![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I strongly object to the deletion of an external link to an extended, completely relevant, all-inclusive, and purely factual bibliography on MAOA. I would not object, if any of these warring editors could provide a better bibliography. For years, Wikipedia’s entry on MAOA contained a number of complete falsehoods about MAOA from journals that I believe are not peer-reviewed. Eventually, a famous Harvard professor (Dr. Steven Pinker) repeated one such falsehood in a best-selling book. Even though I admire that writer, I felt compelled to write a critical essay. I believe the error was harmful to his career and reputation, and someone informed me that the error was removed from subsequent editions. As I began correcting the errors from the Wikipedia page, I had to endure multiple “edit wars” from poorly informed editors. As you can see from my talk page, one such individual demanded that I personally email a paper, using the edit war as a threat. In each case, I was correct, and my data prevailed. As a public service, I started a bibliography to help inform such people about this important area of research. The bibliography is too extended to be posted on Wikipedia, itself. (I should mention that Wikipedia is a punch line in my professional circle. Medical doctors rightly do not trust it and tend to rely on private research-review Web sites, like UpToDate.com.) It is true that Google Blogspot provides a free page, on which I have posted the bibliography, but I do not consider it to be a “blog.” You will not find daily ruminations about life or descriptions of breakfast on the site. Of course, I am the editor of the bibliography, although I shall include any and all relevant study and published commentary suggestions. The bibliography clearly does not fit a standard, common-sense definition of “conflict of interest” or Wikipedia’s own definition. The poorly informed editor who initially accused me of COI, (who is one of those spreading falsehoods and who engaged in a previous edit war with me, as shown on my talk page,) provided a link to Wikipedia’s definition, which says, “Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason…” My bibliography is not “self-serving” in any way. In fact, it is a major time sink, for which I have received nothing. My work is an attempt to save Wikipedia further embarrassment and prevent future edit wars with people unfamiliar with MAOA research. Indeed, the MAOA Wikipedia page contained so many errors prior to my editing that I became its primary editor. If there are falsehoods printed on the bibliography or its studies without my having noted them, then state what those falsehoods are. Believe me, you will not find the sort of egregious and offensive errors like the statement that 80% of Asians have the warrior gene, which was based on a copy-and-paste error that I had to correct from Wikipedia. Unsilencedscience 21:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unsilencedscience ( talk • contribs)
Having scour through the sources, it's obvious the figure for Chinese male, most likely came from the same research conducted on Taiwanese subjects. This is part of the quotation from the sources I found most relevant. "The study consisted of 214 subjects meeting DSM-IV criteria for alcoholism from northern Taiwan and 77 control individuals without history of alcoholism from Taipei." In none of these sources were there actual listed percentages of the study apart from the frequency of certain genes linked to alcohol tolerance. Do kindly provide the actual source showing the correct MAOA frequency of all the sample subjects examined in the study, which is not merely 77 as previously claimed, or we must assume such conclusions did not exist in the study. For now I will assume that the MZ Med Journal could have made an error in judgement, or it could just be a case of coincidence that the percentages actually matched up to the "77 control individuals without history of alcoholism from Taipei", and that they were spot in their assessment. In any case, there's some glaring misinterpretations made throughout this talk page. My proposal is to leave out the Taiwanese study till someone could provide concrete citations and sources on the actual percentages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.17.19.30 ( talk) 21:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
How much energy is released when MAO-A deaminates a molecule such as serotonin oxidatively? There could be a lot more specificity about the reactions MAO-A is involved in and less commentary about its prevelance in different ethnicities. RotogenRay ( talk) 07:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that this entry is wrong:
1) The environment is not a heritable trait.
2) The cited paper concluded: Interestingly, results for PIQ differ from those for FSIQ and VIQ, in that no significant contribution of environment shared by siblings from the same family was detected.
3) The phrase may be reworded as: Childhood cognitive ability (IQ), can actually have substantial heritability, regardless of the environment. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 20:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
How do you even come up with such a number? This is highly suspect. Is there a confidence interval to it? It means that you have to test 150'000 Asian males to find one guy with the allele. Surely this is completely confounded by false positives unless you test at least 1.5 million or so? Perahaps they did test millions of Asian men for this, idk, I'd just like to hear about the CI.
It doesn't help that the "reference" to this claim looks like [6][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. What, so ten studies came up with this exact result, independently? Or did somebody just decide that somehow ten footnotes is better than one, even if the information you are citing must be from some one among them? Because of what, so people can guess where the information came from? Look, I don't think this was the original idea behind using "references". -- dab (𒁳) 19:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
From "[27]": We recruited 383 Han Chinese men in Taiwan: 143 ANX/DEP ALC and 240 healthy controls -- good look finding a "0.00067%" prevalence in that sample. At least they do mention Asians, some of the other references don't even have that. I am beginning to think I am looking at simple number vandalism. -- dab (𒁳) 19:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
ok, I wanted to know. As far as I can see, this figure was first introduced by "Unsilencedscience" in this edit of 13 October 2012. The edit summary was "Undid revision 515087745 by Raquel Baranow", however, the edit was not a revert and apparently introduced this suspect figure, along with the WP:BOMBARDing, from scratch. If I am correct here, this is quite serious, as the numbers were not tweaked by a passing vandal but by somebody actively involved in arguing about the article. I will now wait for an explanation from Unsilencedscience as to what is going on here. -- dab (𒁳) 19:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The 0.00067% figure is back in the article, along with the ridiculous citation stack. I haven't had time to check these references for the number, but if someone has, could they please state which one of these papers the figure comes from? If I can't find it during a literature check this week I'm going to delete the claim. If I can, I'm going to put the reference where it belongs, right beside the figure. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 14:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Monoamine oxidase A. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
"Monoamine oxidases (MAOs) are enzymes that are involved in the breakdown of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine and are, therefore, capable of influencing feelings, mood, and behaviour of individuals".[47] According to this, if there was a mutation to the gene that is involved in the process of promoting or inhibiting MAO enzymes, it could affect a person's personality or behaviour and could therefore make them more prone to aggression. A deficiency in the MAOA gene has shown higher levels of aggression in males, which could further stimulate more research into this controversial topic. "A deficiency in monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A) has been shown to be associated with aggressive behaviour in men of a Dutch family".[48] << This paragraph contains quotes with no framing or in-text citations. They need rewording; I don't have time at the moment to follow the citations and make sure I accurately present who's saying what, but I'll be grateful if someone else does. Otherwise I'll try to track this back down and fix it. Jojopeanut ( talk) 22:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph from the top ends with an assertion that 85% of Caucasian men have the 2R allele of the MAOA gene. But the first reference after that (ref 11, Beaver et al. 2012 titled "Exploring the association between the 2-repeat allele of the MAOA etc etc") says at the end of its abstract that 0.1% of Caucasian males carry the 2-repeat allele.
Am I missing something obvious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.100.227 ( talk) 21:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I have noticed in several wiki articles when race or culture or invoked, the article either seems to inflate or reduce african or african american significance in subtle ways. For instance, 62% of Maori men, 57% of Japanese men, and upwards of 62% of Chinese men have the 3R allele. It appears to me in order from highest to lowest, yet African-American men sit at the top with upwards of 59%, which would put them in 3rd, rather than 1st. This is subtle, but put African-American men first has the effect of visually inflating the significance compared to other groups. Not the first time I've seem this but still problematic. Yawosaahene ( talk) 20:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the first time I've seen a really interesting article😲! It's amazing that you're looking at it in such detail😄😄! 112.148.214.4 ( talk) 06:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at University of Western Ontario supported by the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)