Talk:Pre-ejaculate

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)

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)

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This article states that there are no sperm in pre-ejaculate, but the citations are out of date.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)


 * 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)


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


 * Doc James, can I get your opinion on these changes? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Did a pubmed search and found zero recent reviews on the topic.
 * These books 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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 FIREWATER  17:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

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 &#124; contribs) 07:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

delete image
I believe the image of the penis shown on the page is not needed and inappropriate, please can it be deleted. S12789 (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)