connection with Byzantine magico-religious practice and was a little surprised by the coke-snorting image. My suggestion, based on the proportion of content, is Insufflation (drugs) and plain Insufflation for the magico-religious traditions -- otherwise for the latter you run into the problems Gyrofrog outlines. I thought about Insufflation (pharmacology), but that's not accurate either. "Drugs" may strike the ear as too colloquial, but it covers both medical and recreational practice. The Wiki article defines "drug" as "any chemical substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function." Cynwolfe (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I am leaning toward "Insufflation (medicine)" as the same naming scheme was used for Injection (medicine) (which covers medical, recreational, and non-human usage). "Plain Insufflation" is workable, but then I remembered idea was to use that for the disambig. page. We could call the disambig "Insufflation (disambiguation)" and then put a link to it in the hat note at Insufflation. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I think the liturgical/magical use could also include insufflation in music, which is what actually led me to the article. However, I don't know much about it and at this point I certainly don't have anything that I could add to the article. I've heard it used in Touareg music (e.g. Tartit), but didn't know what to call such a technique. For all I know, its use in that context is ritualistic. I presume it's also used in extended technique, e.g. Meredith Monk et al. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. I have split the medical/drug content to Insufflation (medicine) and created Insufflation (disambiguation). Both articles have hat notes with links to the disambig. page. The Danish and German interwiki links have been moved to "Insufflation (medicine)" and "Insufflation (disambiguation)", respectively. Note that a 'bot tagged "Insufflation (medicine)" for CSD because it thought I was duplicating content (I had created the new article before saving this one). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, sort of. While the (pre-split) bulk of the text dealt with the ritual use, most of the links to this article are medically/drug-related. There are a lot of them, and I've started to fix them, but I can't hit them all right now. Sorry for any inconvenience. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've finished updating the links. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Un-merge: I just came across this for the first time, and I wish I'd come sooner! Delivering substances by the intranasal route is not the same thing as insufflation, and I question whether it should be here at all. Intranasal delivery includes the use of such medications/products as Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs, which don't depend on the movement of air for their application. Some nose drops also work without movement of air, as do nasal rinses. Also, the ability to deliver large molecules directly to the brain via the intranasal route itself is highly notable, and I think it deserves its own page. My intention was to create such a page, but then I found this discussion. I also followed the "intranasal route" link from the page on route of drug administration and it redirects here.

I'm a scientist who actually studied central delivery of drugs via the intranasal route for a couple years as a postdoc. I'm pretty familiar with that literature, and I think it deserves a page, but given this discussion and the redirect from "intranasal route" I don't know what to do. :o(

At the very least, I think this article should reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_administration and that the redirect for "intranasal route" should also go there. Dcs002 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the "Intranasal route" and "Intranasally" redirects to point to Nasal administration. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I will focus my attention on the Nasal administration page, though I think that "intranasal administration" or "intranasal route" would be a better title for that page. But I'll take that discussion over to that page. Thanks again. Dcs002 (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

copyediting and clarity

I started trying to edit this fascinating article to make its internal style a little more consistent and to simplify its language and syntax, since the subject matter is pretty heavy-duty. I've not gotten far, but hope to do more. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Tertullian to his wife

Taken out of context, the remarks of Tertullian to his wife don't seem to me to suggest that exsufflation was distinctively Christian; and in fact it was not. When Tertullian asks the incense dealer "what mouth" ("which mouth"?) he'll use to blow, isn't he saying that it's the faith behind the action that determines its character, not the action itself? And in fact, his remark to his wife has her blowing in the context of a non-Christian marriage, which to me implies again a traditional practice not peculiar to Christianity. The section seems self-contradictory; it says the practice existed apart from liturgy, which suggests magico-religious tradition or "superstition." Maybe I'm misreading it. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)