This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Coprophagia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Coprophagia.
|
His inclusion, which lacks a citation, seems like a troll attempt. In either case, it doesn't add any significant insight into humans with coprophagia.
The source for "in sex" is a case report of one individual, and it is clearly discussed as being in the context of mental illness. So, not only is this a source that does not comply with WP:MEDRS; it is misrepresented. Do we have a MEDRS-compliant source discussing coprophagia and sex? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Some human coprophiles engage in coprophagia as a sexual fetish. Until 1995, the only documented cases of coprophagia in humans were those with schizophrenia or other mental illness, but it has now been shown to occur among relatively mentally healthy individuals. [1] Psychiatrists using the classification system of the DSM-IV would consider this a symptom of the paraphilia called coprophilia - "if the behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning". Coprophagia is also depicted in pornography, usually under the term scat (from scatology). [2]
References
As a layman I also find it hard to believe that people who engage in coprophagia can be "well-adjusted, mentally-stable humans". However, it is not difficult to find pictorial and written evidence of this kind of activity on the Web, which would not be the case if there was no audience for such depictions. Shouldn't it at least be mentioned in this article? The Wikipedia article on the related topic of [Coprophilia] lists various practices that most of us would consider extremely unsavory, and if they can be mentioned there, why should there not be a mention of coprophagia as an extreme BDSM/fetish-related activity here? Perhaps this can be used as a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhood ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
~~~~
. A bot signed your first post above in this section, and I tagged the other one as unsigned. I also removed your name from
your second post, since you were replying to me, not to yourself.
Flyer22 (
talk) 22:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)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)
References
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)
With this edit, Drmies removed Category:Abnormal behaviour in animals, Category:Sexual acts, Category:Paraphilias, Category:Dog health and Category:Dog training and behavior, stating, "trim: dogs are mentioned only in the EL and in the categories, a crazy situation. also, why is this abnormal? rm category. also, nothing in here about sex. rm category."
Drmies, I'm not sure how I feel about the removal of the dog categories, since you are correct that it's odd to only be focused on dogs (even if they engage in coprophagia more than some other house pets). I'm confused by your "abnormal" question. It is generally considered abnormal/atypical (by reliable medical sources and the general public) for humans to eat feces, and it is noted in various reliable sources that it is abnormal/atypical for many non-human animals to eat feces; of course, it is normal for some non-human animal species to eat feces. The article addresses all of that. As for the Sexual acts category and the Paraphilias category, see the Society and culture section.
SandyGeorgia and DrChrissy, any opinion on these categories with regard to this article? Flyer22 ( talk) 03:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You make a Freudian slip here "since it's very common for humans to intentionally eat feces". It is true, that it is very common for human infants to intentionally eat feces. I think it is important to spread this information, because a) parents are often needlessly panicking about it and b) it is a phenomenon that is common among primates and has clear evolutionary benefits and biological functions. FreieFF ( talk) 17:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
As I have shown, there are good sources pointing out that toddlers eat faeces, including reasons for it. May I have the reason for not posting this information? You yourself say it could be added. FreieFF ( talk) 17:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
I fully agree. I am in the process of adding information on the fact that the behaviour is actually natural, and is common among all infants. There are several sources that point towards this, look at my previous edits that have been deleted by other users. One person implies it would be irrelevant, but I don't see how this would be irrelevant if we already accept to make a section about corpophagia in humans.
FreieFF (
talk) 17:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|-- Epriscilla ( talk) 17:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)]] comment added by Epriscilla ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 coprophagia FreieFF ( talk) 13:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Coprophagia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Coprophagia.
|
His inclusion, which lacks a citation, seems like a troll attempt. In either case, it doesn't add any significant insight into humans with coprophagia.
The source for "in sex" is a case report of one individual, and it is clearly discussed as being in the context of mental illness. So, not only is this a source that does not comply with WP:MEDRS; it is misrepresented. Do we have a MEDRS-compliant source discussing coprophagia and sex? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Some human coprophiles engage in coprophagia as a sexual fetish. Until 1995, the only documented cases of coprophagia in humans were those with schizophrenia or other mental illness, but it has now been shown to occur among relatively mentally healthy individuals. [1] Psychiatrists using the classification system of the DSM-IV would consider this a symptom of the paraphilia called coprophilia - "if the behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning". Coprophagia is also depicted in pornography, usually under the term scat (from scatology). [2]
References
As a layman I also find it hard to believe that people who engage in coprophagia can be "well-adjusted, mentally-stable humans". However, it is not difficult to find pictorial and written evidence of this kind of activity on the Web, which would not be the case if there was no audience for such depictions. Shouldn't it at least be mentioned in this article? The Wikipedia article on the related topic of [Coprophilia] lists various practices that most of us would consider extremely unsavory, and if they can be mentioned there, why should there not be a mention of coprophagia as an extreme BDSM/fetish-related activity here? Perhaps this can be used as a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhood ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
~~~~
. A bot signed your first post above in this section, and I tagged the other one as unsigned. I also removed your name from
your second post, since you were replying to me, not to yourself.
Flyer22 (
talk) 22:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)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)
References
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)
With this edit, Drmies removed Category:Abnormal behaviour in animals, Category:Sexual acts, Category:Paraphilias, Category:Dog health and Category:Dog training and behavior, stating, "trim: dogs are mentioned only in the EL and in the categories, a crazy situation. also, why is this abnormal? rm category. also, nothing in here about sex. rm category."
Drmies, I'm not sure how I feel about the removal of the dog categories, since you are correct that it's odd to only be focused on dogs (even if they engage in coprophagia more than some other house pets). I'm confused by your "abnormal" question. It is generally considered abnormal/atypical (by reliable medical sources and the general public) for humans to eat feces, and it is noted in various reliable sources that it is abnormal/atypical for many non-human animals to eat feces; of course, it is normal for some non-human animal species to eat feces. The article addresses all of that. As for the Sexual acts category and the Paraphilias category, see the Society and culture section.
SandyGeorgia and DrChrissy, any opinion on these categories with regard to this article? Flyer22 ( talk) 03:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You make a Freudian slip here "since it's very common for humans to intentionally eat feces". It is true, that it is very common for human infants to intentionally eat feces. I think it is important to spread this information, because a) parents are often needlessly panicking about it and b) it is a phenomenon that is common among primates and has clear evolutionary benefits and biological functions. FreieFF ( talk) 17:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
As I have shown, there are good sources pointing out that toddlers eat faeces, including reasons for it. May I have the reason for not posting this information? You yourself say it could be added. FreieFF ( talk) 17:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
I fully agree. I am in the process of adding information on the fact that the behaviour is actually natural, and is common among all infants. There are several sources that point towards this, look at my previous edits that have been deleted by other users. One person implies it would be irrelevant, but I don't see how this would be irrelevant if we already accept to make a section about corpophagia in humans.
FreieFF (
talk) 17:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|-- Epriscilla ( talk) 17:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)]] comment added by Epriscilla ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 coprophagia FreieFF ( talk) 13:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)