 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
This article needs some serious vetting. Surely there are contrary views in the scientific world that should be included here. The article currently expounds on the positive research (and anything remotely related) without addressing the obvious questions raised by these claims (was the original research biased? etc.). -- Tysto 05:38, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
- Okay, but what is POV in this article? If you are challenging the factual accuracy of this article, {{accuracy}} may be a better tag. I'll let you discuss before a switch is made though. --
Lord Voldemort
(Dark Mark) 18:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- I stated where the bias is. The article presents no contrary opinions or criticism of this highly dubious theory. Even if every word accurately presents the view of the sources, the article is biased towards those selected (supporting) sources by mentioning no criticism. A quick Google finds a study [1] which shows no correlation and an article [2] which adds perspective. A genuinely NPOV version of this article should probably even mention discredited disciplines like phrenology, physiognomy, and criminal body measurement.
- Okay, a little research later: The Breedlove study is the one that has gotten all the attention. Breedlove explicitly states that he found no finger-length-ratio difference between gay men and straight men. But then he factored in birth order and found that younger brothers had different ratios from older brothers. Then he found studies that suggested that younger brothers have a higher tendency to be gay and made a huge leap: different ratio = younger brothers = gay. But, remember, he's already studied a direct comparison of gay and straight men and found no difference. --
Tysto 22:25, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
- So, what are you waiting for? JETFA (Just edit the frickin' article). -- Lord Vold e mort (Dark Mark) 15:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Most of your objections to the article have to do with digit ratio and sexual orientation. There are many studies on the topic, the five best are reviewed and reanalyzed in McFadden, Loehlin, Breedlove, Lippa, & Manning (2005). 'A Reanalysis of Five Studies on Sexual Orientation and the Relative Length of the 2nd and 4th Fingers (the 2D:4D Ratio)' Archives of Sexual Behavior. 34, 341-356. This trait is the oddest one of the very many that have been examined, most other traits show a sensible relationship to digit ratio. The scientific debate around digit ratio is not whether digit ratio is related to prenatal hormones, but exactly how it is. This article does need work, I'll take a crack at it over the next few days. Pete.Hurd 14:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Much of the material in this article relates not directly to digit ratio but to theories about sexual orientation effects of pre-natal androgen exposure. I suggest that much of it ought to be moved to biology and sexual orientation page, or Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation page (and improved along the way, all three pages need much more clarity of thought and care in presentation). Pete.Hurd 20:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I completely concur on merging. The main article should be Digit ratio, and the 2d:4d should redirect to it. Biology and sexual orientation should contain only a minimal summary of the topic, with the primary purpose of such mention being to link readers to Digit ratio for further information. Of course, I generally favor smallish articles that are richly linked, rather than exhaustively long articles with many exhaustive subsections. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oh... to add to my own comment, Digit ratio is not only about sexual orientation. Testosterone exposure affects lots of physiological and behavior traits that have nothing to do with sexual orientation. So while the Digit ratio article and the Biology and sexual orientation article should cross-link, they merely overlap rather than one being a subset of the other. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
This article needs some serious vetting. Surely there are contrary views in the scientific world that should be included here. The article currently expounds on the positive research (and anything remotely related) without addressing the obvious questions raised by these claims (was the original research biased? etc.). -- Tysto 05:38, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
- Okay, but what is POV in this article? If you are challenging the factual accuracy of this article, {{accuracy}} may be a better tag. I'll let you discuss before a switch is made though. --
Lord Voldemort
(Dark Mark) 18:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- I stated where the bias is. The article presents no contrary opinions or criticism of this highly dubious theory. Even if every word accurately presents the view of the sources, the article is biased towards those selected (supporting) sources by mentioning no criticism. A quick Google finds a study [1] which shows no correlation and an article [2] which adds perspective. A genuinely NPOV version of this article should probably even mention discredited disciplines like phrenology, physiognomy, and criminal body measurement.
- Okay, a little research later: The Breedlove study is the one that has gotten all the attention. Breedlove explicitly states that he found no finger-length-ratio difference between gay men and straight men. But then he factored in birth order and found that younger brothers had different ratios from older brothers. Then he found studies that suggested that younger brothers have a higher tendency to be gay and made a huge leap: different ratio = younger brothers = gay. But, remember, he's already studied a direct comparison of gay and straight men and found no difference. --
Tysto 22:25, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
- So, what are you waiting for? JETFA (Just edit the frickin' article). -- Lord Vold e mort (Dark Mark) 15:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Most of your objections to the article have to do with digit ratio and sexual orientation. There are many studies on the topic, the five best are reviewed and reanalyzed in McFadden, Loehlin, Breedlove, Lippa, & Manning (2005). 'A Reanalysis of Five Studies on Sexual Orientation and the Relative Length of the 2nd and 4th Fingers (the 2D:4D Ratio)' Archives of Sexual Behavior. 34, 341-356. This trait is the oddest one of the very many that have been examined, most other traits show a sensible relationship to digit ratio. The scientific debate around digit ratio is not whether digit ratio is related to prenatal hormones, but exactly how it is. This article does need work, I'll take a crack at it over the next few days. Pete.Hurd 14:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Much of the material in this article relates not directly to digit ratio but to theories about sexual orientation effects of pre-natal androgen exposure. I suggest that much of it ought to be moved to biology and sexual orientation page, or Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation page (and improved along the way, all three pages need much more clarity of thought and care in presentation). Pete.Hurd 20:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I completely concur on merging. The main article should be Digit ratio, and the 2d:4d should redirect to it. Biology and sexual orientation should contain only a minimal summary of the topic, with the primary purpose of such mention being to link readers to Digit ratio for further information. Of course, I generally favor smallish articles that are richly linked, rather than exhaustively long articles with many exhaustive subsections. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oh... to add to my own comment, Digit ratio is not only about sexual orientation. Testosterone exposure affects lots of physiological and behavior traits that have nothing to do with sexual orientation. So while the Digit ratio article and the Biology and sexual orientation article should cross-link, they merely overlap rather than one being a subset of the other. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)