Talk:Testosterone poisoning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on June 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Note to other Wikipedia editors

The original two citations under Psychological research appear because the authors themselves use the phrase "testosterone poisoning" casually in their own publications. Check the links under Footnotes. No one takes the term seriously as a scientific concept. This article states so twice. Durova 17:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, there are quite a few scientists that take the concept quasi-seriously, probably because it's such a deeply rooted concept in poular culture and the issues are only tangentially related to their own research. I could name a few introductory psychology textbooks whose current editions do little to dispell this myth. While I don't think there's much hope that this article will do much to turn the tide, I think it does do a fair job of covering both the cultural aspects and addressing the current biological views. -Cheers Pete.Hurd 17:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the Psychological research section should be moved to the end, especially if the article is intended to focuss on the concept of "Testosterone poisoning" as a cultural phenomenon. That way the empirical work serves more as a disclaimer, rather than a central component of the piece. Pete.Hurd 18:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Interesting idea. I followed the narrative flow. Two disclaimers should be enough. Tracing the actual development of the term goes a long way toward dispelling misconceptions. I'd be careful not to overstate the case. It's a subtle form of POV that can backfire. Durova 18:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, but you folks got to be kidding me when implying that "...9 out of 10..." is enough of a test group to draw such conclusions.
That study appears in this article for Psychology Today's use of the phrase "testosterone poisoning" in its report. This article neither advocates nor rejects its conclusion. What is of interest here is how the editors of a prominent magazine associated the study with this phrase. That's unusual for a neologism which was then about ten years old and had no actual connection to science. Durova 10:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)




Why is this article even here? Is there a definite conclusion? There are many scientific studies still uncovering the facts about testosterone, and what you have posted is merely inconclusive evidence. Not only that most of it is completely outdated in the scientific community.

> Exposure to high levels of masculinising hormones in utero are associated with higher levels of adult aggression (Reinisch, 1981; Berenbaum & Reinisch, 1997).

That information is 9 years old! You wouldn't believe how fast science advances. If you actually did your research AND included more than 2 sources (one being 9 years olf and the other being 25!)

There are seven articles cited, five recent ones showing that testosterone does not "cause" aggressive behaviour, that the reverse os more true, and two showing an organizational effect of prenatal testosterone on aggression. Your edits to the article suggest that you have published research showing the opposite of these effects. I know of none, you should provide the ones you are thinking of. The section you're complaining about shows the current scientific view, and lists evidence for an organizational differences of pre-natal androgen exposure, and weak to no evidence for the term as it is commonly used. Pete.Hurd 21:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Now if you happen to have a problem with men please get a counsellor or something. This is the equivalent of mysoginy, and should not be tolerated under any circumstances, not here at Wikipedia and everywhere else.

Equivalent of mysoginy? If you have some POV problem with the rest of the article that you can phrase clearly, then go ahead (and maybe use the approporiate template on the article). Pete.Hurd 21:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Estrogen poisoning?

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)

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)
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)

You're joking, right? Durova 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Joking implies something is amusing, no? Pete.Hurd 01:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
In this case, bizarre. Serious contributors don't apply poetic devices to encyclopedia articles. Durova 05:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
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)

As of now, this article does not recognize the research supporting the hypothesis that testosterone has calming, rather than negatively arousing effects. --Thomi 20:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Is there a kernel of truth to this?"

This article is so badly written and so un-encyclopedic I've given up trying to improve it. Editors who take it seriously should ask themselves what BS like "Is there a kernel of truth to this?" says about their editing. Choler&tie 10:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the section on Psychological Research makes it pretty clear that there's little basis in fact (unless one considers supra-physiologic doses, steroid abusers etc, where there is definately an effect much like the one implied). The point of the article is not to say that this is true, but to document a noted phenomenon, sort of like UFOs are not be real, but an encyclopedia which refused to discuss them, or vampires and warewolves etc would be silly. The article could be written better, no doubt, but your edits really don't aim at improving the article. Instead you make WP:POINTs with silly edits, and gripe about the quality of editing as a cover for your POV. Pete.Hurd 14:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
1. The article talks about a t.p. being invented as a "male equivalent" of hysteria. This is meaningless if the etymology of hysteria is not mentioned, because hysteria is no longer regarded as exclusive to or characteristic of wimmin, except from a sexist POV. By removing my "silly edit", you reinstated the sexist POV.
2. You're claiming telepathic abilities, no? If not, you're accusing me of bad faith in violation of Wikipedia rules. The article is full of BS. If I had genuine bad faith, I'd be happy to see it stay like that. I'm not, but I don't intend to waste any more time trying to improve it myself. Choler&tie 22:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually "testosterone poisoning" appeared in print nearly twenty years before the Atlantic reader poll about hysteria. There's no etymological connection asserted, merely a reference to a reader poll.
Your user name is fairly new and your contributions suggest you have a POV about gender relations. Maybe that's colored your reaction to this article. I suggest you look at Schadenfreude for comparison. That article doesn't attack Germans and this article doesn't attack men. The articles merely document the unusual social history of the terms. Durova 04:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I do have a POV, but I'm not trying to impose it on the article. TP is referred to as a "male equivalent of hysteria". That implies hysteria is peculiarly female. I presume the point is: sexist men think hysteria is female, so how we jokingly reply? I also suggest this definition is wrong: "self-defeating or humorous". Male violence is an example of TP, but it isn't necessarily self-defeating and is rarely humorous. Genghis Khan, who was extremely violent, is supposed to have 16,000,000 male descendants living today. Hardly self-defeating. Choler&tie 23:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between citing a source and taking an editorial position. Durova 21:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is, but sometimes when one cites a source one needs to explain it. Also, what about the definition of TP? It is not necessarily "self-defeating". Choler&tie 16:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
And come on: this kind of stuff just does not belong in an encyclopedia: "Sometimes this carries a lingering suspicion that the concept may be all too true." It's flowery waffle, not to mention original research. Who has said this? Choler&tie 16:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV and OR?

The article tweaks my POV and OR-radar quite a bit, and the structure feels a bit like an essay trying to justify the existence of the phrase rather than an encyclopedic article. It could certainly do with a good trim, a re-write or some kind of re-framing, at the very least, even if the article has a good degree of citations tied to it. Here are a few of my problems with it:

The phrase has won broader and more serious acceptance than typical slang.
The article references numerous appearances in highbrow publications, all of which include relevant URL links. Durova 17:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
"Highbrow"? — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 04:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Established publications with strict editorial policies seldom adopt a neologism so quickly. Durova 17:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Some took offense at this phrase.
This is followed by a cited example of a published author who did take offense. Durova 17:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Other men have accepted the term as self-deprecating humor. Sometimes this carries a lingering suspicion that the concept may be all too true.
This is supported by an example of a man who uses the concept tongue-in-cheek to explain avalanche fatality statistics. Durova 17:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
No one suggests testosterone poisoning is an actual medical or psychological condition, yet the phrase has appeared in settings that suggest it may have some validity.
Following this statement is a quotation where the phrase appears in a Psychology Today report about research on male behavior. Durova 17:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think there are a few other examples, but really, are these attributable? It seems terribly fuzzy to attribute offense by some people to, say, an op-ed piece in the LA Times, among other things.
How else does one attribute opinion on such a subject, if not by citing an op-ed piece in a major newspaper? Durova 17:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A rather weedy criticism section: Honestly, that "Humor and Criticism" section really is just humor. If anything, the section about the psychological findings of testosterone affecting the minds of human males should go in here, as well as noting testosterone is found in both males and females, if that's relevant to this article.
The term originated as humor, not as science. Another section addresses its tenuous relationship to science. Examples here reflect relevant published material. There really hasn't been much opposition to the phrase. Durova 17:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The Conclusion Section: This kind of tweaked my OR alarm. The tone's off -- I feel like I'm being talked down to and asked to agree with the findings of this article (that there are findings in itself goes against Wikipedia's stated purpose, doesn't it?). That there is a conclusion in itself is suspect -- this article should generally describe the use of the phrase 'testosterone poisoning', it's history, any associated views and criticism, in a neutral and positive to all sides of the argument as possible. I'd dike this particular section out, myself.
Any article needs a conclusion. The point here, neutrally stated, is that this term has gained swift acceptance in major publications. The few criticisms have been presented neutrally. If you can write a better conclusion please do so. Durova 17:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, that's what I've found so far. Anyone else would like to comment on this? — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 10:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL exists for a different type of article, the kind that says "some experts believe..." and then fails to name or cite any expert. This is one of the most heavily referenced short articles at Wikipedia. Every one of the statements singled out as unattributed actually does accompany one or more cited examples. It's unfortunate if you felt "talked down to." Were you reacting to the presentation or to the subject itself? Durova 17:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to think that I was reacting to the presentation of the idea myself, since I don't have an issue with the term, just the way it's been presented. Did I give the impression that I was upset with the idea of the article? — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 04:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
A small number of readers do take issue with the subject. If you'd like to see more criticism of the term, then by all means find published criticism and add it. Most of what meets WP:CITE is positive. Durova 17:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

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)

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)
Agree with you, and in that case, I will remove both.--KimvdLinde 04:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm the editor who started the article. The page sees moderate vandalism and occasional criticism from people who think they perceive a POV on my part. The only POV I actually have is an interest in clarifying the subject for readers who wonder if it has scientific meaning. User:Pete.Hurd has made excellent additions. I find the phrase's unusual history to be interesting just as I find the origins of "procrustean" and "assassin" to be interesting. Durova 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved addition for discussion

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.[1] 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)

[edit] Biased

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)

[edit] Neutrality flag

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)

I've performed a new search for additional sources. Here were the top results:

  • "This country has a bad case of testosterone poisoning. All political debates are now conducted as if the participants are a bunch of drunks bawling at each other to show how tough and manly they are," from "A Bad Case of Testosterone Poisoning" by Reg Henry (male) Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh) July 19, 2006. [2]
  • "Testosterone Poisoning," a humorous essay about taking testosterone medication by W. Bruce Cameron (author of Eight Simple Rules for Dating my Teenage Daughter and How to Remodel a Man) 2002. [3]
  • "Testosterone Poisoning or Terminal Neglect?" by Richard Fletcher, Consultant to the Law and Public Administration and Social Policy Groups (Australia) in the Parliament of Australia Parliamentary Library - a serious survey of men's health issues with an unusual title, 1996. [4]
  • "There is another reason for banning male pregnancy that is not dependent on moral reasoning. It turns out that men, and men alone, are afflicted with a medical condition known as testosterone poisoning. Testosterone poisoning causes men to engage in stupid and dangerous activities. That's why 94 percent of all prison inmates are men." from "Testosterone is Dangerous" by Lee Silver (male), Professor of Molecular Biology and Public Affairs, Princeton University, Daily Princetonian, 2002.

If someone would like to search for encyclopedic citations that take umbrage at the phrase or its presumptions, then please do so. They really are hard to locate, and since this term is used by so many male writers, it seems to have little notable opposition. Durova 00:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed template

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

[edit] Restored section

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)

[edit] POV/OR

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Sloppy use of the word "criticise".

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."[5] This article uses U.S. spelling because testosterone poisoning originated in the U.S. Durova 18:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, why not, then, use the phrase you mentioned, "find fault with"? It's vivid and it expresses the intended meaning beautifully and unambiguously. --7Kim Moon 20:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citation POV

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)

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)
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)
It's been hard to gauge the extent of your criticism. Durova 04:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

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.[6] Should that material remain deleted, be restored, or be replaced with a different citation? Durova 22:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] undue weight

I've been asked to explain the "undue weight" in the article. Here's one example. In the "Humor and criticism" section, we have:

More often, men use the phrase about themselves and each other with gentle self-deprecating humor. Two examples from National Public Radio's popular show "Car Talk" demonstrate that aspect. Raymond Magliozzi concludes the essay, "Going to the Dogs: Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and Testosterone Poisoning" this way:
'I'd like to close with one final observation. The sort of guy who goes out and gets a pit bull or a Rottweiler is the same sort of testosterone-poisoned person who buys the Camaro with the oversized engine. Why do these guys insist on acting this way? All I can hypothesize is that they're somehow making up for a deep-seated insecurity, which must have its roots in an anatomical inadequacy.'13
The same show returned to the theme in a list of recommendations called, "Some Other Stuff to Think about While You're Driving Across the Mojave Desert":
'Maps. Attention all Real Guys: Don't let testosterone poisoning cloud your thinking. Bring maps.'11
The Darwin Awards even lists one category of its dubious winners under the heading "Testosterone Poisoning." These are men who met their demise in foolish acts of bravado.14

Then, this is all followed by:

Antonia Feitz protests against use of the term in a 1999 essay in the Australian Daily Issues Paper, calling it the equivalent of hate speech.15


Hmmmm... one sentence for criticism? Call me crazy, but it sure sounds more relevant than jokes from the Car Talk guys, plus the jokes I've already edited out of the article. wikipediatrix 14:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated repeatedly, criticism that satisfies WP:V is very hard to find. To quote site NPOV policy: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each...We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. The current presentation accurately reflects the shape of the dispute, which leans heavily in favor of acceptance. Durova 17:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 211 Google returns for "Australian Daily Issues Paper,"[7]
  • 14.3 million Google returns for "National Public Radio"[8]
  • 1.1 million Google returns for "Darwin Awards"[9]
That "Car Talk" is more popular than the Australian Daily Issues is obvious, and is not the point. Can you really not figure out the difference? wikipediatrix 19:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Unless you articulate some other point, preferably backed up with actual research, what it looks like is that you want to privilege obscure criticism and quasi-scientific connections at the expense of the humorous tradition that constitutes the origin and much mainstream use of this term. If you find a more notable criticism of testosterone poisoning than the Australian Daily Issues Paper, then by all means cite it - if it occurs in a major publication or by an important writer then of course that would deserve more space, and if several other minor criticisms can be found then the space devoted to criticism can also expand.
I have been inviting precisely this sort of evidence ever since the article began. What seems to happen is that a few of the visitors to this page notice the overall shape of the coverage and presume that represents editorial bias rather than a reflection of the reliable sources. If this criticism is meritorious then I welcome adjustments to the article backed up with references - citations which I sought unsuccessfully and which no one else has supplied. Durova 19:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You still don't get it. You keep talking about welcoming more sources and that has absolutely nothing to do with my complaint. wikipediatrix 21:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I have been making every effort to understand your point. This is not easy when you devote more space to criticizing my understanding of it than to articulating it better or answering my questions. Research is relevant to most editorial discussions: you accuse me of selection bias - how else am I to address that if not by offering my findings and inviting scrutiny and counterexamples? The key reason I asked for your feedback is that I'd like to know what changes to this article would satisfy your perceptions about POV and citation problems. Please focus on the issues at hand. Durova 22:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/s/Talk%7ETestosterone_poisoning_936d.html"