Talk:Eating mucus

Removed "advantages" section and other poorly referenced parts

Quotations were from "lifestyle" articles in the same category as "LEARN HOW TO LOSE 30 POUNDS IN 2 WEEKS" and etc. Quotations and outlandish claims by individual doctors does not and cannot make for established fact. Rest of article needs pruning, as it's written much in the style and with the referencing habits of a high school essayist. Article may need to be merged with another that has a broader scope.--Rawnoodles10 (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• I removed all (remaining?) references to "benefits"; they all seem to go back to one Austrian country doctor talking about a pet theory of his in an interview with the local media (see e.g. on Hoaxes.org). Maybe there has been some scientific research or serious claims on that matter, but I did not find any. Piramidon (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's 2018 and that advantages section should really be reinstated. Marushka23 (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Merging with booger article

Upon re-reading article, the entire thing can be put into a short paragraph on the "dried nasal mucus" page. I don't think this warrants discussion, just read the old editions and tell me if that looks like a proper wiki article to you. I'm merging it immediately. Rawnoodles10 (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, This is a notable subject and there is mountains of information to be covered. Marcus Qwertyus 11:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, What mountains, "some people (mostly children) eat boogers, you can damage the nose if it's excessive, but it's not that big of a deal otherwise" cite and boom, everything is covered. Rawnoodles10 (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• You forgot all the health aspects, social stigma and the history. Marcus Qwertyus 12:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Come to think of it - indeed this article is unnecessary. Grown people who eat boogers have a pathological craving for attention - that's a psychological stand on this issue in its basis, so the cure is to show those people that such method to achieve it doesn't produce the desired effect and is desperately futile thereby. Thus - merge the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.65.15 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up the reference error on this page. Is this page really necessary, though? Is a page on butt-scratching next? Perhaps there is a page on "Things to do when no one is looking" with which this material can be merged. Does the Encyclopædia Britannica also cover this material?Jihadcola (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support I do not see how this article would contain anything that cannot be covered as a section on the dried nasal mucus page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Why not merge/redirect to mucophagy? 98.160.107.179 (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Video requested

I really don't think a video serves any purpose for anyone. --Gccwang (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/picking-your-nose-and-eating-it-may-be-good-for-you-1.1387917 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.131.83 (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/germs-health_b_3327755.html

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-headlines/picking-your-nose-could-be-good-for-you-says-sask-scientist-1.1255167 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.131.83 (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Merged. (With Nose picking. Ew.) (closed by non-admin page mover) msk 16:39, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

---

Eating mucus → Consumption of mucus – "Consumption of mucus" is more formal than "Eating mucus" while still conveying the same idea. Would also be open to "Human mucophagy" or simply "Mucophagy". GrinningIodize (articles without a Wikidata item) (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.  veko. (user | talk | contribs) [he/they] 21:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 23:46, 14 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 10:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge into Nose picking. Much of this article is already off-topic, and neither the current title nor the suggested one are recognizable. The article has practically nothing to say about its purported topic, which does not really seem like something that has been studied in significant depth in reliable sources. It may be worth noticing that the cited article by Andrade and Srihari does not refer to mucophagy or mucus; it instead refers to eating "nasal debris". The cited Gastronaut source doesn't use those terms either. It seems likely that the (paywalled) Buzina source only discusses and studies nasal mucus without explicitly discussing the consumption of dried nasal debris. It seems possible that the consumption of mucus and eating mucus terms are unsourced or at least are not commonly used (or if there may be a citogenesis problem). These terms are also very confusing, because they seem more likely to refer to the consumption of phlegm than the consumption of nasal debris. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. After a bit of ProQuest sleuthing, mucophagy seems to be exceedingly rare with reference to humans; it is however somewhat more common when it comes to animals, for which we already have Mucophagy. Eating is a perfectly fine word, and if we really want to argue about the correct designation for eating your snot, I'd argue it wins on recognizability, naturalness and concision (perhaps "eating snot" would be even better, but Wikipedia is just not ready for that). I do agree that this being its own page seems precarious at best, but this is a move discussion and not an AfD. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is clearly about eating boogers, not snot, and I repeat my suggestion to merge it into nose picking. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm no biologist, but aren't boogers just hardened snot? GrinningIodize (articles without a Wikidata item) (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Mostly yes, I suppose, but the word snot refers exclusively (or at least almost exclusively) to the unhardened form. Salt is dried seawater, but we don't refer to salt as seawater. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  I suppose that's fair. GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  And we don't refer to igneous rock as magma or lava. It's the same substance, but something has happened to it and it's no longer referred to by the same term. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Support merge since we now are in fact discussing it here. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to nose picking per BarrelProof, it's too much of an WP:OVERLAP and shouldn't exist as a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Note that if a merge is desired, a discussion should likely be started at AfD. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 23:46, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I have certainly seen other RMs reach a conclusion to merge. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and I don't think there's anything wrong with reaching that conclusion here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Nose picking per BarrelProof. WP:RFCMERGEAFD, the RFC that resulted in merge proposals being accepted at AFD, is clear: Nothing in this close should be taken to mean that BOLD merges are impermissible, nor that editors cannot establish consensus for merging through other means of consensus forming other than AFD. Also per WP:MERGEPROP: If you want to first gauge whether there is opposition to a potential merge or want to hear other editors' opinions before nominating the article, you can seek input through standard consensus-building venues, such as the destination article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. I have also seen other RMs result in consensus to merge. It is not a common outcome, nor should it be, but editors inevitably propose and implement all manner of improvements in the course of assessing articles at RM. Punting to AFD would be appropriate if there is not a clear consensus to merge here or if there are serious concerns that proposal is inappropriate on the merits—not for purely procedural reasons. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  I have notified Talk:Nose picking about the discussion in progress. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: If/when we merge then Eating mucus will become a redirect to Nose picking. I don't think it's a very good one for all the reasons that this is not a good title for the article. We do have more flexibility with naming redirects, which frequently use informal but common phrases. So we could move the page content to Eating boogers (move over the existing redirect) and then blank and redirect it to Nose picking. This may seem like a strange extra step but in any merge discussion we should consider whether the resulting redirect would make sense. Eating mucus should redirect to Mucophagy. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Health and fitness and WikiProject Psychology have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 10:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support merging with nose picking per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.