Talk:Biology of gender-specific human behavior: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:19, 15 July 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biology of gender-specific human behavior redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Gender studies NA‑class

This redirect is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this redirect, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies

NA

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

some style issues

Hi Alastair. I just came across your article here. I'm afraid there are a serious number of style issues with the page. I'm going to quote some sections that need to be rewritten within the manual of style guidelines - as they stand they read like a synthesis - which can make them look like origianl research.

For those who can understand technical biological language, Alexandra M. Lopes and others, recently published that:

In short, science has caught up with what feminists, Goldberg and common sense have said for a long time – on average, men are more aggressive in social behaviour. This does not justify patriarchy, it merely partially explains it.

It has long been known that there are correlations between the biological sex of animals and their behaviour.[1] [2] [3] It has also long been known that human behaviour is influenced by the brain.

Have a look at these lines again. BTW it'd be best if you didn't use the term "common sense" - see WP:CK--Cailil ^talk 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cailil, "for those who can understand technical language", is not good style, too conversational, I agree. "Common sense" is also, as you say, just inviting someone to say, "I don't see it that way, so it's hardly common sense." I don't know many people who argue that men are not more aggressive on average, but I'll change it anyway.

Not guilty regarding Original research though. Yes, if there were a few experiments that could be taken as evidence of biological influence on gender, and I reported those and made the conclusion, and no-one else had done that, then clearly it would be synthetic original research.

I'll modify the language and cite a couple more sources, there are several peer-reviewed journals that major in this area.

Gender as experienced in daily life has plenty of non-biological features, purely cultural in expression. Cultural constructions of gender are real and worth studying. However, gender is now known to be influenced biologically in ways that simply were not known even 15 years ago. There are several popular works that maximize or minimize the implications of the biological research. Pinker jumps to mind.

Anyway, I'll get to this very soon, probably over the next day or so, good points, thanks again. Alastair Haines 02:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, I didn't mean to accuse you of original thought :) rather I was saying that the style could make it look that way--Cailil ^talk 10:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries my friend, good points well made, didn't take them personally. I don't have any original ideas regarding biology, I don't know much about it. I'm completely dependent on what I've started reading in the last six months.

There's always likely to be something of an issue when scientific research challenges political opinion, though. That too needs care in this article. Things sound original when they go against what we've been taught in school. It'll probably be an ongoing issue of refining things by quoting more sources.

I'm working on too many projects atm. I'm going to be moving slowly here. Cheers. Alastair Haines 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed redundancy and kept facts

I removed redundancy and kept facts because I think Wikipedia should remain an encyclopaedia, instead of turning into a heavy novel. Informations should be available quickly- novels are rather a way to spend a lot of spare time. Mikael Häggström 08:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 :::There's always likely to be something of an issue when scientific research challenges political opinion, though. That too needs care in this article. Things sound original when they go against what we've been taught in school. It'll probably be an ongoing issue of refining things by quoting more sources.
 :::I'm working on too many projects atm. I'm going to be moving slowly here. Cheers. [[User:Alastair Haines|Alastair Haines]] 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
+== Removed redundancy and kept facts ==
+I removed redundancy and kept facts because I think Wikipedia should remain an encyclopaedia, instead of turning into a heavy novel. Informations should be available quickly- novels are rather a way to spend a lot of spare time. [[User:Mortsggah|Mikael Häggström]] 08:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)