Talk:Physical attractiveness

"The effects of oral contraception on physical attractiveness"

Hhammam, the "The effects of oral contraception on physical attractiveness" section you added is problematic per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS). That is why I reverted you here and here. Do not keep restoring this material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I modified the section using secondary sources in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. I was wondering what can be done to improve the section further in order to remain in the article? Hhammam (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hhammam, the addition still looked somewhat problematic, which is why I reverted it. There is also the matter of WP:Due weight. It would have been better had you discussed the matter here on the talk page before simply re-adding all that material. Pinging Jytdog for his opinion on the material and on what should be salvaged from it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

content

The effects of oral contraception on physical attractiveness

Masculinity

One aspect of physical attraction that oral contraception can affect is female’s attraction to masculine males. For example, women that are not using hormonal contraception are more likely to prefer a masculine face, body shape and voice during the fertile phase of their menstrual cycle. However, women taking the contraceptive pill do not experience the same peak in the middle of their cycle. This reduced preference for masculine partners has been shown by Little, Burris, Petrie, Jones and Roberts (2013) who found that the partners of women using hormonal contraceptive were rated less masculine than those who did not use oral contraception

Masculine facial traits are cues of genetic and fitness benefits. For example, Masculine-faced men are healthier, stronger and more dominant. They also pursue more short term than long-term relationships, indicating little investment. It has been suggested that the weaker preference for masculine faces and voices seen in women using contraceptives is due to the raised progesterone levels, which are similar to that of pregnancy where good genes are of low importance and a preference for more feminine, cooperative and investing males is more valuable. An alternative theory is that women on the contraceptive pill do not experience the increased attention to masculine features around the time of ovulation that non-pill users do and so are less attentive to masculine features.

Increased progesterone levels during oral contraception use also increases women's attraction to healthy faces as progesterone can weaken the immune system and an increased attraction to healthy faces may be adaptive to reduce risk of infection.

Smell

Scent can influence physical attractiveness, for example exposure to male pheromones increased the attractiveness of men to women. Additionally, research has found that women preferred the odour of genetically dissimilar men to those who were genetically similar. They also prefer the odour of symmetrical males when in the fertile phase of their menstrual cycle. However, this is not seen in women using oral contraception who instead report having a higher preference for the scent of genetically similar males. It has been suggested that this may be because oral contraceptives produce a hormonal state similar to pregnancy, where a preference for genetically similar relatives is beneficial as they may provide support in raising your child.

Men’s perception of attractiveness

Oral contraception does not only affect women’s perception of attraction. It has been found that men rated women’s voices, and odours as more attractive around the fertile phase. For women using oral contraception this variation along the menstrual cycle was not seen. Men in relationships also rated their partners as less attractive when using hormonal contraception than when they were regularly cycling. It has also been found that oral contraception can affect men’s perception of their own attractiveness, as men rated themselves as less attractive when their partner was using oral contraception than then their partners were regularly cycling. It is thought that this is because men find women most attractive when progesterone levels are low, which corresponds to fertility, whereas oral contraception increases progesterone levels to that of pregnancy, indicating low risk of conception.

References

Posting here for easier consideration/discussion. Will read and comment in a bit. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

refs

• none of these sources are adequately cited. None had PMIDs which made this a huge waste of my time to check.
• Several of these links violate WP:ELNEVER. Source 7 is a deadlink; I think it is meant to be PMID 12195229?
• Ref 8 (PMID 15653193) is the only review here that I could identify.

So, sourcing is unacceptable.

content

• The content handles "evolutionary psychology" notions without nuance. This kind of thing is not OK: "Masculine facial traits are cues of genetic and fitness benefits. For example, Masculine-faced men are healthier, stronger and more dominant. " Not acceptable.

This is not useable. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for analyzing this situation, Jytdog. I'm so busy (off Wikipedia) these days that I barely have enough time for Wikipedia anymore. I have to go out of my way to make time for it, like now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog this is a copy of the first contribution I made, my in my revised section I had removed most of these references and used reviews instead. Therefore, I had thought that these issues would no longer be a problem. Hhammam (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what a "review" is. Sourcing was not the only problem. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:Student editing

WP:Student editing has recently been going on at this article, and not all of it has been good. As seen above, I objected to material that Hhammam added. I'm not stating that none of it should be added, but it does need tweaking.

Hhammam, Psuneh, and R.g.rooney25, when experienced Wikipedians object to your edits to this article, you are supposed to take the time to discuss the matter at the article talk page, not immediately revert or assume you know what the problem is and restore the material. When Izno reverted here, for example, none of you addressed the matter here on the talk page. Do read what WP:Student editing states about working with experienced Wikipedians. This article is big enough as it is, so WP:SIZE is something to consider, and I feel that a lot of what is being added is overkill or WP:Undue weight. Noting evolutionary perspectives is fine, but going overboard with it is another thing. And the recently added Sexual ornamentation subsection in the Female physical attractiveness section addresses the breasts and buttocks, which already have subsections in that section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

From what I could tell, the immediate edit after mine fixed the format; I think the editor who I reverted had copy-pasted incorrectly from sandbox (perhaps assuming something about VE which was not true). In general, the article needs some massaging--while I'm not sure WEIGHT isn't being observed, the format of the article probably isn't the best shape for it to take. --Izno (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I was unaware there was an issue with my addition on the evolutionary perspective of youthfulness. Much of the information written is descriptive, rather than explanatory, in this section and so I assumed this would be a good addition. The fact that I received no complaints or comments when I mentioned I would be making the addition also led me to believe this was acceptable. It would therefore have been better if this was discussed before my latest addition was reverted back to my February addition. This is because I have refined the writing much more and so, of course, would rather have this visible than the previous piece. If this is too heavily evolutionary, I'm sure it can be shortened. I will therefore add the latest paragraphs again and wait to see/discuss the changes. (Psuneh (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC))

You didn't change your content an jot. You added it right back. That is edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdod Yes, the content had been changed and developed substantially from my earlier inclusion (Feb 2016) which has once again been placed back in the article. Yes, I added it back due to the aforementioned reason, however, I will just leave it at that. (Psuneh (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC))

I'm looking at the article History and your contribution history. May 4 just into May 5 you made this edit, which Flyer reverted most of on May 5. You tweaked the citations in your sandbox on May 5 and added the whole thing right back on May 8. Flyers' comments above weren't about the citations, now were they. Jytdog (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Yes, reverted most of it back to my original contribution. It is the difference between my original contribution and latest contribution (May 4/5th) that I was referring to. No, the comments were clearly about the depth of the evolutionary perspective which is why I said that the minimal content which did remain could still come from my latest contribution instead. However, as said, I will leave it as is. (Psuneh (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC))

pictures of guys

In order to remain neutral, I think it's important that this article also feature at least one photo or representation of male attractiveness. It currently has 11 pictures of female attractiveness. I don't know much about Wikipedia so suggestions welcome. 70.60.230.215 (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

No objections here. anything you find here should be fine to use.Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this was brought up before: Talk:Physical attractiveness/Archive 4#Male Beauty. One reason that so many pictures of women have been in the article might be because the male editors had more interest in female beauty. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I also noticed this. There should be one in the lead as well.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. See here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Alot of ugly people are super intelligent

I removed the theory that good looking people are intelligent. Most nobel prize winners are ugly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.50.217 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to have a source about that. The List of Nobel laureates in Literature does not include supermodels, but I see among them decently-looking people like Selma Lagerlöf, Grazia Deledda, and Sigrid Undset. Dimadick (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

IP, what you were reverted on is not stating that good-looking people are automatically intelligent. It's speaking of the perception more than anything. And in any case, there is the "dumb blonde" perception for some physically attractive women with blond hair. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I will state that the author behind the source, Satoshi Kanazawa, is quite controversial, though. In cases like these, it's best to look into his work and see how it holds up to the general literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A person who is ugly can have a completely symmetrical body

A person who is ugly can have a completely symmetrical body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.50.217 (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Primary source studies

Ephert, adding primary source after primary source study is not the way to build Wikipedia articles. I think I've told you this before. Look for WP:Secondary sources instead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The WP:NOR article currently says, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." The physical attractiveness article in its current state is not only based on primary sources, so the first part of the guideline about not basing whole articles on primary sources does not seem like it applies here. The second part of the guideline says to be cautious about basing large passages on primary sources, and I am going to assume that is what you are talking about. I am also going to assume that you are talking about my most recent contributions which was a citation about Brazilian ideas of attractiveness in this edit and a citation about Luo ideas of attractiveness in this edit. Unfortunately, the WP:NOR article in its current state does not seem to explain what the word "cautious" entails in that specific instance of its guideline. I do not know, but I guess that the word "cautious" as used in that instance of the guideline means Wikipedia editors have to be cautious when citing primary sources that make extraordinary claims and Wikipedia editors have to be cautious that the primary sources being cited are reliable. The citation about Brazil claimed that they liked women with big butts in Brazil, and the citation about the Luo claimed that the Luo liked women with big butts too, and I do not think that either of these claims are extraordinary. The primary sources about the Luo people and the Brazilian people appear to be reliable. The guy who wrote the book for the Brazilian claim is Don Kulick, and he's a professor of anthropology. One of the authors of the Luo claim is a professor in the Department of Literary Studies at Maseno University in Kenya as stated in the first page of the academic journal article which was cited, so you have a professor at a Kenyan university making claims about how the people who live in his area (the Luo people) think after analyzing subject matter relevant to his or her field of study (music of the Luo people) in an academic journal article. Yes, they are both primary sources, but using primary sources is allowed, and they do not appear to be making extraordinary claims, and they appear to be reliable sources for the claims that they are making.--Ephert (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22, primary sources should be avoided as much as possible. Because we cannot necessarily judge correctly whether a professor in Luo music is a reliable source for claims about physical preferences. This kind of stuff very quickly becomes synthesis or at least invites the reader to do the synthesis for us.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Ephert, the WP:Primary sources policy is clear that we should generally avoid primary sources. Rather, we should use them sparingly unless using them is necessary. You rely too heavily on them. I'm saying that you should rely more heavily on secondary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the secondary sources part of the policy, it states, "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The university professor from the Department of Literary Studies at the Kenyan university in the academic journal article which was cited must have read song lyrics and/or some other type of literature which served as his or her primary sources. Then, the university professor at the Kenyan university must have made his or her "interpretive" claim that the Luo people liked women with big butts, so the professor appears to actually be a secondary source who made an "interpretive" claim based on primary sources that he or she read. Therefore, it seems to be okay to include the "interpretive" claim attributed to the Kenyan university source, because the "interpretive" claim being made in that source appears to have been made based on his or her interpretation of primary sources.--Ephert (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The professor is a primary source for her own interpretation of those lyrics, and a secondary source for the contents of the songs/texts. We are not writing about the content of the songs/texts here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A web page at Lafeyette College Library says, for the academic discipline of "Literature", possible primary sources include "contemporary review, interview, letter, manuscript, personal account, published work", and the web page says that its list which includes the list specific to literature is an "incomplete list of things that might be considered primary sources". Judging by its list for the academic discipline of literature, it appears to be that things that were written down in the case of "letter" or things that were said in the case of "interview" are considered fair game in the academic discipline of literature. Although song lyrics were not specifically listed in the library's list as being possible primary sources for the academic discipline of literature, the range of primary sources in the academic discipline of literature seems very broad, seemingly encompassing things that were written or spoken and probably encompassing song lyrics too. The academic journal article from the Kenyan university must have passed peer review to be published in an academic journal article, so other literary studies academic people must have viewed song lyrics as acceptable primary sources to make the interpretive claims that the professor and his or her co-author made.--Ephert (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That a source is peer reviewed does not mean that it is not a primary source for its own analytical claims. The article is not about physical attractiveness but about song lyrics, YOU are the one who is interpreting the article to be relevant for this topic. I think that is problematic. Unless you can find a secondary source that cites the article by Magak and Okombo I don't think it belongs in this article at all.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)