Talk:Rectum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Temperature

'Normal rectal temperature generally ranges from 36 to 38 °C (97.6 to 100.4 °F) and is about 0.5 °C (1 °F) above oral (mouth) temperature [...] On average, the rectal temperature is 0.4 °C (0.7 °F) higher than oral temperature.'

Is this a tautologic redundancy? Wouldn't it be better to have one statement with one 'correct' average value? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.27.249.26 (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Rectum

What is the actual length of the rectum from sphincter to end of rectum? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.70.141.45 (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Removal of the "Sexual Stimuli" section

I removed the "Sexual Stimuli" section once because it might scare the living jebies off of one.

Giant Blue Anteater

Which explains why the edit was reverted immediately. Richard001 08:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Humor section

I'm removing this:

The rectum is often used as the basis for humorous situations or punchline for jokes. One in particular made famous by Anthony Premus is short & sweet - "Rectum? I nearly killed 'em!"

Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please correct typo "young children young"

One "young" needs to go. -- 85.179.126.191 (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Human rectum does not store faeces

Contrary to popular belief, the rectum is in fact empty most of the time. The sigmoid colon stores faeces. When faeces are moved into the rectum (1, 2 or more times a day, depending on how often you go) stretch receptors in the rectum give you a strong urge to defacate. They can't stay in there very long... well they can, but you'll get constipated. Ask any doctor and they'll tell you that in a rectal exam you don't usually see faeces.This is in many good anatomy and physiology textbooks, such as Gray's Anatomy for Students.

On another note, I think some more anatomy and histology will help flesh out the article. I'll add more detail to the article some when I get the time.

Td1wk (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead people have empty rectums because they void after death? I don't know. But I do know that the rectum is belived by some to be a combined reservoir/conduit organ.

Edit request on 4 August 2012

In the "temperature taking" section, "ooperate" should be "cooperate". Just a minor typographical error. ScottHorn (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 August 2012

In the section 'Role in human defecation', after 'is absorbed' add 'from the feces' or similar, to make it clear which way the water goes. 80.1.128.49 (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Done A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Error in definition?

The article states that the rectum terminates at the anus. This is poorly worded if not plain wrong. The ASCRS textbook states

"Both proximal and distal limits of the rectum are controversial: the rectosigmoid junction is considered to be at the level of the third sacral vertebra by anatomists but at the sacral promontory by surgeons, and likewise, the distal limit is regarded to be the muscular anorectal ring by surgeons and the dentate line by anatomists."

The importance of this is that the rectum terminates in the anal canal, which in turns terminates in the anal verge (the anus).

I have updated the text to reflect this.tepi (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The length of the rectum here is inaccurate

In the article it says that it is 12 cm, when in actuality it is 20 cm

Santofa (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"The rectum measures 12–15 cm in length" I think it depends if you include the anal canal in the length. Technically you should not.tepi (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Overly graphic photo of non-essential

The photo on the right-hand side titled "Rectum" seems not very closely tied to the subject and is graphic to the point of being shocking. Its focus is on a number of female organs and other parts of the body that aren't part of nor visible from the rectum. The rectum is shown as a minor background component. The focus of the picture would seem much more suited for an article on more anterior parts of female anatomy.

What makes this illustration excessively disturbing is that it is a PHOTO that is too unexpectedly and unnecessarily explicit for the venue. The photo was obviously taken of a dead woman's bottom that had been cut open.

• If an in-depth illustration of this specific view of these portions of human anatomy is actually considered necessary for covering the topic (& the fact that male anatomy isn't illustrated similarly would support that it isn't necessary), it would be much more appropriate to provide a DRAWING of this angle for view by the public at-large, since most people aren't acclimated to nor wishing to find extremely graphic medical images of sensitive scenarios (ie. photos of dead people's bodies sliced open). The fact that most of the subject matter is not intuitively to be expected as a central focus, makes encountering the photo an intrusive rather than sought-out & expected viewing.

This photo may be very useful in articles or venues where viewers (including young viewers) aren't likely to encounter it unexpectly and find this degree of graphic illustration offensive or traumatizing. Either an article on female anatomy or anal sex would seem more appropriate.

Please would the editors for this page to re-evaluate whether including this photograph may make viewing the page a negative experience, rather than providing the sort and level of information that viewers are seeking & anticipating. Wikipedia should be a source where people should be able to find educational information without disruptively having to view an overly graphic photo of a generally disturbing scenario that is not focused on the searched-for topic & is non-essential. Field In (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about this photo? Nothing at all offensive here. The dissection is vital to show reality which is so different from even the most detailed medical illustration. Variation is also demonstrated. This person would have consented to having their body dissected for educational purposes. There is no reason to remove this dissection as it contributes a lot to the text.tepi (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

diagram

The diagram is somewhat frightening. Why don't you change the diagram? Vedant lath 10:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The diagram is also incorrect, labeling the prostate as "Prostrate" - which is something else entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.56.158 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Rectal ampulla

Easily merged Tom (LT) (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Storage function

This page claims that in the book Gulp the author claimed that the rectum of humans evolved to have a storage function:

"If you’re interested in learning about the limits of the human rectum (why not?), I recommend a chapter in Mary Roach’s excellent book Gulp about prison smuggling. She wisely points out that the human rectum evolved for storage, so using it for storage of other things is, well, still kind of using it for its intended purpose. It’s really crazy how many cell phones can fit up there." —User 000 name 01:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2016

195.99.254.114 (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC) (the mussles contract to push the waste out)

 Not done - they are muscles and the article already explains that - Arjayay (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Human-centric tag

I just tagged this article with the {{Human-centric}} template— I am pretty certain that many different kinds of animals have rectums (recta?) other than humans, and that an article on "Rectums" should cover the part more generally or else be renamed "Human rectum" and a new article started under "Rectum" that has a broader perspective as mentioned in the tag. KDS4444 (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to start an article called "Rectums in other animals" You can than add a summary section here at the end and link to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Annotated histo image

Hi Tom (LT),

The annotated histology image I promised long ago on the Anatomy project page is finally available in Wikimedia Commons. I have not inserted a picture to a Wikipedia site before but the image is available here. UWM.AP.Endo (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Faeces "are", not "is"

See for example [1]. Edit was recently reverted that was not grammatically correct. Can discuss below if required.

Anne N. Cephaly please provide a reliable source to back up your statement that we should state "faeces is". --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

My on-line dictionary is the New Oxford American Dictionary. I also looked it up in several other dictionaries. Apparently feces is occasionally not a plural noun in Britain. Should the odd grammatical idiosyncrasies of British English like the exception to the rule of subject-verb agreement, i.e. the team are... not is, be part of Wikipedia? If the general rules of plural forms were used for the word feces it would be a fece and several feces, right?Anne N. Cephaly (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Also my sources say that in Britain it's spelled as "faeces" so this article is written in American English, so it's a plural noun.Anne N. Cephaly (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Feces is an American English transliteration from the Latin form faeces (transliterated to comply more consistently with American English pronunciation rules), where the Latin word faeces is the nominative plural form of the Latin word faex (lit. translated to English as “residue, dregs”). Therefore it is a plural form in all variations of English. Therefore, the correct form is "are" not "is". 98.178.191.34 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)