Talk:Pre-ejaculate

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pre-ejaculate article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 90 days

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image.

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.

Pictures: Before editing the image(s) in this article, please read the discussion log. Wikipedia is not censored. If these images aren't suitable for your environment (e.g school) please read WP:NOSEE.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kocurran1123. Peer reviewers: KidAd, Madisonolds98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

inter-wiki links

as regards the commons link i have added, which has been "disputed" by another user.

it is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with policy to provide inter-wiki links for a topic.

if other "bodily fluid" articles don't have such links, they should be added.

Lx 121 (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Risks: Sperm in pre-ejaculate

This article states that there are no sperm in pre-ejaculate, but the citations are out of date. Two studies (Killick et al. 2011 and Kovavisarach et al. 2016) have both demonstrated that viable sperm can be found in pre-ejaculate even after lengthy periods of abstinence; the Killick studied is incorrectly used as evidence that there are no sperm in pre-ejaculate even though the study actually found that 37% their participants had viable sperm in their pre-ejaculate, i.e. the exact opposite of what is being claimed. I am unfamiliar with editing wikipedia articles, so I apologise if I mess this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.29.188 (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit and the content at hand, we need stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources and (because of WP:Due weight) typically what the literature generally states. I'll contact WP:Med about weighing in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agree w/ Flyer22 Reborn (Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine))--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, can I get your opinion on these changes? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did a pubmed search and found zero recent reviews on the topic.

These books [1][2][3] talks about the very little evidence that exists.

When very little evidence exists what we should do is less clear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doc James. It's because of this that I was wondering about what we should do with regard to WP:Primary source reporting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If no reviews exists than we are not contradicting reviews with primary sources. I would go with the books as sources which basically say what the primary sources do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's how I usually handle matters such as these. In some cases, primary sources are all or mostly what we have. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases, it's still, however, important to stick to what the literature generally states and not give undue weight to less supported conclusions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Cowper's Fluid be the main title, and Pre-Ejaculate be a redirect?

I would think we would want to use the technical term for the main title99.203.5.227 (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are using a technical term. Since pre-ejaculate is derived from sources other than just the Cowper's glands, it would probably be more accurate to leave the main title as is. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second the name change to what is generally seen as the more correct term - Cowper's Fluid.

The mildly differing sources of the fluids are largely irrelevant when considering the name herein, especially so when the fluid has already, long since been classified and named; and, it must be said, named after its primary source.

That aside, and on to differing nomenclature... Although Cowper's Fluid is certainly not the most widely used term, we should not be encouraging popularity over propriety. Should we favor the most commonly used term as our selection method, then "Pre-cum" should be used, as it is by far and away, the most common term. There it is then, IMVHO, we should change to the more correct (Cowper's Fluid) and not use the more common (Pre-.*) terms.

TL;DNR? - Another vote to change the name to Cowper's Fluid.

Thank you for reading. - M R G WIKI999 (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semen coagulation?

The link in "semen coagulation" goes to a page which does not appear to have relevance (after a quick skim of the intro & TOC plus a word search of the page). Searching Wikipedia only returned one use of the term and only in a reference:

KLK5

"Crucial role of estrogen for the mammalian female in regulating semen coagulation and liquefaction in vivo". PLOS Genetics....

I did not edit this page, hoping that by posting here somebody else would clarify the term in this article or in Coagulation with a link to the relevant section. Thank you! — 71.212.139.106 (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-cum reference

I am not sure where to find a reliable source for "pre-cum" as an alternative word for pre-ejaculate, although I do think there are a lot of sources out there that may mention that word. Unfortunately, I think a lot of sources out there that back up that "pre-cum" word just don't seem to be reliable enough for Wikipedia. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 07:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]