This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Testosterone article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Testosterone.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 September 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ashbuw223,
CarrNayeli,
Clawsbet.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Where would be good places to incorporate these facts in the article?-- Babank ( talk) 22:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The article androgen replacement therapy is of very poor quality, despite the polishing I've done today. Additionally, I don't think there's anything in that article that wouldn't be considered relevant here. It would be nice if there were some way to cleanly divide "testosterone the naturally released hormone" and "administered testosterone" into separate articles. However, I think this merge is a reasonable short-term solution because androgen replacement therapy is really trash and improving it just involves duplicating a lot of information from here.
What do people think? Exercisephys ( talk) 20:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems like the article is now primarily about the use of testosterone as a pharmaceutical drug and secondarily only about what it actually is, i.e. an hormone, which is only talked about starting from the 4th section. The RedBurn ( ϕ) 13:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
In the part about biological use the function as a regulator of 'cognitive energy' is mentioned. I met many esoteric people recently so I am not sure if there is a clear definition of this term. Energy (psychological) seems to be an article desribing that concept. I found this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18284031
For better understanding I would appreciate if someone could find a more precise word instead. :) (I may just not be familiar with that term because I'm German ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entinator ( talk • contribs) 10:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
In analogy to insulin and insulin (medication), I propose that the medical parts of this article be split out into a new article entitled testosterone (medication). As alluded to above, all humans produce and are affected by testosterone. Only a small fraction of humans take exogenous testosterone for medical purposes. Hence the emphasis of this article should be on the function of naturally produced testosterone whereas the medical article should concentrate on the medical uses. Also there is a conflict between the order of sections recommended by WP:PHARMOS and WP:MCBMOS / WP:CHEMMOS. A clean way of eliminating this conflict is to split this article. Boghog ( talk) 21:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I propose we created a disambig page at testosterone that says
Testosterone may refer to:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not mind the split, but I do mind the 1981 links to disambiguation pages that are now created, including quite a number of templates. Leaving them unfixed, is nothing more than sloppy work. The Banner talk 18:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't really see why the split of the medication from this article was done any differently than it was at dopamine, norepinephrine, or insulin. Those are all highly trafficked pages on biomolecules and each of them has a corresponding medication page at dopamine (medication), norepinephrine (medication), and insulin (medication). @ Doc James: Why was this page implemented any differently? Those articles didn't run a test and, like this page, the primary topic is obvious: it's the parent article, which is testosterone (hormone) in this case. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 23:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Doc James: As of tomorrow, we will have a full week of pageview data for this test. Barring a marked convergence in today's pageviews for the two articles (i.e., a convergence to a 3-fold difference or less), in which case the test should probably continue, are you willing to move this article to Testosterone tomorrow? I really don't see the point in running the test for longer than a week considering that there has been little variation in pageviews for each article over the past 6 days and that there has been a large (~4–10 times greater, depending on the day) reader preference for this article (~1800–2400 daily pageviews) over testosterone (medication) (~200–600 daily pageviews) during that time. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 23:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I propose that the lead sentence be changed from:
back to:
From the very first version of this article until September of 2016, the lead sentence of this article defined testosterone as a steroid hormone and this emphasis was essentially unchanged until this year. This on 3 September 2016 added to the lead sentence that testosterone is also a medication. This on 5 September 2016 changed the order in the lead sentence. I don't have any objection to stating that testosterone is a medication in the lead sentence, however I believe that we should first state it is a natural hormone which then makes understandable why it is used as a medication. Thoughts? Boghog ( talk) 20:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Both choices sound retarded to me. IMO, the 1st lead sentence of a decent drug article should be written like "[Drug name] is a [biological/pharmacological or chemical classification] that is used as a medication for the treatment of [medical condition(s)]". It's clear, flows well, and adequately/succinctly covers both its classification and medical uses. This format is even more relevant for articles on an endogenous biomolecule which is also a pharmaceutical drug. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 05:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Boghog: The only alternative to doing this is to move this page back to testosterone (hormone) and then create an entirely new article at testosterone that covers BOTH testosterone (hormone) and testosterone (medication) in the WP:SUMMARY STYLE format; an article on testosterone which is located at this page title is necessarily the parent article of all other articles on testosterone. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 22:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
If either one becomes the primary topic, a huge chunk of material on the other aspect of the substance, either the medication or its functions as a hormone, will be completely missing from the article lead and body. At the moment, both pages are written as a WP:CONTENTFORKed topic instead of a parent article, so a large revision will have to take place on the page that is selected as the primary topic to fix this.
Why does this article say "In humans and other mammals" when referring to the production of testosterone? Birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish... Lots of animals produce testosterone in their testes, not just mammals. MeegsC ( talk) 15:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I understand that natural testosterone levels change throughout the day. I would be interested in a section that covers this, even if only in a general manner. Olan7allen ( talk) 04:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Testosterone. 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) 22:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Ashbuw223: Thanks for your contribution. Unfortunately I needed to revert them because the sources that you have added ( PMID 22238103, 30144459, 30405373) are all primary. Per WP:MEDRS, secondary sources (review articles) are strongly preferred to support biomedical claims. The reason for this is that an astonishingly high percentage of original research results cannot be repeated. These results need to be reviewed by independent third parties before they can be considered reliable. Boghog ( talk) 20:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
In regards to Whittaker's 2021 paper ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960076021000716).
The standardized mean differences show very consistent effect sizes across markers of androgen status (-0.38; -0.37; -0.38; -0.30), and all are statistically significant, the majority highly so. This would typically be phrased as there is strong evidence of an effect (please see the Cochrane Handbook for interpretation - https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-15. Moreover, these effects of notable size (0.2 = small effect; 0.5 = medium effect; 0.8 = large effect).
Also, the included studies show very low heterogeneity, besides 1 outlining sample in the total testosterone meta-analysis, likely due to the ethnicity of that sample.
Tha authors state in their first highlight that 'Low-fat diets decrease testosterone levels in men', which intended to be the complete summary of the research. They do state that further randomized controlled trials are needed, but likely in an effort to direct future research, as their results are very strong. In the discussion section of the article the authors state 'To summarise, our findings indicate that endogenous T production decreased on LF diets, leading to lower FT and TT.'
The words 'limited evidence' do not accurately reflect the content of this review. I suggest rephrasing to 'Low-fat diets may reduce total and free testosterone levels in men.'
The current wording 'There is limited evidence that Low-fat diets may reduce total and free testosterone levels in men' contains 2 qualifliers ('limited' and 'may') which is unesscessary.
I have made the above edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutritionandhealtheditor ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
This phrase is confusing:
"testosterone is secreted primarily by the testicles of males and, to a lesser extent, the ovaries of females"
I came to this article to find out where is testosterone produced in males. I.e. Is it only produced in the testes, or also other organs?
The phrase says it is produced primarily by the testicles, which would led one to believe there are other organs also involved in testosterone production. However, the ending of the phrase "and, to a lesser extent, the ovaries of females" puts into question the meaning of the word "primarily" (i.e. is this word implying that, even in males, other organs are involved, or just stating the well known fact that males produce more testosterone than females?)
I'm not a health expert and honestly have no idea about the answer. I found that Adrenal gland is involved in testosterone production, but apparently it only produces precursors and other androgens and doesn't directly produce testosterone itself.
Robert1dB ( talk) 11:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
My edit was underlined below in the paragraph:
Testosterone is the primary sex hormone and anabolic steroid in males. Yet, females also have higher levels of testosterone than estrogen (compare 15-70 ng/dl to merely 15-350 pg/dl) In humans, testosterone plays a key role in the development of male reproductive tissues such as testes and prostate, as well as promoting secondary sexual characteristics such as increased muscle and bone mass, and the growth of body hair. In addition, testosterone in both sexes is involved in health and well-being, including moods, behaviour, and in the prevention of osteoporosis. Insufficient levels of testosterone in men may lead to abnormalities including frailty and bone loss.
another member responded:
"there is already in the lead. This sort of juxtaposition doesn't clarify things, and simply stating that there is more testosterone than estrogen can be misleading as the function is important. Please stick to WP:MEDRS. undothank Tag: Manual revert"
that's a great, incorrect opinion. My edit was reversed on no actual factual ground. There is nothing in that paragraph about females and testosterone until I added it. There is nothing wrong with the source I used, and the levels reported are verifiable facts you can get anywhere, but I did get them from a reliable source. There is nothing misleading about the fact I posted. As a woman, I am not only not misleading other women I am informing them of their own bodies. Men do not "own" this hormone. The levels are a fact. DO not erase my edit. If you prefer that I add more details, I can surely do that. However, what I wrote was relevant, informative and the truth. Opinions are not part of Wikipedia. if you have actual proof that what I stated is not a fact, I will gladly accept that my revision was reversed. Until then, I will battle to the end because as a woman, I believe it's critical for women to understand their level of testosterone. if you would like to suggest some rewording of the sentence, i will be happy to consider that. TheRightofHerWay ( talk) 20:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
and also, this page should be ashamed of itself for not reporting more facts on women. Do you think that testosterone is not as equally important in women? Do women not have this adrogen? are women not of "man"? Why do you only care about testosterone in men?
Women need men on Wikipedia to start to think about women and not just men. There is only a minority of women editors, and its a huge a problem. Instead of deleting my facts, which are in fact facts... boister them and help me by adding some relevant information to the point/fact I use. I won't allow you to erase facts regarding women. I will however, appreciate, admire and be grateful for any/all help in boistering my contributions for women. So will all women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRightofHerWay ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Sometimes, gender identity words are used, sometimes biological sex words are used. And it's often not consistent. I see alot of times the use of "women" and "men" words when the article actually talks about, respectively, females and males.
Some men are assigned female at birth, thus naturally producing more estrogen than other men, as some women are assigned males at birth, thus naturally producing more testosterone than other women. I'm not even talking about intersex people, for whom the binary representation of biological sex is not relevant.
This kind of confusion is not acceptable scientifically talking, neither ethically talking, as it does not respect trans existences. Talking about women and men is talking about gender, which is not natural, socially constructed and not based on biology (even if a lot of people pretend the opposite), and talking about males and females is talking about biological sex, which is based on biological criterias.
I'm not comfortable enough in English, neither to talk about sexual hormones in humans to do the corrections, but it clearly needs a review specifically about the correct use of the words woman, man, males and females. Eleaudit ( talk) 22:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I have removed 'and moderate evidence that short-term, very high protein diets (≥35% protein) decrease total testosterone levels in men (133).'
This finding is controversial and has been widely misquoted, without sufficient context. There is an associated commentary article explaining this further: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10114259/
I do not think this is suitable for a public facing encyclopaedia, as it is likely to cause further confusion.
I am the author of both of these articles, you may verify this by contacting the email address listed for the corresponding authors for these articles.
I apologise if this appears high-handed, I do not intend it to be so. Joseph Whittaker 123 ( talk) 09:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
In the second line of the very first paragraph is written: "It is associated with increased aggression, violence, and criminal behavior...".
The reference(Armstrong TA, Boisvert DL, Wells J, Lewis RH, Cooke EM, Woeckener M, et al. (November 2022). "Testosterone, cortisol, and criminal behavior in men and women". Hormones and Behavior. 146: 105260.) is an article of more than 3000 words and does conclude that "Collectively, work in this area points to a positive direct association between testosterone and criminal behavior.." but it is not explained in wikipedia how these studies were conducted.
The said conclusion in put up in the 1st paragraph of wikipedia as mentioned above is taken out of context and is extremely misleading.
Kindly modify or take it down. Vedolian2003 ( talk) 07:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I traced back the original edit adding this claim and found it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Testosterone&diff=prev&oldid=194982218. Given that the edit did not add a separate source, and the other change it made ("forty to sixty times") directly conflicts with the information previously cited from that same source, I would like to be able to consider this claim unsourced without checking the entire cited work, and perhaps think about removing it. Thoughts? Petifet ( talk) 13:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Testosterone article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Testosterone.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 September 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ashbuw223,
CarrNayeli,
Clawsbet.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Where would be good places to incorporate these facts in the article?-- Babank ( talk) 22:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The article androgen replacement therapy is of very poor quality, despite the polishing I've done today. Additionally, I don't think there's anything in that article that wouldn't be considered relevant here. It would be nice if there were some way to cleanly divide "testosterone the naturally released hormone" and "administered testosterone" into separate articles. However, I think this merge is a reasonable short-term solution because androgen replacement therapy is really trash and improving it just involves duplicating a lot of information from here.
What do people think? Exercisephys ( talk) 20:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems like the article is now primarily about the use of testosterone as a pharmaceutical drug and secondarily only about what it actually is, i.e. an hormone, which is only talked about starting from the 4th section. The RedBurn ( ϕ) 13:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
In the part about biological use the function as a regulator of 'cognitive energy' is mentioned. I met many esoteric people recently so I am not sure if there is a clear definition of this term. Energy (psychological) seems to be an article desribing that concept. I found this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18284031
For better understanding I would appreciate if someone could find a more precise word instead. :) (I may just not be familiar with that term because I'm German ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entinator ( talk • contribs) 10:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
In analogy to insulin and insulin (medication), I propose that the medical parts of this article be split out into a new article entitled testosterone (medication). As alluded to above, all humans produce and are affected by testosterone. Only a small fraction of humans take exogenous testosterone for medical purposes. Hence the emphasis of this article should be on the function of naturally produced testosterone whereas the medical article should concentrate on the medical uses. Also there is a conflict between the order of sections recommended by WP:PHARMOS and WP:MCBMOS / WP:CHEMMOS. A clean way of eliminating this conflict is to split this article. Boghog ( talk) 21:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I propose we created a disambig page at testosterone that says
Testosterone may refer to:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not mind the split, but I do mind the 1981 links to disambiguation pages that are now created, including quite a number of templates. Leaving them unfixed, is nothing more than sloppy work. The Banner talk 18:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't really see why the split of the medication from this article was done any differently than it was at dopamine, norepinephrine, or insulin. Those are all highly trafficked pages on biomolecules and each of them has a corresponding medication page at dopamine (medication), norepinephrine (medication), and insulin (medication). @ Doc James: Why was this page implemented any differently? Those articles didn't run a test and, like this page, the primary topic is obvious: it's the parent article, which is testosterone (hormone) in this case. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 23:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Doc James: As of tomorrow, we will have a full week of pageview data for this test. Barring a marked convergence in today's pageviews for the two articles (i.e., a convergence to a 3-fold difference or less), in which case the test should probably continue, are you willing to move this article to Testosterone tomorrow? I really don't see the point in running the test for longer than a week considering that there has been little variation in pageviews for each article over the past 6 days and that there has been a large (~4–10 times greater, depending on the day) reader preference for this article (~1800–2400 daily pageviews) over testosterone (medication) (~200–600 daily pageviews) during that time. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 23:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I propose that the lead sentence be changed from:
back to:
From the very first version of this article until September of 2016, the lead sentence of this article defined testosterone as a steroid hormone and this emphasis was essentially unchanged until this year. This on 3 September 2016 added to the lead sentence that testosterone is also a medication. This on 5 September 2016 changed the order in the lead sentence. I don't have any objection to stating that testosterone is a medication in the lead sentence, however I believe that we should first state it is a natural hormone which then makes understandable why it is used as a medication. Thoughts? Boghog ( talk) 20:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Both choices sound retarded to me. IMO, the 1st lead sentence of a decent drug article should be written like "[Drug name] is a [biological/pharmacological or chemical classification] that is used as a medication for the treatment of [medical condition(s)]". It's clear, flows well, and adequately/succinctly covers both its classification and medical uses. This format is even more relevant for articles on an endogenous biomolecule which is also a pharmaceutical drug. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 05:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Boghog: The only alternative to doing this is to move this page back to testosterone (hormone) and then create an entirely new article at testosterone that covers BOTH testosterone (hormone) and testosterone (medication) in the WP:SUMMARY STYLE format; an article on testosterone which is located at this page title is necessarily the parent article of all other articles on testosterone. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 22:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
If either one becomes the primary topic, a huge chunk of material on the other aspect of the substance, either the medication or its functions as a hormone, will be completely missing from the article lead and body. At the moment, both pages are written as a WP:CONTENTFORKed topic instead of a parent article, so a large revision will have to take place on the page that is selected as the primary topic to fix this.
Why does this article say "In humans and other mammals" when referring to the production of testosterone? Birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish... Lots of animals produce testosterone in their testes, not just mammals. MeegsC ( talk) 15:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I understand that natural testosterone levels change throughout the day. I would be interested in a section that covers this, even if only in a general manner. Olan7allen ( talk) 04:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Testosterone. 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) 22:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Ashbuw223: Thanks for your contribution. Unfortunately I needed to revert them because the sources that you have added ( PMID 22238103, 30144459, 30405373) are all primary. Per WP:MEDRS, secondary sources (review articles) are strongly preferred to support biomedical claims. The reason for this is that an astonishingly high percentage of original research results cannot be repeated. These results need to be reviewed by independent third parties before they can be considered reliable. Boghog ( talk) 20:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
In regards to Whittaker's 2021 paper ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960076021000716).
The standardized mean differences show very consistent effect sizes across markers of androgen status (-0.38; -0.37; -0.38; -0.30), and all are statistically significant, the majority highly so. This would typically be phrased as there is strong evidence of an effect (please see the Cochrane Handbook for interpretation - https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-15. Moreover, these effects of notable size (0.2 = small effect; 0.5 = medium effect; 0.8 = large effect).
Also, the included studies show very low heterogeneity, besides 1 outlining sample in the total testosterone meta-analysis, likely due to the ethnicity of that sample.
Tha authors state in their first highlight that 'Low-fat diets decrease testosterone levels in men', which intended to be the complete summary of the research. They do state that further randomized controlled trials are needed, but likely in an effort to direct future research, as their results are very strong. In the discussion section of the article the authors state 'To summarise, our findings indicate that endogenous T production decreased on LF diets, leading to lower FT and TT.'
The words 'limited evidence' do not accurately reflect the content of this review. I suggest rephrasing to 'Low-fat diets may reduce total and free testosterone levels in men.'
The current wording 'There is limited evidence that Low-fat diets may reduce total and free testosterone levels in men' contains 2 qualifliers ('limited' and 'may') which is unesscessary.
I have made the above edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutritionandhealtheditor ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
This phrase is confusing:
"testosterone is secreted primarily by the testicles of males and, to a lesser extent, the ovaries of females"
I came to this article to find out where is testosterone produced in males. I.e. Is it only produced in the testes, or also other organs?
The phrase says it is produced primarily by the testicles, which would led one to believe there are other organs also involved in testosterone production. However, the ending of the phrase "and, to a lesser extent, the ovaries of females" puts into question the meaning of the word "primarily" (i.e. is this word implying that, even in males, other organs are involved, or just stating the well known fact that males produce more testosterone than females?)
I'm not a health expert and honestly have no idea about the answer. I found that Adrenal gland is involved in testosterone production, but apparently it only produces precursors and other androgens and doesn't directly produce testosterone itself.
Robert1dB ( talk) 11:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
My edit was underlined below in the paragraph:
Testosterone is the primary sex hormone and anabolic steroid in males. Yet, females also have higher levels of testosterone than estrogen (compare 15-70 ng/dl to merely 15-350 pg/dl) In humans, testosterone plays a key role in the development of male reproductive tissues such as testes and prostate, as well as promoting secondary sexual characteristics such as increased muscle and bone mass, and the growth of body hair. In addition, testosterone in both sexes is involved in health and well-being, including moods, behaviour, and in the prevention of osteoporosis. Insufficient levels of testosterone in men may lead to abnormalities including frailty and bone loss.
another member responded:
"there is already in the lead. This sort of juxtaposition doesn't clarify things, and simply stating that there is more testosterone than estrogen can be misleading as the function is important. Please stick to WP:MEDRS. undothank Tag: Manual revert"
that's a great, incorrect opinion. My edit was reversed on no actual factual ground. There is nothing in that paragraph about females and testosterone until I added it. There is nothing wrong with the source I used, and the levels reported are verifiable facts you can get anywhere, but I did get them from a reliable source. There is nothing misleading about the fact I posted. As a woman, I am not only not misleading other women I am informing them of their own bodies. Men do not "own" this hormone. The levels are a fact. DO not erase my edit. If you prefer that I add more details, I can surely do that. However, what I wrote was relevant, informative and the truth. Opinions are not part of Wikipedia. if you have actual proof that what I stated is not a fact, I will gladly accept that my revision was reversed. Until then, I will battle to the end because as a woman, I believe it's critical for women to understand their level of testosterone. if you would like to suggest some rewording of the sentence, i will be happy to consider that. TheRightofHerWay ( talk) 20:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
and also, this page should be ashamed of itself for not reporting more facts on women. Do you think that testosterone is not as equally important in women? Do women not have this adrogen? are women not of "man"? Why do you only care about testosterone in men?
Women need men on Wikipedia to start to think about women and not just men. There is only a minority of women editors, and its a huge a problem. Instead of deleting my facts, which are in fact facts... boister them and help me by adding some relevant information to the point/fact I use. I won't allow you to erase facts regarding women. I will however, appreciate, admire and be grateful for any/all help in boistering my contributions for women. So will all women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRightofHerWay ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Sometimes, gender identity words are used, sometimes biological sex words are used. And it's often not consistent. I see alot of times the use of "women" and "men" words when the article actually talks about, respectively, females and males.
Some men are assigned female at birth, thus naturally producing more estrogen than other men, as some women are assigned males at birth, thus naturally producing more testosterone than other women. I'm not even talking about intersex people, for whom the binary representation of biological sex is not relevant.
This kind of confusion is not acceptable scientifically talking, neither ethically talking, as it does not respect trans existences. Talking about women and men is talking about gender, which is not natural, socially constructed and not based on biology (even if a lot of people pretend the opposite), and talking about males and females is talking about biological sex, which is based on biological criterias.
I'm not comfortable enough in English, neither to talk about sexual hormones in humans to do the corrections, but it clearly needs a review specifically about the correct use of the words woman, man, males and females. Eleaudit ( talk) 22:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I have removed 'and moderate evidence that short-term, very high protein diets (≥35% protein) decrease total testosterone levels in men (133).'
This finding is controversial and has been widely misquoted, without sufficient context. There is an associated commentary article explaining this further: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10114259/
I do not think this is suitable for a public facing encyclopaedia, as it is likely to cause further confusion.
I am the author of both of these articles, you may verify this by contacting the email address listed for the corresponding authors for these articles.
I apologise if this appears high-handed, I do not intend it to be so. Joseph Whittaker 123 ( talk) 09:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
In the second line of the very first paragraph is written: "It is associated with increased aggression, violence, and criminal behavior...".
The reference(Armstrong TA, Boisvert DL, Wells J, Lewis RH, Cooke EM, Woeckener M, et al. (November 2022). "Testosterone, cortisol, and criminal behavior in men and women". Hormones and Behavior. 146: 105260.) is an article of more than 3000 words and does conclude that "Collectively, work in this area points to a positive direct association between testosterone and criminal behavior.." but it is not explained in wikipedia how these studies were conducted.
The said conclusion in put up in the 1st paragraph of wikipedia as mentioned above is taken out of context and is extremely misleading.
Kindly modify or take it down. Vedolian2003 ( talk) 07:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I traced back the original edit adding this claim and found it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Testosterone&diff=prev&oldid=194982218. Given that the edit did not add a separate source, and the other change it made ("forty to sixty times") directly conflicts with the information previously cited from that same source, I would like to be able to consider this claim unsourced without checking the entire cited work, and perhaps think about removing it. Thoughts? Petifet ( talk) 13:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)