![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ashack17. Peer reviewers:
Kaybraidi,
NeilJohn11.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Albrechtb,
Vohraa. Peer reviewers:
Zelizimm,
MicheleRose97,
Rhawley10.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand that odds ratio has a defined meaning in statistics, but I honestly don't quite grasp the concept. Neither, I think, do most people. As a result, to the eyes of those uneducated in statistical theory, the article appears to be making the bizarre claim that 91% of lesbians are not right handed. Can someone please express this concept in a way that does not give this misleading impression? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.22.207 ( talk) 20:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
> This has just been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.38.189 ( talk) 23:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there guys! Just brief question: since the article is about NEUROscience and sexual orientation shouldn't it concern only neurological topics? Especially the handedness and 2D:4D digit ratio sections. Don't you thing that Biology and sexual orientation is more appropriate place for them? -- Stalik ( talk) 23:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
This article is at times very outdated, or, to put it bluntly, very, very shitty, also because it ignores contrary findings. Oldfashioned pseudo-research trying to validate stereotypes shouldn't make it on Wikipedia, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.208.163.56 ( talk) 20:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neuroscience and sexual orientation. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Ocheck05 and Albrechtb, don't add any significantly old sources, like those from the 1990s or earlier, to this article...unless it's added for historical material. Even if the material is from the 2000s, it should be as up-to-date as possible or excluded. See WP:MEDDATE. This article should stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Per WP:MEDRS, avoid adding WP:Primary sources. As for the definition of sexual orientation, we go by what authoritative sources such as the American Psychological Association state or at least WP:Due weight. If WP:MEDRS (which includes its WP:MEDDATE section) are not adhered to, you will be reverted...just like I recently reverted you. Do not WP:Edit war. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Albrechtb, Ocheck05 and Vohraa, regarding this, I again point to WP:MEDRS and WP:Primary sources. Also read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Avoid adding primary sources to this article, especially content about different regions of the brain and how the brain works or is believed to work. Look to tertiary and secondary sources. Look to literature reviews. A single study can hardly be representative of anything; research must first be replicated. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest adding more sources as I'm sure much research has been published in the past few years. Further, the section "Research directions" is very outdated. I suggest updating it to research directions from at least 2015, not 2005. All of the directions in that list come from one source, so I would look into more sources and what their future goals are. Rhawley10 ( talk) 20:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Lead- The introduction to sexual orientation is nice, gives a good overview. I think you could add a little more leading into neuroscience.
Structure- I think it would make it easier to read through if there were subheadings separating the different topics/points being addressed.
Balance- Good balance of information and sources within the article.
Neutral Content- The article sounded very neutral.
Reliable Sources- Good sources.
Big picture- I like the flow of the article, it started off broad and got more specific as you read on. I also liked the research directions section, and might consider adding a section like this to my own article. My suggestion is to decide on specific points you want to address within this article and create separate sections for them so you can include more information. MicheleRose97 ( talk) 03:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a good start to updating this article. I think the opening paragraph does a good job at referencing what sexual orientation is and how it is being developed through neuroscience advancements.
The following section, Developmental neurobiology, goes very in depth with some studies regarding how sexual orientation is developed, which is good. However, this section focuses specifically on androgens, i.e. testosterone, and nothing regarding if female hormones play a role in sexual orientation development. I think adding information/studies looking at female hormones would be beneficial, if they play a role in sexual orientation development at all. Further, the last paragraph in this section about the hypothalamus is relatively short and it may be beneficial to find more information about the hypothalamus and sexual orientation.
I like how you include the section on Research directions, however, maybe it could be updated considering most of these directions come from 2005. It would also be interesting if you could find information/studies of several of these research directions from 2005 and include them in the developmental neurobiology section, or create a new section depending on the specific topic of sexual orientation development. I say this because it has been almost 15 years since these directions were suggested and may have been studied already.
By adding more information or studies that have been done or are proposed 'next steps', this would lengthen your references section as well which would make the article a more reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelizimm ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Be sure to see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29211317 and potentially https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28698022
Forbero ( talk) 19:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Dr. Robin
Flyer22 Frozen and Crossroads what do you think of all the edits in 2018 from a now banned user (Jytdog) which pretty much eliminated this article in it's entirety? No doubt some of those criticisms were valid but I think it went overboard given the article has become somewhat of a stub. Is it simply best to re-add in things with secondary sources? Seems like a lot of work. Sxologist ( talk)
There are also sections removed which are quite clearly linked with neuroscience, such as the fraternal birth order, which Blanchard always notes is likely due to the antibody ‘taking out’ male-specific Neurons on the surface of the brain. I’m sure I can re-add that in if I cite Blanchards comments with regards to neuroscience. Sxologist ( talk) 13:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Flyer, do you think some of the 'brain' chapter provided in LeVay's book would be acceptable. Sxologist ( talk) 00:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ashack17. Peer reviewers:
Kaybraidi,
NeilJohn11.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Albrechtb,
Vohraa. Peer reviewers:
Zelizimm,
MicheleRose97,
Rhawley10.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand that odds ratio has a defined meaning in statistics, but I honestly don't quite grasp the concept. Neither, I think, do most people. As a result, to the eyes of those uneducated in statistical theory, the article appears to be making the bizarre claim that 91% of lesbians are not right handed. Can someone please express this concept in a way that does not give this misleading impression? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.22.207 ( talk) 20:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
> This has just been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.38.189 ( talk) 23:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there guys! Just brief question: since the article is about NEUROscience and sexual orientation shouldn't it concern only neurological topics? Especially the handedness and 2D:4D digit ratio sections. Don't you thing that Biology and sexual orientation is more appropriate place for them? -- Stalik ( talk) 23:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
This article is at times very outdated, or, to put it bluntly, very, very shitty, also because it ignores contrary findings. Oldfashioned pseudo-research trying to validate stereotypes shouldn't make it on Wikipedia, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.208.163.56 ( talk) 20:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neuroscience and sexual orientation. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Ocheck05 and Albrechtb, don't add any significantly old sources, like those from the 1990s or earlier, to this article...unless it's added for historical material. Even if the material is from the 2000s, it should be as up-to-date as possible or excluded. See WP:MEDDATE. This article should stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Per WP:MEDRS, avoid adding WP:Primary sources. As for the definition of sexual orientation, we go by what authoritative sources such as the American Psychological Association state or at least WP:Due weight. If WP:MEDRS (which includes its WP:MEDDATE section) are not adhered to, you will be reverted...just like I recently reverted you. Do not WP:Edit war. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Albrechtb, Ocheck05 and Vohraa, regarding this, I again point to WP:MEDRS and WP:Primary sources. Also read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Avoid adding primary sources to this article, especially content about different regions of the brain and how the brain works or is believed to work. Look to tertiary and secondary sources. Look to literature reviews. A single study can hardly be representative of anything; research must first be replicated. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest adding more sources as I'm sure much research has been published in the past few years. Further, the section "Research directions" is very outdated. I suggest updating it to research directions from at least 2015, not 2005. All of the directions in that list come from one source, so I would look into more sources and what their future goals are. Rhawley10 ( talk) 20:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Lead- The introduction to sexual orientation is nice, gives a good overview. I think you could add a little more leading into neuroscience.
Structure- I think it would make it easier to read through if there were subheadings separating the different topics/points being addressed.
Balance- Good balance of information and sources within the article.
Neutral Content- The article sounded very neutral.
Reliable Sources- Good sources.
Big picture- I like the flow of the article, it started off broad and got more specific as you read on. I also liked the research directions section, and might consider adding a section like this to my own article. My suggestion is to decide on specific points you want to address within this article and create separate sections for them so you can include more information. MicheleRose97 ( talk) 03:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a good start to updating this article. I think the opening paragraph does a good job at referencing what sexual orientation is and how it is being developed through neuroscience advancements.
The following section, Developmental neurobiology, goes very in depth with some studies regarding how sexual orientation is developed, which is good. However, this section focuses specifically on androgens, i.e. testosterone, and nothing regarding if female hormones play a role in sexual orientation development. I think adding information/studies looking at female hormones would be beneficial, if they play a role in sexual orientation development at all. Further, the last paragraph in this section about the hypothalamus is relatively short and it may be beneficial to find more information about the hypothalamus and sexual orientation.
I like how you include the section on Research directions, however, maybe it could be updated considering most of these directions come from 2005. It would also be interesting if you could find information/studies of several of these research directions from 2005 and include them in the developmental neurobiology section, or create a new section depending on the specific topic of sexual orientation development. I say this because it has been almost 15 years since these directions were suggested and may have been studied already.
By adding more information or studies that have been done or are proposed 'next steps', this would lengthen your references section as well which would make the article a more reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelizimm ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Be sure to see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29211317 and potentially https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28698022
Forbero ( talk) 19:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Dr. Robin
Flyer22 Frozen and Crossroads what do you think of all the edits in 2018 from a now banned user (Jytdog) which pretty much eliminated this article in it's entirety? No doubt some of those criticisms were valid but I think it went overboard given the article has become somewhat of a stub. Is it simply best to re-add in things with secondary sources? Seems like a lot of work. Sxologist ( talk)
There are also sections removed which are quite clearly linked with neuroscience, such as the fraternal birth order, which Blanchard always notes is likely due to the antibody ‘taking out’ male-specific Neurons on the surface of the brain. I’m sure I can re-add that in if I cite Blanchards comments with regards to neuroscience. Sxologist ( talk) 13:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Flyer, do you think some of the 'brain' chapter provided in LeVay's book would be acceptable. Sxologist ( talk) 00:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)