Talk:Behavioural genetics#Animal research

The following two sections were unsourced. I may put them back in the article once they're sourced.

Behavioural geneticists are active in a variety of scientific disciplines including biology, medicine, pharmacology, psychiatry, and psychology; thus, behavioural-genetic research is published in a variety of scientific journals, including Nature, Nature Genetics, and Science. Journals that specifically publish research in behavioural genetics include Behavior Genetics, Genes, Brain and Behavior, Journal of Neurogenetics, Molecular Psychiatry, Psychiatric Genetics, and Twin Research and Human Genetics.{{cn|date=February 2017}}

There exist several learned societies in the broader area of behavioural genetics:

• Behavior Genetics Association
• International Behavioural and Neural Genetics Society
• International Society of Psychiatric Genetics

{{WP:Good_article_reassessment/Behavioural_genetics/1}}

{{u|Randykitty}}, please explain here how an article can pass GA review yet require a big orange warning sticker up top, something which if it were truly required means it would fail review. Especially when the issue at hand - animal research - was explicitly addressed at the review. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Behavioural_genetics/1] How does this not appear to be an attempt to unilaterally override the GA review, given the opinion expressed there that {{tq|As far as I am concerned, this should never have been promoted to GA to start with, but my concerns were ignored at that time.}}?

If the issue you are trying to tag it for were really so important, how did it pass GA review? And as pointed out there, GA is not FA, so standards are lower.

Pinging {{u|Aircorn}} as involved as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

One could for instance put an "expand section" tag where the problem is, in this case in the animal studies section. It isn't clear to me that even this is warranted. Isn't most behavioral genetics research on humans anyway? Crossroads ^-talk- 07:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is with the article, not just a section. The problem would be solved if this article were named "quantitative human behavior genetics". The article places undue emphasis on human studies and within those on studies using variance partitioning techniques. It is absolutely incorrect to say that most BG studies are with humans anyway (just look at the contents of the major journals in this field). The thousands of studies using genetically-modified animals are ignored, the words "knockout" or "transgenic" are just mentioned once in the text. Reading the article, one would think that selection studies are the most important type of animal studies, which was not even true in the past when such studies were more popular than nowadays. The huge advances made with C. elegans are not described (there's just an in-passing mention of the species), Drosophila is not even mentioned. Need I go on? If you wonder how this could pass GA despite these problems, you'll have to ask the editor who passed the article, as these problems were pointed out at the time. If the response is that GA criteria are less stringent than FA and that an article does not need to be perfect to pass GA, well, then it should not be a problem to bring these issues to the attention of editors reading the article. --Randykitty (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

::You actually dodged most of the issue, again reiterating what your opinion is regarding the article. Please explain how you, one editor, are justified in re-tagging the article when me and {{u|Aircorn}}, two editors, do not see a need for a tag. And how this fits with WP:BRD, when you boldly added the tag (originally the "undue weight" tag), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Behavioural_genetics&type=revision&diff=768741308&oldid=768734143] have been reverted a total of three times (over a long period of time) on it, and yet keep putting it back [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Behavioural_genetics&type=revision&diff=843610078&oldid=843609679][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Behavioural_genetics&type=revision&diff=936208369&oldid=936204886][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Behavioural_genetics&type=revision&diff=939575628&oldid=939562613] instead of discussing and getting anyone else to favor a tag.

::As for my question about how an article can pass GA yet require article level tags, I guess your answer is just 'I say the reviewers were wrong, so I can tag it'? And if the issue is so important and you are knowledgeable about it, why not just fix the issue? The tag has been here for nearly two years (three if you count the original undue tag).

::{{tq|If you wonder how this could pass GA despite these problems, you'll have to ask the editor who passed the article...}} Okay. Pinging {{u|Montanabw}} and {{u|Fish and karate}} - could you please weigh in?

::Also per WP:APPNOTE, I have asked for more input [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Good_Articles_and_article-level_problem_tags here].

::Lastly, though it is kind of a side issue to whether you re-tagging is proper, my understanding is that just as "psychology" typically refers to the study of human psychology, "behavioral genetics" typically refers to the study of human behavioral genetics. Animal studies of behavior and genetics seem to either just fall under biology or genetics, or be the behavioral genetics of some specific study species. We're obviously not going to tag Psychology for focusing on human and not animal psychology, as that is what the field does. And I did look at the [https://www.springer.com/journal/10519 site] of the journal Behavior Genetics, and saw that the vast majority of articles were about humans. In any case, it may be helpful to specifically define what you would consider enough coverage of animal studies, in terms of bytes or some other objective measure. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC) updates Crossroads ^-talk- 17:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

::*Have a look [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/1601183x here]. Genes, Brain and Behavior is currently the leading BG journal. Behavior Genetics is the journal of the Behavior Genetics Association. That group has indeed drifted towards human genetics, excluding most animal BG. It is remarkable that whereas their meetings are nowadays exclusively on human quantitative genetics, their journal still has significant animal content. In contrast, the meetings of the International Behavioural and Neural Genetics Society are dominated by animal BG. It is pertinently wrong to state that "behavioral genetics" by definition focuses on human work. The very first chapter presenting an overview of the field (Hall, C. S., 1951. The genetics of behavior. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of Experimental Psychology, p. 304–329. Wiley) was mostly (or even exclusively, I'd have to check) on animal BG. Fuller and Thompson's iconic book, often seen as the starting point for the field, was for the largest part on animals. An early overview of European BG (The genetics of behaviour, J. H. F. van Abeelen, ed., North Holland, Amsterdam, and Elsevier, New York. 1974) had hardly any human BG in it. Same for the seminal books by Thiessen and Hirsch. In short, ever since the field was founded, animal research has been an integral and important part of behavior genetics. And even nowadays, books are being published with titles like Behavior Genetics of the Mouse or Behavior Genetics of the Fly (see [https://www.cambridge.org/fr/academic/subjects/life-sciences/series/cambridge-handbooks-behavioral-genetics here]), so it is also incorrect to say that for animal BG the term "Behavior Genetics" has gone out of vogue. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

::::{{tq|very first chapter presenting an overview of the field...iconic book, often seen as the starting point for the field...An early overview of European BG...seminal books by Thiessen and Hirsch...}} Yes, those are all old sources. WP:RS AGE. {{tq|And even nowadays, books are being published with titles like Behavior Genetics of the Mouse or Behavior Genetics of the Fly...}} Yes, and what about books that just say Behavioral Genetics, like this article does? What species are most of them about?

::::You are more than welcome by me to add material about animal BG, to start an article on animal BG, or what have you. My main point is and was that the tag is incompatible with the GA status. Rather than plopping a tag on a GA for years, just fix the issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

:::::If the tag and the GA status are incompatible, then perhaps then GA status should be withdrawn. I think I have given enough justification for the tag. --Randykitty (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

:courtesy link Behavioural genetics.

:I don't see where the issue is here. If the tag is valid, we should be heading to WP:GAR. If not then be removed. In my eyes, there will be more weight towards humans, due to the amount of sourcing. However, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be more from other side's for a complete picture of the subject.

:I know nothing about the subject, so, I can't offer to help with the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

:For convenience, here is a comparison of the article at the time of the GA review with the present version: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Behavioural_genetics&type=revision&diff=939575628&oldid=843388908] The only substantial changes are the addition of the '10 findings' from that review paper, along with an increase in coverage of animals and criticisms. The previous GA review clearly still stands. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

:To make my point clear: The article has only gotten better since the GA review, and since its original listing, so sending it through again seems a waste of time. And, again, GA does not equal "perfect". More content on animals would be fine. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

::So again: if GA does not mean perfect, then it's totally acceptable to indicate with a tag what needs to be improved. --Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

:::And, again, it's three against one on that matter. The problem is not serious enough to warrant a badge of shame, as determined by it being a GA, despite your having tried to stop that. Crossroads ^-talk- 13:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

::::The article fails GA criterion 3. WP:GAR recommends in cases like to this to "(t)ag serious problems that you cannot fix ... if the templates will help other editors find the problems". It also counsels against "tag bombing" an article. Which is all that has happened here. I've identified a problem and put 1 (one) clear template on the article. --Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|The article fails GA criterion 3.}} Again, this is only your lone opinion. And you're still ignoring the central issue that three other editors disagree with you about the tag. What gives you (1 person), no matter how right you feel you are, the right to overrule 3 others? Not to mention that you have been fighting for this tag at the same time the article has passed two GA reviews, so the idea it needs tagging is frankly ridiculous. Stop edit warring, drop the stick, and note WP:IDHT: {{tq|Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.}} The same behavioral standards do apply to all of us. Follow proper procedure and seek GAR, RM, RFC, or something else if you must. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have filed a request for dispute resolution here, you're welcome to comment there. --Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

::I added the heading above so observers can readily see the discussion moved. Thanks, at least, for not reverting again. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

:::What was the outcome of the DRN? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

::::Hi {{u|Barkeep49}}, the archived link is here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_185#Behavioural_genetics] Crossroads ^-talk- 18:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

{{u|Randykitty}}, I ask that you quantify on this talk page how long (in bytes, words, whatever) you would like the "Animal studies" section to be before you would consider the tag unnecessary.

This is per WP:TAGGING, which states: {{tq|Adding tags for non-obvious or perceived problems—without identifying the problem well enough for it to be easily fixed—is frequently referred to as "drive-by tagging," particularly when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. When it comes to confusing or subjective tags...it is important to explain yourself on the article's talk page or in an edit summary.}} The goal, of course, is to improve the article such that a tag is no longer needed. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• The problem has been explained above over and over again. The article is all about human BG, whereas the point ca be made that the majority of BG studies are, in fact, animal studies. The latter, however, are relegated to a single small paragraph, which suggests that selection studies are the main fare of animal BG, which is absolutely ridiculous. I'd say that at least one third of this article should be discussing the behavior genetics of zebrafish, fruit flies, worms, rats, and mice, to name the most frequently used organisms, to begin addressing the imbalance in this article. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-021-10064-w This recent book review] makes it amply clear that animal studies are more than a footnote... The book itself would be a great source for improving this article and making it more balanced. --Randykitty (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

My edit adding a psychology category to this page was reverted because BG is not subsumed entirely by psychology but overlaps with psychology, behavioral neuroscience, genetics, etc. I would suggest we list all of the above as categories related to this subject. The page would benefit, as would the readers, I would think. {{u|Randykitty}} perhaps you could add those categories you perceive as relevant? Vrie0006 (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• It is not necessary to add categories to the article if the category "behavioural genetics" is already in them. Also, a lot of BG is not psychology but behavioral neuroscience or psychiatry, so it is perhaps less correct to categorize BG as "branches of psychology". Finally, your edit incorrectly removed the sortkey of this article in its category. Adding "lots of categories" is something we call overcategorization. --Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Southwest_Minnesota_State_University/Senior_Seminar_(Spring_2024) | reviewers = TAA999 | start_date = 2024-01-09 | end_date = 2024-06-10 }}

— Assignment last updated by TAA999 (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Florida_State_University/Adv_Molec_Biol_Bass-FSU-Fa24_(Fall_2024) | assignments = Delucaanthony | start_date = 2024-08-27 | end_date = 2024-12-13 }}

— Assignment last updated by Delucaanthony (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)