Talk:Colon cleansing

Altered sentence indicating that there is no such thing as impacted feces
I edited the following sentence: "No surgeries, autopsies or other observations of colons have discovered any evidence of compacted feces or other evidence to support the theory of auto-intoxication or the need for colon cleansing." to read: "No surgeries, autopsies or other observations of colons have discovered any evidence to support the theory of auto-intoxication or the need for colon cleansing."

I made this edit because the phenomenon of compacted feces is not, in itself, controversial, and is often treated by traditional medical establishments. Here is a related article from the US National Library of Medicine, the first sentence of which reads "Fecal impaction is a disorder characterized by a large mass of compacted feces in the rectum and/or colon, which cannot be evacuated." I will consider ways to use this citation in the body of the article.

It's true that one of the sources cited after the edited sentence, LiveScience, states "direct observations of the colon through surgery and autopsy find no hardening of fecal matter along the intestinal walls." I'm not saying that LiveScience is not a valid source, but an honest look at both the LiveScience article and the NLM article I linked to above will show that the former is essentially an angry blog post, and the latter is a serious piece of medical literature.Miconian (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

After further thought, I deleted the whole sentence. As noted in the NLM article linked above, there are sometimes reasons for colon cleansing validated by traditional medicine, and to the use of "other observations" and "any evidence" are too broad. I am working on finding some better sources to clean this article up. Miconian (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Sentence on Frequency of Bowel Movements
I deleted the following sentence from the article

"There is no evidence that frequent bowel movements result in better health or longer life."

Now of course there is no scientific evidence that colon cleansing improves health, but this sentence implies that there is no link between bowel movement frequency and health. While this may be true from a causal standpoint, it is extremely misleading. More frequent bowel movements can be associated (correlation not causation) with increased health. This is due to the fact that fiber and exercise have health benefits and also increase bowel movements. While obviously the increase in bowel movements is not the cause of such health benefits, not having regular bowel movements can be a sign of fiber deficiency and a sedentary life style which are inherently unhealthy. I think the deleted sentence does not make it clear that infrequent bowl movements may be a "sign" of a lack of health. I think the solution is to either leave the sentence deleted entirely or to add a sentence briefly discussing the point above. MATThematical (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it for a moment, I think the sentences original intent was about "artificially inducing" more frequent movements. Great points though, I'll see if I can reinsert with appropriate context. - RoyBoy 06:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a forum
Folks, keep in mind that this is the talk page for building the article, but the discussions are getting to be more like forbidden advocacy. Also read WP:NOTAFORUM. The repeated addition of a commercial spam link that totally fails WP:ELNO is also problematic. Also read WP:MEDRS which applies to medical claims. Use peer-reviewed reviews (not primary research) for claims that colon cleansing does what is purported. This subject is also governed by WP:Fringe. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Add List Of Ingredients...
Would it be beneficial to create / add a list of ingredients that are traditionally used in the different colon cleansers? This would provide a valuable resource for people that are in the research phase of whether or not they want to make a purchase of a colon cleanse product.

Especially in the face of such varied reports on the effectiveness on sites like: http://www.webmd.com/balance/natural-colon-cleansing-is-it-necessary

This would help people educate themselves and make better decisions. Dr.alex.blair (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You would need a source that complies with WP:MEDRS, which essentially means a peer reviewed article in a reputable journal. If you have such a source then post it here and we can discuss adding its information.   N o f o rmation  Talk  19:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're discussing efficacy &c then certainly a strong source is needed. However, I don't think we should be so strict on sourcing for a statement along the lines of "Common product X contains ingredients Y and Z...". bobrayner (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, that might work if there was a decent secondary source that asserted the notability of a particular formula or specific ingredients, but I question what type of source would be appropriate based on the subject matter. What I mean is that colon cleansing isn't science, so what, if any, standards of ingredients exist? I really don't know the answer to this, so if  Dr.alex.blair or anyone else can find something let's take a look and go from there.  I do want to note that Webmd 'reports of effectiveness' are wholly irrelevant  N o f o rmation  Talk  01:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should we list ingredients for something that doesn't work? It makes no sense whatsoever. Dr. Blair's premise that people make better decision, should end right at the point that the article says....this is junk medicine.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This was essentially my point, though you put it a bit more boldly than I. We should be willing to consider a source if it's introduced, but based on the subject at hand I don't think there is a source that would meet WP:FRINGE standards for inclusion.  On one hand, people looking to shove things up their butts might be interested in what ingredients they are shoving up their butts; on the other hand, I don't know if an encyclopedia should cater to people who shove things up their butts :).   N o f o rmation  Talk  02:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We might have to add that to WP:BOLD... although I note the article also talks about "colon cleansing" dietary supplements...so we're not talking exclusively about products which one "shoves up their butt"  N419 BH  02:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need to discuss the ingredients of gerbils. Oh wait.... Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We can be even more confident that blót doesn't "work", but we still describe how it's done. As long as there are reliable sources and it's worded neutrally (ie. we don't favour one particular outlier product), I'm happy. bobrayner (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think more than anything it would provide a resource for people that I'm not sure really exists anywhere else? Each colon cleanse formula has multiple ingredients and it seems that when you compare several of them together they all start to look the same. This would just give users a place to find out what each ingredient does. Just an idea though - if it isn't a good one I'm okay with that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.alex.blair (talk • contribs) 13:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to do comparison shopping. We should state what colon cleansing is, what it's supposed to accomplish, and that it doesn't do anything at all (at least relative to the claims made).  Maybe we could mention the most popular ingredients.  But to discuss every single one of the products?  That's what we should be as an encyclopedia.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If any of the common ingredients are inherently notable in their own right then an article on them might be worthwhile. For example, Acai Berry, Ginseng, and Guarana all have their own articles.  N419 BH  20:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know why this article only discusses colon hydrotherapy. If it's going to discuss colon cleansing it should be about all aspects of colon cleansing, not just one. What about herbal tea remedies for colon cleansing? Supplements? If this article isn't going to be complete, it should be renamed colon hydrotherapy. Not all colon cleansing involves putting things up your butt and I think this article seems somewhat biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.232.97 (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

AMA bias, etc.
This article presents only an American Medical Association (AMA) endorsed view of colonic cleansing. It is also sprinkled with words like "anecdotally" which give the impression that this article is written tongue-in-cheek in order to express how silly the use of colonic irrigation is. There is more recent clinical data about auto-intoxication than a paper from 1919. I would like to see this article kept in POV for the time being while I write some contribution to make it a little more balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattfrye (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The AMA opinion of colon cleansing is supposed to be the dominant view since it's the primere scientific medical body in America and this purports to be a medical page. Colon cleansing has been scientifically investigated and turned out to be nonsense, there's no support for it in actual mainstream literature.  Colon cleansing is silly, unjustified, prescientific and dangerous, and this is supported by appropriate sourcing.  If you are going to tag a page with NPOV, please indicate the sources that are missing or under-represnted rather than merely conveying your opinion.  Template tags are not a badge of shame.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is clear to me the AMA bias still exists. The irrationality of the bias is found in such self contradictions found in this talk page. The frequency of bowel movements has nothing to do with health, but it does; there are no compacted fecal matter, but there is. The adjectives used by WLU of AMA as a "primere scientific" medical body and colon cleansing as "silly, unjustified, prescientific, and dangerous" betrays a black and white thinking. Mattfrye's statement that more than a paper from 1919 exists to support clinical data, seem much more balanced and neutral. The bias is keeping information from being presented; namely the ingredients found in cleansing; the various kinds of cleansings. This is all factual information related to the topic, and it is a biased viewpoint that is keeping the information from being presented.

POV
Colon cleansing was written by someone with a very one sided and negative view of colonic irrigation. It is not objective and it does not focus on describing common methods of colonic irrigation. The term "Colon cleansing" is a very broad term and it certainly does not refer to colonic irrigation. Colon cleansing usually means anything from drinking aloe vera juice to inserting a pipe into the rectum at home. There is no mention of regulations, training or FDA approval of colonic irrigation equipment. The article does not appear to be written by someone with much knowledge or connection to any legitimate colonic hydrotherapy organisation and it does not refer to any organisation. It implies that colonic irrigation is a disjointed, unregulated action with no clear rules and regulation. It also includes references from websites which are not medically factual such as "Quackwatch" instead of doctors, medical, health professionals, journals and information from recognised colonic irrigation organisations

I would like to apply for editing access to this page and I would like to create a page called " colonic irrigation " as it is completely different to "colon Cleansing". I have started the page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dubvit2012/sandboxDubvit2012 (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dubvit2012/sandbox for further info. Danger^Mouse (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * For the POV template, "the editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort". I am removing it because this procedure has not been followed, but I look forward to these "specific issues" being raised ... Alexbrn talk 17:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * (Add) Well, it looks from the reliable sources we use (such as the American Cancer Society) that colon cleansing is a therapy whose claims are not backed by evidence. This being the case, it puts it firmly in the category where WP:FRINGE guidance applies, meaning this lack of effectiveness needs to be very clear in the article (so, Quackwatch becomes a highly relevant source). Looking at the sandbox article I can't see anything reliably-sourced which challenges this. What specific changes do you have in mind? (please reply below this comment.) Alexbrn talk 17:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lets just wait for her reply otherwise I am going to tag this as resolved, give it 5 days. Danger^Mouse (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The main concern that I have with this page is the following
 * 1) Colon Cleansing DOES NOT refer to colonic irrigation
 * 2) Colon Cleansing should not contain colonic irrigation
 * 3) The facts about modern methods of colonic irrigation are mixed up with information about supplements and oral laxatives
 * 4) The photograph and the illustration shown are 100% polar opposites. Including a photograph of an FDA approved device and then discussing "colon cleansing" techniques such as oral supplements confuses the issue

I propose a separate page for colonic irrigation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubvit2012 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, looking at what the ACS says, they list the following as being other common names for colon therapy: "colonic irrigation, high colonic, detoxification therapy, colon hydrotherapy, coffee enemas, enema irrigation, hydro-colon therapy, high enema". We'd need a strong source to prove there was a distinction and split the article. Is there such a source? Alexbrn talk 10:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I take your point and its exactly my own point. Colon therapy = colon therapy: "colonic irrigation, high colonic, detoxification therapy, colon hydrotherapy, coffee enemas, enema irrigation, hydro-colon therapy, high enema" but it is not the same as "Colon Cleansing" and it never includes oral supplements as mentioned in the article "colon cleansing". Therefore, any reference made to oral supplements should be removed or a new page should be created for "colonic irrigation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubvit2012 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Just so I am clear: when Wikipedia has "Colon cleansing (also known as colon therapy)" you are saying this is incorrect, because the two things are different? Alexbrn talk 11:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * -) Yes. That is precisely what I am saying. This is the NO.1 problem with this article. It is putting colon cleansing (oral laxatives) and colonic irrigation (a manual removal of impacted feces using equipment) into the same article. It is also bias in that it picks only negative evidence and it uses words which implies that the use is against the treatment. Wikipedia should not be biased. It should present all the information and it should be correct and written by people who are informed of all the facts. The person who wrote this is absolutely not informed. There are over 10 inaccuracies just in the first few paragraph.


 * Just look at the comments made by y User:Mattfrye (above). I am not the only one who finds this incorrect.


 * Okay so far so good, kindly give the sources, of everything you say appreciated. We are getting closer resolving the problem. I am hereby extend the decision for a week more. Danger^Mouse (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So that would be the distinction between the altmed version of colon-centric practices and what the ACS term "medically-needed colon cleansing" (such as we cover in Colonoscopy). We could make that distinction clearer here. Alexbrn talk 12:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

OK Great. Colonic Irrigation is by definition a treatment which is used "to wash out the contents of the large bowel by means of copious enemas using water or other medication"(Martin.E, 2010). This definition comes from the The Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary.

Note the word WASH. It is an "action" usually administered with a device directly into the rectum. It is not the "taking" of medication orally such as a laxative.

One medical dictionary defines colonic lavage as the irrigation or washing out of the bowel, and the definition given of " to irrigate " is " to moisten continually " and of " irrigation " — " washing by a stream of water or other lotion."

You can see that both of these definitions do not involve the use of supplements taken orally. They involve the action of "washing" or "irrigating" the colon. Therefore the wikipedia article entitled "Colon Cleansing" is inaccurate and misleading as it puts colonic irrigation and the oral taking of supplements in the very same category.

The Colon health network describes a colonic as such "A small speculum is inserted into the patient's rectum. This speculum is then attached to a plastic hose which connects to the colon irrigation machine. ".

The International Association For Colonic Hydrotherapy which has 3000 members all over the world and is the largest organisation for training and distribution of colonic irrigation equipment defines the treatment as " The term "colonic irrigation" has never referred to a single procedure, ther there are some common elements. Colonics are distinguished from enemas in that (1) they are not self administered, but instead are administered by a person with some professional training and (2) they are administered using some type of device to control the water flow. Their purposee is to infuse the entire colon with water, in contrast to the more limited infusion of water in an enema. In its modern form, the forty-five minute preoedure involves a gentle infusion of warm, filter water into the rectum."

(Martin.E, 2010) Martin, Elizabeth (2010). Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary. UK: Oxford University Press. 156.

Colon Hydrotherapy and its Clinical Applications. The Colon Hydrotherapists Network. Retrieved on 2005-08-31.

http://www.i-act.org/Resources/Colonic_Irrigation_Historical_Review.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubvit2012 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at the medical literature (for example here) it does seem that the term "colon cleansing" is used to describe laxative-based procedures, so I don't see a problem with the article in this respect.


 * I am slightly unsure about what change is being proposed. Alexbrn talk 18:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Changing the article, and starting it from scratch. Danger^Mouse (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok Im glad that you can see the difference now. Its pretty confusing as it is stands right?

My suggestion is the following

1. : A page for "colonic irrigation" should be created seperately. I hereby request a "redirect" so that I create a NEW separate page called "colonic irrigation" and submit for approval.

2. The article "Colon cleansing" should be changed so that it includes information about clearing the bowel using laxatives etc. Examples of such would be pre-surgery colon cleansing. Why is colon cleansing done etc? What type exist? Most notably colon cleanse is undertaken prior to colonosccopy and thats a common treatment. So an article which highlighted the medical facts would be useful for people seeking information about colon cleansing.

3. The image which clearly does not belong to the writer is an absolute copywrite infringement. I have found it featured on this website http://premaeskincare.com/news/premae-educates-why-colonics-are-great-for-allergy-sufferers/attachment/300px-colon_hydrotherapy_treatment_environment, which it has more than likely been used without permission. It should not be used without proven permission. Unless the original writer can prove that they have permission to use it (which is highly unlikely as that particular machine costs about 10K USD and anyone that has invested that would not write such a negative article), the best bet would be to take it down. I can supply a photograph of that machine which I own copywrite to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubvit2012 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is an image of the same machine which I own the copywrite of and I would be glad to allow it to be used on the page colonic irrigation http://www.colonicdublin.ie/colonic-irrigation-facts.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubvit2012 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello There. Any feedback on this? Overall I propose a redirect from the word "colonic irrigation" to the page "colonic hydrotherapy". If I need to make the application elsewhere, please let me know and Ill be glad to do that. Dubvit2012 (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's important all the altmed colon-related practices are kept in one article (essentially, this one), and I'm open to the idea of it being named better - but according to the ACS "colonic irrigation, high colonic, detoxification therapy, colon hydrotherapy, coffee enemas, enema irrigation, hydro-colon therapy, high enema" are largely interchangaable concepts. The key thing is that the altmed practices are kept distinct from the mainstream practices, I think.


 * As regards the photograph, yes - we can always do with better photographs! But I have to ask, given your access to the device, do you have any connection to the topic at hand so that WP:COI might apply? That's not necessarily a problem, but it is good to be transparent. Alexbrn talk 14:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn, thank you for your response. ACS is the American Cancer society. Would you consider them to be an authority on medical definitions. Afterall, cancer and colonic irrigation are not related in any respect whatsoever. There is absolutely no connection between the two. Infact its interesting that American Cancer Society have a definition of this alternative detox treatment on their website.

May I suggest that we seek definitions from medical dictionaries such as journal such as The Oxford Medical Dictionary which defines colonic irrigation as "washing" or "irrigating" the colon.Or perhaps American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons or indeed The International Association of Colonic Hydrotherapy, who trains, distributes and regulates 3000 colonic clinics worldwide.

I have some training in the area of colonic irrigation. You are 100% correct about that too. To be honest, Alexbrn, I would feel incompetent to discuss, comment or take part in any discussion on such issues if I were not qualified to do so. I am a qualified practitioner, nutritionist and also a nurse. I am also qualified in ebusiness to post graduate level. My training in this area has taken me to New York, London and finally here in Dublin, where my clinic was the first to provide staff and equipment provided and trained by The Internationally Association Colon Hydrotherapy. Infact I have a thorough knowledge and training on the system pictured. Therefore I have an interest in ensuring the correct information is available. As a health practitioner, business graduate and member of the largest recognised colonic irrigation organisation in the world, I undoubtedly pay close attention to standards of colonic hydrotherapy practice.

Isnt that why we all do this work for free on Wikipedia as volunteers? To ensure that we use our knowledge, qualifications, education and experience in the best possible way for the greater good of all? How unhelpful it would be if those unqualified to do so, submitted articles. That would be rather obtuse. And thankfully it isnt the case here.

So why is this important for the greater good of all? Well, what is truly relevant here is the fact that "Colon cleansing" generally refers to the preps giving to clear the bowel in advance of surgery.And that affects 1000s of people every year. That is one reason why it would be useful to have a separate page for this albeit, one that links to the colon irrigation page.

According to a government document submitted the Agency For Healthcare Research and Quality, "Colorectal surgery is a frequent procedure; in 2009, there were 254,000 surgeries categorized as partial excisions of the large intestine.2 Of these, 99.2 percent were for patients 15 years of age or older, and 50.4 percent were for patients 65 years of age or older". All of these people will undergo oral colon cleansing.

Therefore the current article is not just biased and factually incorrect, aswell as having dubious copywrite, it is also misleading and unhelpful.

I would be delighted to know also your own interest in the subject. Are you also a medical nurse, doctor? Dubvit2012 (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Dubvit2012 and Alexbrn, please state your final proposal, as this is no longer considered a WP:POV. The proposal maybe be neutral, changing the name of the article, and having the two merged, otherwise, neutrality of the article be disputed. We do not want a COI as Alex you know better. Please state your proposals. Thank you.

Danger^Mouse (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank You Dangermouse for you prompt reply. I propose that a new page be created for colonic irrigation and all its related terms.


 * I propose that the page "colon cleansing" become a page which refers, describes and outlines " Oral Colon Cleaning of the bowel" most notably as a preparation of medical inspections of the bowel ie colonoscopy, radiography and bowel surgery. Dubvit2012 (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Several point in play: Sorry, this doesn't argue for much change from where we are. Perhaps if wider consensus is needed WT:MED or even WP:FT/N could be consulted? Alexbrn talk 10:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the ACS is a good source for medical content per WP:MEDRS as a "nationally or internationally recognized expert body". It is especially good on altmed topics (even non-cancer ones) as they dedicate a large portion of the public information to altmed topics. They obviously wouldn't be so strong for (non-cancer) colon medicine away from the altmed area.
 * There are proposals for creating pages and changing names. However, the edits that matter here are ones which MOVE, ADD, or DELETE content. It is not clear which of these actions are being proposed for which text.
 * I do not see a compelling need to change this page, though would not oppose changing its name (perhaps to "Colon therapy") or to adding clarifying text making clear that the content here is about an altmed subject, not real medicine.
 * "Real" medical uses of colon clearing techniques are currently covered locally in other articles (e.g. Colonoscopy). To collect and bundle that information into a single article would require wider consensus that can be achieved here - from the editors of the many articles involved.
 * I do not think the sources make a clear distinction between colonic irrigation and other altmed colon subjects. The important thing as I see it is that the altmed stuff is kept distinct as a WP:FRINGE topic and not allowed to fork off into areas where it might get confused with legitimate medical procedures.


 * I support a name change, and merging the two, however need to see the draft of the article, in order to do that. It's a simple case, stop making it complicated, if you all agree to a name change, and merging the two, we could move on from there. Danger^Mouse (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Which two do you propose merging? Alexbrn talk 13:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (To answer my own question, I assume you mean Colonic hydrotherapy and this one. I didn't appreciate that article had "gone live" since this thread started. It needs to be either deleted outright or merged here.) Alexbrn talk 17:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
It is proposed that the content of Colonic hydrotherapy be merged into this article. Alexbrn talk 17:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

support :Makes more sense. To keep it fair and neutral - Danger^Mouse (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Support: unless there is a reason why one specific type of cleansing needs its own article; such as other similar articles, I support a merge. Mat ty. 007 19:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Again. Im delighted that we have agreed to merge the articles. Now there is just the matter of copywrite. Have you contacted the person who wrote the article so they can verify if they own the image in question. If not, I suggest it is removed. It is after all, in the wrong article. It belongs in the colon hydrotherapy article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubvit2012 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The copyright holder has licensing it with a creative commons license, according to the image information. Alexbrn talk 18:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be appropriate for the ownrr of the image to prove their ownership of the image. As you are aware, copywrite of a photograph can only be obtained if the person

1. Took the image themselves 2. Received permission to use it from the person who took the image themselves

In both cases, a signed release form should be obtained from the person who took the picture. Please supply such a copy. Also the correct term for is "traditional medicine" and not "legitimate medicine". Please use the correct term when writing for the sake of clarity. Thank you Dubvit2012 (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In either case, the image does not belong in the article colon cleansing. This device is a class II medical device and is used specifically for colonic irrigation. I have already supplied an image which has full proven copywrite to replace this image.

Permission to remove the image from this article on the grounds that: 1. It does not belong to the contributor. No proof of copywrite supplied. 2. It has been taken from a website called Permaskin. A link shows it is property of a therapist called Permaskin.

3. The image belonging to Permaskin has the same file name as the one which the contrubitor used, proving that they did indeed take from a third partys website thereby breaking copywrite laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubvit2012 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Dubvit2012 (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. The copyright of the picture is declared to belong to the user "7Tev" who made this declaration while uploading it to Wikimedia commons and making it available under the terms of a CC license. It may be used elsewhere too, as in the site you mention.
 * In Wikipedia's article space "traditional medicine" might be used to refer to folk medicine; orthodox evidence-based medicine is most commonly termed "mainstream medicine", sometimes "conventional medicine" and sometimes just "medicine" to distinguish it from alternative medicine. Alexbrn talk 09:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Post-merge reconciliation of content
I have performed the merge discussed above and looked at the newly-included content to see how it fits here. A lot of the content is poorly sourced and/or making undue fringe claims. I have removed this (along with some content on "regulation" which overlapped with content we already have here). We need some high-quality WP:MEDRS-compliant sources on colon hydrotherapy. I'll see what there is ... Alexbrn talk 10:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I notice has been adding content back which is unduly fringe, poorly-sourced and/or promotional in nature - while removing well-sourced content. This violates several core Wikpedia policies and guidelnes (WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS in particular) and cannot be allowed to stand. To widen input I am raising a query an WP:FT/N. Alexbrn talk 15:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the "poorly source" part, and to avoid edit war, and conflict, agreed. WP:FT/N.Danger^Mouse (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * this book is in no way compliant with WP:MEDRS: it's utter quackery. Promoting bogus health information on Wikipedia is A Bad Thing. Alexbrn talk 16:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Alexbrn this book is not a usable source here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Noticeboards
FYI, I have raised queries about recent edits to this article at WP:FT/N and WT:MED. Alexbrn talk 16:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

unresolved
Anyway both of you need to sit together, and discuss this fairly. I have emailed the user, telling to write a draft before editing, and Alex I have asked you to contact the user as well, if one party thinks quackwatch or any other source is not reliable, come up with proper citations etc.. This is looking like edit war, I have guided her what to do, and the votes about the merger proposal have been fair, if one party still disagrees resolve it on here, with civility following Wikipedia guidelines, and this is getting out of hand. Resolve it please. Only thing I have contributed to this is getting you two to work it out, and as the emails I've been getting from the user tells me she doesn't want to resolve this under Wikipedia guidelines and is taking further action through as I quote "user:Dubvit2012 to me 50 minutes agoDetails Its out of my hands now. The Association will be making a case against those who have proven themselves to be manipulators of the facts.

Unfortunately the merger was not handled fairly. Certain editors have been allowed to use words which show their bias They have used double accounts to make unfair changes They have used sources such as quakwatch and discredited real sources of written citation

The is being examined by 3000 active members many of who are medical doctors. There will be an inquest and it being decided upon now. " This is not the way to go about it. Sit together and resolve it. I am considering reporting both to ANI, before I do that work it out. Danger^Mouse (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia content is governed by its policies (backed up by its guidelines). It is not subject to ad hoc mechanisms to try an effect compromise with nutty views, and must not be influenced with what look like threats of external action. The article is now back in reasonable shape thanks to some good work by another editor. Let us try to defend the neutrality and accuracy of the encyclopedia by keeping it that way! (BTW, I think with what sounds like a threat being made, it may well be advisable to mention this at ANI). Alexbrn talk 20:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a threat, and I've been telling the user, let's keep it neutral, write on the talk page ,etc.. I even gave examples of my family has articles on Wikipedia and I cannot do much about them as I don't have solid evidence and such. My point of view doesn't matter. Danger^Mouse (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC) As I have mentioned, I have called this user pretty, and super pretty, and cracked a joke about coffee and chocolates at Butlers, and I have said it to her Wikipedia does have issues with articles, it's not perfect we all know that, I have told her some politicians etc.. are corrupt, and their articles need to be fixed, since that's Personal Opinion and View point, since I feel that way, specially I have my family's articles on Wikipedia, I do apologise to her publicly for that, and you want to call me a sleaze, and having a fake honour being a hypocrite, and such, I accept it, and have posted it. Everyone has different point of view, and I have made mine public. Danger^Mouse (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

no action needed by ANI, waiting for WP:DRN Danger^Mouse (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are issues here which need investigation: at least pov-pushing, COI editing, outing, AGF failure, and all-round improper conduct. I suggest you put a narrative up at WP:AN/I but if you don't want to I can do this tomorrow (it's my bed time now). Alexbrn talk 22:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Fine, 3 30 am for me bed time too.Danger^Mouse (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change
The article reads, "[Colon cleansing has been discredited.] Nonetheless, during the 2000s Internet marketing and infomercials of oral supplements supposedly for colon cleansing increased."

Put here, the word "supposedly" casts doubt on the fact that the marking was for colon cleanses, or less likely on verb "increased".


 * 1. The word is intended to be critical of the fact that there was an increase. (Possible, as the source is not authoritative.)
 * Fix: delete "supposedly" and add "may have" or "purportedly" increased.
 * 2. The word is intended to cast doubt that colon cleanses actually cleanse the colon.
 * Fix: delete "supposedly" and add "aimed at" and/or restructure: (e.g.) "Nonetheless, there was an increase of Internet marketing and infomercials during the 2000s for oral supplements for supposed colon cleansing."
 * 3. The word is intended to be critical of the fact that the increase was for colon cleanses, and not some other topic.
 * Fix: Delete supposedly and possibly do an earlier option as well; being critical of this would be confusing and there is no reason to think it.

Which of these changes, or a different one, should be made? The current wording is poor.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 23:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Which interpretation is backed up by the citation? Rp2006 (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps none. Here's what it says:
 * "Television has gone to the toilet — literally. You've probably seen the late night infomercials and had your jaw drop as you watched lengthy discussions about backed-up bowels and proper stool formation.
 * Yep, colon cleansers have moved out of the bathroom and into the mainstream."
 * Perhaps the mention of an increase should be removed, and replaced with continued or some synonym for "existed".  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 23:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the mention of an increase should be removed, and replaced with continued or some synonym for "existed".  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 23:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)