Talk:Menstrual synchrony

message: Related articles from The Straight Dope:
* http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_306.html
* http://www.straightdope.com/columns/021220.html
And a study saying the effect doesn't exist:
* http://transactionpub.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&issn=1045-6767&volume=17&issue=4&spage=434
--Apoc2400 07:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related articles

message: It appears that Lyrl copied and pasted text from straightdope, which is copyrighted.  As such, it appears that the article is in violation of copyright (WP:COPYVIO).  
The two sections below are copied word-for-word:
:"Though a woman with a 27-day cycle might initially have her onset on the same day as a woman with a 29-day cycle, the next month she'd be two days earlier, the month after that four days, and so on."
:"Assuming an average cycle of 28 days, the maximum time between two women's onsets is 14 days. Since the minimum is zero, the average difference"
Nephron  T|C 04:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've paraphrased the sentences that Nephron was concerned about.  I appreciate other's attention to these details, but I believe the copyright tag is meant for images, or for entire articles that are copy-and-pasted, not two sentences out of a several paragraph article. Lyrl    Talk     C   00:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: A reference to a study authored by James V. Kohl was recently added.  I reverted the additions supported by the ref (see my edit summary for reasons), but thought others might benefit from a link to the article: Human Pheromones: "Integrating Neuroendocrinology and Ethology"
LyrlTalk     C   17:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kohl study 

message: The criticism section is poorly constructed. It waffles on where a simple sentence relating methodological weaknesses in existing studies would suffice. Using a poorly written website that doesn't even cite the appropriate studies is not impressive either. The bulk of the Straight Dope article actually comes from a paper from Schank- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11334217
so that should be explicit. Whoever put in the SD reference might want to go and read the reply to the Schank paper, by the way. Ninahexan (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism is meandering and poorly referenced 

message: We're relying on the New York Times as a source? They cover mostly politics! How about at least Scientific American?  --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: References are poor

message: I will be updating this article this summer.  I plan to summarize all major studies as well as issues raised by various researchers.  The goal is a comprehensive article on menstrual synchrony and related phenomena in the few other species for which it has been reported.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In doing so, I hope to address the issues of references etc. that have been raised regarding this article.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2013 

message: I'm thinking of moving the article from Menstrual synchrony to Menstrual synchrony theory. The article is about the hypothesis that women's menstrual cycles will synchronize in certain situations. The article devotes considerable attention to whether the phenomenon has ever actually been observed - or whether the statistics used to support the hypothesis were improperly calculated. In other words, does it really happen, or does it just appear to? (We remember coincidences but forget the "lack of coincidence".)
Without prejudice to the truth or falsity of the theory, I think it would help our readers if we moved it as proposed above. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, There is no source to justify this move.  Nobody refers to this phenomenon as "menstrual synchrony theory".  There is a purported phenomenon and there are a number of theories proposed to explain it, but it should not be called menstrual synchrony theory.I am One of Many (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move

message: Could someone else explain to IP 94.216.86.84 that they do not have a proper understanding of English and don't understand the meanings of "methodical" and "methodological". --I am One of Many (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Methodological" is correct in both cases. "Methodical" characterises an approach, ie a scientist may work in a methodical manner.  "Methodological" means, roughly, "concerning methods".  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methodical 

message: We still need to distinguish between a number of things:
#times when a number of women's periods have the same onset
#the (theorized) process by which those onsets to come into (near) synchrony
#the scientific dispute over whether the phenomenon really occurs
I suppose this clarification will improve the article and even result in renaming it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: I'm getting different ideas about how the "research" was conducted. How did Ms. McClintock conduct her study? Was it double-blind? Did anyone keep records?
* McClintock observed 135 female Wellesley College students living in the same dorm and found “a significant increase in synchronization of onset dates” among the women who spent a lot of time together.
Did she personally observe these women? Did the women themselves keep careful records, month after month for years at a time? Or did McClintock ask them to recall their period onsets - relying on human memory more than on written records?
There's also the question of how much of an overlap should be regarded as "synchrony":
* Given that menstruation often lasts 5 days, it is not surprising that friends commonly experience overlapping menses, which is taken as personal confirmation of menstrual synchrony. Human Reproduction vol.14 no.3 pp.579–580, 1999
* This idea that this does not exist asks us to trust scientific studies (which are few and flawed) over what women over time and geography have experienced. Therefore a greater weight should be given to women's stories of the phenomenon.
* This article wants to blame the moon as if it couldn't be both women's hormones and the moon working together to help women reset to the natural rhythms of nature.  A worldwide worldview would reveal that in historical times it was known that women living close together would synchonize. As such this article only looks at the western view.
* The studies ought to also look at how closely women lived together. Were they just classmates, or did they live in the same rooms, sleep in the same rooms and use the same bathrooms?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:5CA0:DCB6:D24:A4BC (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: How to describe the research

message: Should we consider "alleged" a weasel word here?  It certainly detracts from the clarity of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7042:6000:F585:54DF:2183:B0C8 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article makes clear, the reality of menstrual synchrony is greatly disputed, many considering it to be a complete myth. That needs to be indicated to the reader as soon as possible, and "alleged" does the job. If you want to suggest an alternative form of wording, fine, but I fail to see how "alleged" can be seen as a weasel word, and I fail to see how it "detracts from the clarity of the article" – to my mind, it adds to the clarity. Eric Pode lives (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I agree with Eric Pode lives. EMsmile (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:   "alleged" an unsuitable adjective for lead-in

message: I've done some tidying up to reduce overlap and repetition with culture and menstruation. Both articles had used the same paragraphs, quotes and images. I have tried to sort that out better now so that they don't overlap so much (in the section on  myths). EMsmile (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all of the culture stuff does not belong in the article.--I am One of Many (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which sections do you mean exactly? Tell me the headings? I am happy to move it. EMsmile (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Some tidying up together with [[culture and menstruation]]

message: Perhaps it is because I am not a biologist, but I fail to see a clear connection or causal relationship between the investigated hypotheses and estrous synchrony. The text reads: "They tested three hypotheses about the adaptiveness of estrous asynchrony: (1) females become asynchronous to increase copulation frequency and opportunities for giving birth; (2) paternity confusion to reduce infanticide; and (3) sperm competition." I don't get how asynchrony would increase copulation frequency. Can't they copulate whenever and however frequently they feel like? And how does asynchrony increase opportunities for giving birth? I'm probably missing something, but I would think asynchrony would only shift the birth timing, not increase the frequency. (Think of a sine wave undergoing translation; a phase shift would not alter the frequency or period). 
Furthermore, I don't see any connection to paternity confusion, infanticide, or sperm competition. I am not even completely sure why paternity confusion would lead to infanticide. Or is it saying paternity confusion reduces infanticide? As in, the male does not know who the father is, so would not commit infanticide due to the possibility it is his? Or is the male confused into thinking the offspring is not his and so mistakenly commits infanticide? 
I'll admit I can be slow to piece things together at times, but I honestly feel this article expects too much of the reader. More detailed explanations would be helpful. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypotheses Explanation? 

message: :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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 11:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Menstrual synchrony →  – To better reflect the current status of topic; also with consistency with naming in :Category:Biological hypotheses. fgnievinski (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Women's Health has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 10:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Medicine has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 10:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

text: *Followed notification at WT:WH (Weak) oppose not seeing enough consistency at the indicated cat for me to ignore an argument for title concision. Little pob (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 July 2023 

message: I, a layman, had a hard time understanding what the process described is by reading this sentence: "Menstrual synchrony, also called the McClintock effect, or the Wellesley effect, is a contested process whereby women who begin living together in close proximity would experience their menstrual cycle onsets (the onset of menstruation or menses) becoming more synchronized together in time than when previously living apart."
Wouldn't it be better to just say "Menstrual synchrony, also called the McClintock effect, or the Wellesley effect, is a contested process whereby women who begin living together would experience their menstrual cycle onsets becoming closer in time"?
I feel there's a lot of unnecessary repetition as it is. Ninito159 (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence writing is unnecessarily complicated  

message: In my opinion, that article is misleading. It lacks male effects in research on women. The root cause is the presence of men, which will lead to synchronization in women.
It would be important to examine this on a community basis, not in purely female groups. This is an evolutionary pattern, not a female interaction.
source:
Male Axillary Extracts Contain Pheromones that Affect Pulsatile Secretion of Luteinizing Hormone and Mood in Women Recipients  https://academic.oup.com/biolreprod/article/68/6/2107/2683595
Pheromones: The Scent of a Male  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982214001870
The statement of the article that "Reviews in 2006 and 2013 concluded that menstrual synchrony likely does not exist." is not valid. HummelZsolt (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing male effects