Talk:Saliva
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saliva Script error: No such module "pagetype".. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Banner shell". User:MiszaBot/config
Periods or Menstruation
I advice that women talk about what they go through during periods & that we should warn other childrens about having sexual intercourse during periods 41.116.211.121 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I drink period blood, mix it with come and saliva and spit it in others peoples bottoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My sweet phlegm in your mouth (talk • contribs) 14:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Entire section on production is a mess
There are a lot of questionable stayements made in the section on productions, mainly the differences between saliva produced by the sympathatetic vs. parasympathetic nervous system.
The only citation for this section is for the fact that saliva can be produced by either system and is not working.
It makes questionable claims about the differences between saliva produced by one system vs another.
The whole section reads like it's just one person making their own baseless assertions and inferences.
Like that saliva produced by the parasympathetic system is "thicker and less 'fluid-like'"
Or saliva produced by the sympathetic nervous system is thinner and aids digestion.
The rest reads like they're just making logical inferences. Ie if this happens, then this will happen. Having no citations would seem to support this notion. Along with the odd wording throughout the section.
I removed a line about saliva being "less fluid-like" because it makes no sense and again, has not citation. If there were a citation I would have just changed the wording.
Viscosity is a unique property of a fluid, I would think exhibiting viscosity would be quite a fluid-like behavior.
They're obviously conflating a fluid with a liquid. Which makes the rest of the uncited statements even more questionable, as they seem to be written in the same style, hence by the same person.
I, personally feel this section is just so awash with questionable information lacking citations that it needs an extreme revision. And addition of supporting citations. Or just removal.
I mean, there is definitely some accuracy to some of it. But it's impossible to tell what is accurate and what is not without citations to go off of.
But that's me. Ideally, I would like to have a community discussion involving people who know more on the matter and we can come to a consensus on what to do with this section.
Or maybe it's perfectly fine and can be left alone. Either way, I'd love to discuss it further. VoidHalo (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Anal sex on biological description?
What is the purpose with that information there? 109.166.134.69 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Agree it should be removed; Template:Respond with Special:Diff/1279145570. Zefr (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)