# Talk:Prostate

There was an episode of the t.v. show King of Queens recently that stated that Doug's boss had his prostate removed due to cancer and because of that he had to urinate every 10 minutes and/or had urinary control issues. After having read what has been posted here I find it highly unlikely that this is a realistic depiction. When I was watching it I just assumed that maybe one of the writers on the show had some real life experience where this actually happened. Anyways I was wonder if that would really happen or if it wouldn't?
barouqeswinger. 18 August 2007.

First let me apologies for those errors’ updates earlier this evening, I’ve not done this before and did not realize there was a “sand box” option. Sounds stupid I know but occasionally I revert back to my blond childhood and am reminded not only how wonderful it was for my hair to get darker with age but how pleasant it is that such moments have become fewer as well.
Second I have made updates to this article in regards to the female prostate and have provided documentation for all of them save one which as a female I fell uniquely qualified to make without but have left the request/option for documentation on it anyway.
So please read and let me know what you think.  
Miss Tanit
9 June 2008

I had a discussion with someone recently about whether or not a woman has a prostate or not. After reading the current Wikipedia article on the matter, I felt that there wasn't enough information to prove or disprove that women do in fact have a prostate.
I have recently found a PDF document relating to this matter that does prove it, however I'm unsure on what to write on the main article. I was tempted to simply just put a reference to the document. For this reason I am placing a link to this document here so others can discuss it and possibly write up a good section about it.
PDF Document Titled "Newsbulletin 30 - December 2009" by "International Society for Sexual Medicine": [1]

The passage on active surveillance suggests that it is an infrequent treatment option. I think that is an obsolete opinion and would encourage a change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.100.173 (talk • contribs) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prostate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 17:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review Dunkleosteus77, I appreciate your thoroughness. I'm about to enter a period where I may not be able to address many of these for a week or so, however I will have time the week after. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I think I've responded to all your remarks below Dunkleosteus77, and appreciate your patience. Just after nominating this I was notified about a large, disruptive and ongoing change to my schedule that meant I had to put aside my plans for more responsive editing :(. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


### Dunkleosteus77
### Arbitrary break
"Removal of the gland was first described in 1851, by Samuel David Gross" why did Gross want to remove the gland?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 Not done haven't been able to find this information; he was an American surgeon but beyond that I'm not sure. It would be interesting to clarify though. Do you have any ideas?--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Actual reading Gross' work, he doesn't describe how to remove it, he just describes the actual organ. He says "The object of this work is to present, in a systematic and connected form, a full and comprehensive account of the diseases and injuries of the urinary gland, the prostate, and the urethra... Whilst every other organ of the body has had its expounder and monographist, it is a singular fact that no systematic treatise has yet appeared..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I have accessed the full source (URL linked in text) and he does indeed state The idea of extirpating the entire gland is, indeed, to absurd to be seriously entertained... Excision of the middle lobe would be far less objectionable. Righteo. Back to the resource exchange (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#More_prostate). --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 Partly done I just can't find any other references to the first prostatectomy, so I have clarified this statement as best I can. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
"A prostate gland occurs in some invertebrate species, such as gastropods (slugs and snails)" this implies that it occurs in other invertebrate groups. What are they? Do they occur in reptiles, birds, or fish?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done removed. Lots of sources state clearly it's present only in mammals. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
"In many rodents and bats, the prostatic fluid contains a coagulant. This mixes with and coagulates semen during copulation to form a mating plug that temporarily prevents further copulation." does this occur in other mammals that produce a mating plug (including many primates)? That is, is coagulative prostatic fluid a requirement for creating a mating plug?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done removed. One source did not state this and one stated it from 1965. I can't locate a source that states clearly that mating plugs relate to prostatic scretions (and indeed they seem to be present in species without prostates). --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Since Skene's gland occurs in both humans and rodents, you should check if it occurs in other primates or rabbits (that is, if it occurs in all euarchontoglires)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done thanks for mentioning this. Skene's gland is a controversial area because, in my understanding, there is still some disagreement about its definition, which complicates whether authors do or don't agree that it's in certain species. I've added a bit and mentioned this controversy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a new page on Prostatic calculi, which I think would be better here. It is short, and the topic isn't mentioned on this page (as it should be). So, merge for short text and context. It could have a separate heading, probably Prostatic calcification would be better (more consistent with the naming of other forms of tissue calcification). Klbrain (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for appreciating the article I started and considering it for merging into a high-quality page. While I personally prefer "Prostatic calcification" or "Prostatic stones", I chose "calculi" because it is the term most frequently used in scientific literature. (by quick searching in pubmed) I am open to renaming it.
As for the merger, I believe the article should remain separate for the following reasons:
Each type of calculus from different organs typically has its own dedicated article.
Prostatic calculi are associated with aging, BPH, and prostatitis. Having a separate article allows better linking to these related conditions.
Despite their high prevalence, the clinical significance of prostatic calculi remains debated. Most doctors view them as having limited importance. Merging it with the Prostate article could give undue attention to a subject that many professionals don't consider highly significant. I think it’s better to let the topic mature as its own independent article, at least for the time being, and later, some parts could be included in the main Prostate article.
— Arthurfragoso (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined to keep these separate, because I think the most common reason for people to read about this is that they're looking at a radiology report and trying to find out what each word means, and getting dropped into a large article won't help them.  (I like the idea of renaming it, though; it ought to be in the singular ("calculus"), and plain old English would IMO be fine ("stones").) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Withdrawn by proposer; I accept that there's sufficient support/arguments for keeping it separate. As to the title, while we usually use singular for titles, it does seem that they rarely occur singly, and so the commonest term is the plural: see ngram. So, I'll leave it as it is. Klbrain (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)