Talk:Coprophagia

message: See WP:NOT (an indiscriminate list, for example).  The following are lists with no indication that secondary sources mention their significance wrt coprophagis, hence also original research.  Secondary sources discussing coprophagia in these is needed.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOT removed for sourcing 

message: The new rabbit text, besides being mostly uncited, goes off-topic ... we don't need to give excess detail about rabbit habits that is unrelated to the topic of coprographia.  Would we please prune and cite?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rabbit 

message: Source: http://gawker.com/5985723/can-you-eat-your-own-poop
Pretty much if your eating your own poop and you're a healthy person - your poop isn't going to make you sick. If you eat another persons poop who is healthy, it shouldn't make you sick either. if you eat a sick persons poop - this is when it's not a good idea. This is when it can transfer diseases. If you simply eat your own poop and you're not infected with any illness, it's not unhealthy.
People's take on this? I don't see why for eveyr other animal Coprophagia is healthy, but for humans it wouldnt' be... we're not special.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.74.115 (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humans: Not necessarily "unhealthy" for people;  

message: This article contains all portions and subtopics that are relatable to the main topic. It provides information of a wide variety of organisms that exhibit coprophagia including invertebrates, vertebrates, humans and even plants, and gives details on specific species and reasoning as to why some species carry out this eating behaviour. If any of these organisms are under represented in information it would be the humans, as we are only provided with a brief sentence discussing this eating behaviour in mental illness, along with a portion on society and culture were we are provided with coprophagia in association with human activities. As well, the plant information is too under represented and next to no information was given. 
There are sufficient references used as information in this article and appear to be of a wide range, suggesting that many views and research have been taken into consideration when writing this article. All citations work and appear to be appropriately placed in the article and of a appropriate source. With an exception to the history of this article, which is expected to be of an older date, all other information is fairly recent and suitable. 
When looking into the Talk page of the article, there is much discussion on the idea of this eating behaviour and mental illness, along with a list of films and TV series that relate to this eating behaviour. 
This article overall provides a great overview and much detail in some aspects of coprophagia in many different organisms and species, showing that it is not just a select group that carry out this behaviour but it is in fact popular.
(Moved to talk page from face of article: diff of article edit) — Preceding --Epriscilla (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Evaluation

message: I rewrite now this topic, to get very clear, with clear source.
It is a well known fact that children are coprophilic, and engage in coprophagia. For this, we have plenty of primary sources. For coprophilia, see here: https://www.bundoo.com/articles/why-is-my-toddler-playing-with-poop/,  coprophagia here: https://www.medhelp.org/posts/Child-Behavior/Coprophagia-with-my-2yr-Granddaughter/show/465193
As they are primary sources, we can’t use them. They, however, show us the relevance of sharing the information! Because obviously worried parents look for this information.
For a reference to concrete research about coprophagia, we have this source:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225515/
Which quotes research of Rozin et al, about the Dog Turd on a plate. Not the best research, but we have to understand that the taboo on this topic, and ethical standards, make it impossible to do research with actual faeces. 
This source also quotes 2 medical sources explaining the fact that modern medicine uses faeces for curing illnesses, where the faeces is more effective then anti-biotics. I believe this is relevant information concerning the medicinal value of faeces, that has the additional benefit of taking away a bit of the taboo of faeces, seeing that it has a negative side (from a bacteriological point of view, of course it can spread desease!) but also a positive side (in some cases useful as medicine). 
Here the sources:
Bakken, JS (2015). "Feces transplantation for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: US experience and recommendations". Microb Ecol Health Dis. 
    • Browne, Kelly (2017). "Fecal transplant in inflammatory bowel disease". Gastroenterol Clin North Am.
For more references to child-coprophagia plus evolutionary explanation, we have this source:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321376136_Coprophilia-Faeces_Lust_in_the_Forms_of_Coprophagia_Coprospheres_Scatolia_and_Plasterering_in_Dementia_Patients_Our_Thoughts_and_Experience
Considering the idea of poor sourcing: The sources are considerably better then VICE Japan about the faeces wine. Also, the implications of modern western medicine using faeces as medicine, are considerably bigger, then the implications of Koreans making wine from faeces. What should be put in an internationally accesible encyclopedia?
If any reason for not making this basic information about human behaviour public, let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreieFF (talk • contribs)  
:Please provide references per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This material, which was reverted more than once, consists of poor sourcing and WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coprophagia as natural behaviour of human children 

message: Two people are deleting my entry. 
However, my entry is scientifically sound, backed by secondary sources, and includes a biological explanation. 
I believe that, conserning coprophagy in human infants, there is first the following thesis:
-Coprophagy is natural in human infants
For this thesis there are good arguments and scientific research supporting it. 
The anti-thesis would be:
-Coprophagy is unnatural in human infants
For this thesis, I do not know of any research. This would be welcomed, and could be used to write about the relation of human infants to coprophagiaFreieFF (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A fecal transplant is not referred to as "coprophagia". People do not "eat" the transplant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  If it exists, please add research confirming the thesis that infants have a natural aversion from faeces 

message: So there aren't any reliable sources on ttongsul's existence, but there is a single Kotaku article discussing how most Koreans have no idea what it is. Should we remove it? puggo (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The validity of ttongsul 

message: It is well known that domestic pigs consume human feces in many Asian countries including India, China, Philippines, Japan, Korea, SE Asian countries etc. See article on Pig toilet. But somehow, pigs are not even mentioned in this article.
-Polytope4D (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coprophagia in Pigs 

message: Please explain to me how the reverted content below is vandalism?.  I cited the content with reliable sources in the article:  
Gay men who engage in anal sex come into contact with human feces during the sex act and may also ingest feces by performing rimming with their sex partners. Gay men routinely smear and/or rub feces on each other during gay sex and also ingest feces directly by inserting their tongue into each others anus when performing rimming.
The content is not "homophobic propaganda" but an accurate description of documented behavior which is relevant to the article since the article concerns feces eating behaviors.  24.21.161.89 (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: if no one responds in a next few days with objections to this then I will follow WP:BRD and reinstate the content.  It's factual and there are plenty of references that gay men ingest feces during sex.   The book titled "The Joy of Gay Sex" describes rimming as "The prime taste treat of gay sex".  I am certain that many gay men would object to this content and claim that it is "homophobic propaganda" since it paints gay sex as a filthy act.   24.21.161.89 (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay sexual practice 

message: It is natural and healthy in some animals for the mother to eat the feces of there young. This is done to keep the nest clean, yet there may be other reasons for this too. Cats are one animal that do this. Mother cats also lick there cat's butt to get them to poop. I am very surprised that there is no mention of mothers eating poop to clean up after there young in this article as it seems like it should be a major part of the article. Maybe someone can add information about this to this article with relevant sources. Thank you. Jacob81 (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mothers eating feces of there young to clean up after them