Talk:Testosterone poisoning

message: Is it really necessary to have the same Alan Alda quote twice, immediately after each other - one quoting a primary source and the other quoting a secondary source?  71.145.152.70 (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alda Quote 

message: Does/do the editrix/es of this article perhaps suffer from estrogen poisoning, causing an inability to frame her/their thoughts coherently and logically? ;) It seems to need rather a lot of work... Choler&tie 00:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've kept the positive part of this contribution while reverting the passive voice, run-on sentence, trivial Wikilink, and awkward syntax. Durova 10:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for keeping the positive part of the contribution. But as I said, the rest of the article needs work. E.g., this needs more alliteration: "The phrase found a prominent proponent in renowned astrophysicist...". What about "The phrase found a prominent proponent in acclaimed astrophysicist..."? Choler&tie 10:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Joking implies something is amusing, no? Pete.Hurd 01:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Implies that someone finds something amusing, but I wouldn't expect someone who uses "no?" like that to agree. Choler&tie 09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In this case, bizarre.  Serious contributors don't apply poetic devices to encyclopedia articles. Durova 05:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly my point: the sentence is ineptly "poetic", which is why I re-wrote it. "The phrase found..." and "prominent proponent" are what a hack journalist would use. Choler&tie 09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Estrogen poisoning?

message: The article start itself with a note that itbis the persona opinion of the author. That in itself is alredy a POV violating the NPOV standards of wikipedia. --KimvdLinde 03:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That note was added several hours ago by an anon editor (216.58.59.18) who probably would have added a "disputed" template instead, had they known how.  That editor's comments above in this talk page show a strong POV on their part.  If that's the POV in the article is the anons paragraph, then I'd suggest deleting the tag and the paragraph.  (I'm limiting my edits to this article to adding material to the "psychological research" section, I'll leave deleting and editing the cultural relevance topics to others). Pete.Hurd 04:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with you, and in that case, I will remove both.--KimvdLinde 04:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Someone posted posted the following to the article:
"Many feel the phrase plays into the hand of abusive men. Abusive men, and women who support abusive men often want to put forward propaganda that says being abusive or violent is manly. This is often used as an excuse for doing violence or abuse. There is plenty of evidence which shows the aforementioned chemical has no affect on behavior.
One theory is that stronger men and women are simply more likely to do abuse, because they can get away with it. For instance there are more able bodied thieves than disabled thieves, but no one would pretend being bale bodied is what drives someone directyl into being thief, but being able bodied allows the option to be more likely. 
It is widely thought that the aforementioned chemical had no direct affect on behavior."
:I couldn't find much support for that assertion.  A Google search turned up only 44 unique hits and 7 of the top 10 were blogs, forum posts, or tripod/angelfire free websites.  Of the three that remained, neither of the first two characterized the situation this way and the remaining one was Angry Harry, who appears to use the phrase for rhetorical effect.  Perhaps the above statement would be better on a page that is actually about domestic abuse, with references and more neutral wording (i.e. remove "propaganda"). Durova 18:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved addition for discussion 

message: This article is biased beyond belief. Pure feminist agenda. Such sleazy, low life propaganda has no place on Wikipedia.
:Huh, it documents a notable cultural phenomenon (I'd use the term "meme" but I think it's silly) and presents the scientific evidence (such as it is) relating to the concept (and pretty much dismisses it, as far as that goes). Pete.Hurd 03:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is so biased. How in the world are you going to put up an article about something that is totally bull. It was made up by some male hating female who probably was to ugly to come close to getting any in bed, so she had to put up some "Testosterone Poisoning" article to try and make us feel bad, that is truly biased, and sexist in my opinion. Take this article off of Wikipedia, it's complete bull crap, and for all you male hating females. ,,|,,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Placemynamehere (talk • contribs) 04:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased

message: Could someone who believes this article has neutrality problems please state specific unresolved issues?  All of the complaints listed on this page have (it seems) been answered sufficiently.  The only potential lack of balance I can perceive is a shortage of opposing citations.  Having researched the article myself, I know this reflects not a selection bias but the representative proportions of available literature that satisfies WP:V.  Anyone who doubts this is welcome to run a Google test.  If there's some substantive issue I've overlooked, please express it here. Durova 23:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality flag

message: It's been two weeks with no response. Durova 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed template 

message: I've restored the section entitled "Humor and criticism" that was deleted on 13 June (although the accompanying references were left in the footnotes).  Edit note called this a "joke list."  To some degree it is: the term's first appearance in print was as humor, a use that has continued throughout its existence.  It's rather hard to demonstrate or balance that without examples.  Also, the objections to this term were deleted with this section, which unbalanced the presentation.  Perhaps this edit was responsible for the POV tag.
Still seeking feedback about how to address POV concerns. Durova 16:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored section 

message: User:Durova has asked for explanations about the text I removed recently... but since Durova knows I made the edits, presumably this means Durova has also viewed my edit summaries, which make my reasons pretty much clear. The text I removed is very obviously making arguments in a POV manner, and giving undue weight to single sources. I suggest anyone who doesn't understand why I removed what I did study WP:NPOV, as well as WP:STYLE and WP:RS. Also, the tag still remains on the article because even though there are some proper sources here, I believe undue weight is being given to them. (Forgive me for not caring what the "Car Talk" guys think about this subject.) wikipediatrix 18:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A claim in an edit summary that material is POV doesn't convey very much unless it expresses what the POV objection is.  I've requested clarification because it is not clear.  All of the sources cited in this article appear to satisfy WP:RS.  Please list any that you specifically dispute.  The humor section is appropriate because the term's original appearance is in the context of humor, a usage which it has retained throughout its existence.  Wikipedia articles about humor do include representative examples - often more examples than this page supplies.  Your criticisms seem to amount to an accusation of selection bias.  If you can find more sources that are critical of the term, then by all means add them to the article.  Such sources have been very difficult to find.  When notable usage itself weights in favor of acceptance, it obeys WP:NPOV to reflect that reality.  Please do a Google search if you doubt my word: I welcome scrutiny.  All of my assertions are properly sourced.  Please provide sources for yours as well. Durova 19:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct, I am indeed accusing the article of having a selection bias. Therefore, arguing about whether the info is sourced or not is irrelevant. The only source I removed was the bit about the jokes, because I don't think jokes are relevant - and even if they were, they didn't deserve the amount of article space devoted to them. The article has all the tell-tale earmarks of editors trying too hard to establish the subject's notability in the first place: every and any mention of Testosterone Poisoning, however tenuous, is seized upon and imbued with more importance than necessary. The Psychology Today bit: extremely relevant. The Sagan bit: much less so, but still relevant. The "Car Talk" bit: not relevant at all. Lame jokes someone posted to the net: utterly desperate for sources. wikipediatrix 21:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please assume good faith.  Your criticism privileges medical/scientific usage over humor without any reference or citation for that position.  The article already has citations to demonstrate that the term originates as humor and that its connections to science are tenuous.  Compare the examples used here to examples in the dozens and spoonerism.  It's normal for an article about language and humor to include a section that cites examples.  Also see Schadenfreude.  The corresponding section here was already smaller (and better referenced) than any of these articles before your deletions.  
Also, per instructions at Template:Citecheck, when the template is used the page should have "At least one citation that an editor tried to verify and found that the article passage misstated or misconstrued the original source's content."  I repeat my request for examples.  Also in the template instructions, "Articles that merely lack references or have POV problems should be flagged with some other template." Durova 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Noting undue weight and overzealous use of any source containing any possible mention of the subject isn't bad faith. I couldn't care less about anyone's motivations, I just think the article contains better and more encyclopedic writing style with my slight removals. I really haven't removed anything meaty and important, so what's the problem?  wikipediatrix 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The examples cited in the article are far from "overzealous use of any source containing any possible mention of the subject."  Wikipedia:Assume good faith covers assumptions such as overzealous.  Google supplies over 27,000 pages that use the phrase, many of which satisfy WP:V, and several additional (unused) examples of which I posted to this page last month when I attempted to elicit an explanation for why this article had a POV template.  I've made good faith efforts to discern what the perceived problem is so that I can address it and the templates can be removed.  Your deletion nomination in June called this article, "fundamentally POV and unencyclopedic concept."  I repeat: what source or sources are misquoted and what would balance the POV problem as you perceive it? Durova 19:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't communicate with you if you're going to throw down the "Assume good faith" flag every time I criticize the POV nature of the article. Furthermore, that defense mechanism cuts both ways: I see no purpose in dragging my AfD vote into this conversation, unless it is to insinuate some sort of motive for my present edits. Lastly, I already posted one example below, did you overlook it? wikipediatrix 19:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going ahead and opening an RfC on the article.  Your post below hadn't appeared when I wrote that query. Durova 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if you must, although I don't see that it's necessary. I think the article as it presently stands conveys the subject every bit as well as it did before I touched it, and I don't really see what is lost by my removal of the insignificant items. We've already both devoted far more words to this dispute than is necessary. wikipediatrix 21:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You replaced the POV template and added a second template, yet I have been unable to determine what corrective measures you would accept so that these tags can be removed.  Perhaps input from more people will resolve the questions. Durova 22:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put the citecheck template in a section that had only one reference link, so what was the problem in figuring it out? And after I took the time to point out how the source obviously didn't say what the article said it said, you suddenly noticed it. You're making this process unnecessarily prolonged and dragged out. It's not rocket science to make an article NPOV, let's just do the job and get out and move on. wikipediatrix 14:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV/OR 

message: In the sentence, "References to testosterone poisoning are used as a convenient way to criticize men," the word "criticize" is used in an ambiguous and unhelpful way.  Granted, in the vernacular, "criticise" is used as synonym for "denigrate", "defame", "castigate" and "belittle", but in an encyclopedic context, it would probably be a good idea to restrict it to its scholarly and intellectual sense of "study closely" (which is clearly not the sense meant here).
I'd venture to say that its use in this sense is one piece of evidence that the Usage section at the very least could use some rewriting.
According to The Free Dictionary, the primary meaning of criticize is "to find fault with."  This article uses U.S. spelling because testosterone poisoning originated in the U.S. Durova 18:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloppy use of the word "criticise". 

message: Well, here's one: the reference link to this article. The Wikipedia article says that job failure "corresponded perfectly to their testosterone levels", but the source citation link doesn't say that, it says "four of the five men". Which is significant, of course, but obviously isn't perfect. Not a huge big deal, but a prime example of the sort of spin that's going on here. Why couldn't the article just report what the sources say, without trying to extrapolate, interpret, embellish, and exagerrate? The words "corresponded perfectly" do not appear in the source citation, nor are they implied. wikipediatrix 19:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a legitimate alert to an honest oversight.  I've corrected the misstatement.  Please refrain from speculation about deliberate "spin."  Are there any other problems? Durova 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Spin can be accidental and unintentional. It has nothing to do with speculation. Stop being so defensive. And why didn't you remove the citecheck tag after you fixed it? That was the only reference link in that section, and the tag was section-specific. wikipediatrix 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been hard to gauge the extent of your criticism. Durova 04:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation POV  

message: This article has a POV template and one of its sections has a CITECHECK template.  What changes (if any) should editors make to balance and source the material appropriately so that these templates may be removed?  
Also, an editor removed referenced material from a section that provided examples of the phrase's use as humor.  Should that material remain deleted, be restored, or be replaced with a different citation? Durova 22:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: The wording "the equivalent of hate speech" is biased as it prevents hate speech against men from being called by its name, thereby suggesting that it is not really hate speech. I think that Antonia Feitz's intention was quite the opposite: to point out that phrases such as "testosterone poisoning" actually are hate speech, not just "the equivalent of" it.
83.24.146.219 03:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the quoted article say "the equivalent of"?  If so, then removing that part is ediorializing... Pete.Hurd 15:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The equivalent of" hate speech 

message: The article does a good job pointing out that the data doesn't support the concept as it's understood, should it do a better job of showing that the research says that in fact, more testosterone acts to calm men?  I ask because I am someone who (and I realize this is worthless scientifically) is on HRT and went from 130ng/dl of test to normal levels, and it was like discovering paradise.  I also experimented a bit and kept my test at approximately 2500ng/dl for a while and if anything it just made me feel better and made me more gregarious and nicer to other people.  And uh... way too interested in sex.  Way way.  But not angry, not at all.  Anyway, that's what motivates me to ask if it wouldn't be worthwhile to spend some time on showing that, since someone reading this article is likely asking the question "does testosterone make people more aggressive," the answer "no" is informative, the answer "actually, it looks like it's the opposite" is even more informative because it is more precisely true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.235.10 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposite of the truth 

message: I've made several major edits to the article, mostly removing scientific material related to testosterone and aggression.  There is no cited evidence I can see that the phrase "testosterone poisoning" has to do with any dispute on testosterone's effects on health or behaviour, so there seems little need to present this dispute here.  A couple instances of it remain, which I think may be justified to correct a lack of clarity on that, but again I don't think an in-depth discussion of the effects of testosterone belongs here.  Based on the usage presented by sources, the phrase seems merely a catch-all for anti-male or anti-masculine sentiment, similar to how the phrase "that time of the month" is used for general anti-female sentiment.  Blackworm (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Testosterone poisoning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051108105305/http://www.avalanche.org/~moonstone/TAR/Human%20Being.htm to http://www.avalanche.org/~moonstone/TAR/Human%20Being.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061216104424/http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19961201-000021.html to http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19961201-000021.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113040943/http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/05/24/road_sow/email.html to http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/05/24/road_sow/email.html
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XUdH_hHcx3oJ:www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-the_women_feminists.htm+++%22testosterone+poisoning+%22&hl=en&strip=1 with https://web.archive.org/web/20131011104108/http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-the_women_feminists.htm on http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-the_women_feminists.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/Summer-Driving-Tips/other.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified