Talk:Body inflation

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of Krypto the Superdog characters#The Dog Star Patrol|Mammoth Mutt]] The anchor (#The Dog Star Patrol) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Mr Blowup

Unless Mr Blowup inflates his own body, I think he should be mentioned (if anywhere) at Total enclosure fetishism. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please can we have reliable sources for more of this article. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of reliable sources I propose to delete the long list from "Popular Culture". Currently they are completely unverifiable and can at most represent original research. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a large amount of unsourced material. Reliable sources are required for verifiability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could cite any number of commercial manufacturers of inflatable fetish-wear, because for a product to be sold there must be people that want it. It would be pointless for these manufacturers to make and sell clothing made out of inflatable rubber that nobody wants or needs.

Since inflatable fetish clothing is usually ridiculously expensive compared to normal clothing, people must really REALLY want the product to be willing to shell out some US$500 to US$2000 for a custom-made inflatable rubber suit that they can not wear out in public without being ostracized. So the manufacturers themselves should qualify as reasonable citation examples for this article. Txformer (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to explain why people who make money out of selling a product are not considered independent? Manufacturers have been known to try to use Wikipedia to advertise their products and services and to use advertising to create demand. This is one of the reasons why WP:RS states "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised", and WP:V states as policy "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So, no, we don't use manufacturers as sources for their own products. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some agenda for suppressing the content you deleted in this article? This is definitely not a mainstream area of interest but it is very real and is popular with a certain segment of the population.

There will never be scholarly citations and references for this article from medical or science journals or in mainstream books or movies, so just what are you demanding for an acceptable citation?

This is probably about the most mainstream you are ever going to get, but mostly as a form of pointing at the weird people and laughing at them: Youtube: G4TV / Attack of the Show: Latex Inflation WTF

Txformer (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making no special "demands" beyond what Wikipedia policy requires: "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If it were indeed true that there could "never" be such references for this material then it simply would not belong on Wikipedia. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I have added new information via a source that I believe complies with Wikipedia policy re: WP:V. Inflate123 (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human versus animal

There's probably another article to be written about body inflation in animals. I suggest this article might usefully be moved to Human body inflation to make way for this article to be about animals in general. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origins section

I'm not happy with the Origins section because i can't see how it could claim to have branched off from pregnancy fetishism. That may be true in an evolutionary sense but for individuals, we just have this fetish and our own history with it. Regarding Violet Beauregarde, to me that was a discovery of a depiction of a fetish i already had. I also think the assessment of the two well-known cinematic versions is highly subjective.

On a side issue, i think the behaviour of users towards this article and its predecessor reveals a flaw in Wikipedia. It reminds me of someone who has witnessed a remarkable event and then has difficulty convincing anyone else it's factual, and i've met with scepticism on this issue elsewhere. This is not really to do with inflation fetishism so much as this: i know it exists, i practice it and i've met with scepticism, and this makes me suspect that there are a whole load of other things, not sexual, just generally, which are in the Fortean sense "damned" and destined never to appear in Wikipedia or anything like a peer-reviewed journal because of entrenched scepticism masquerading as rationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineteenthly (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]