| Revision as of 16:30, 24 September 2014 editFactChecker102 (talk | contribs)4 edits →Suggestion for a transgender man in picture← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:22, 26 September 2014 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,781 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Man/Archive 6) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| |archive = Talk:Man/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Man/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Body hair? == | |||
| How is it that "more body hair" isn't included in the list of secondary sex characteristics? I mean, I realize that Asians barely have any, but there are billions of other men who actually do, and that certainly makes them stand out from women. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Edit request on 12 February 2013 == | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|ans= yes}} | |||
| In the first sentence of the Etymology section, "which in turn is ultimately derived from the Indian name Manu" should be removed. It is erroneous and directly contradicts the next few sentences. | |||
| Likewise, the last part of the last sentence of the section, "which in turn is derived from the Indian name Manu, mythological progenitor of the Hindus." is also entirely erroneous. "Manu" is a Sanskrit word, and so derives from Proto-Indo-European, and not the other way around. The accompanying reference needs to be properly checked, because I doubt that it would state something so stupid. | |||
| The following webpage is more in line with my suggestions: | |||
| http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=man. | |||
| So is the Main Article "Man (word)" on the Misplaced Pages page itself. | |||
| Thank you! | |||
| ] (]) 09:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :My pleasure. ] (]) 14:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| It seems like there who is opposed to the consensus of the above edit request. I would urge that editor to state their case here on the talk page instead of ] about it. The claim that the English word man comes from the Indian word is blatanlty absurd. The version stating that the word originates from the Proto-Indo-European word is well sourced, unlike the Indian-claim version. Unless ] can provide some ] that backs up the claim of Indian origin, the edit request version is going back in the article. --] (]) 21:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Why is it that the origin of words begin from the ethnocentric linguistic Indo- European view point. Where is the reference to the creation of the first man: Adam by God in the Book of Genesis ? The Holy Word of God is the first mention of man; where man was first created by God the Father ? | |||
| No mention here on Misplaced Pages! The same applies for the meaning of the word woman! | |||
| Must be that Misplaced Pages belongs to a select group of human cultures. Anthropological expansion of Misplaced Pages is needed to overcome the limitations of cultural bias endemic on Misplaced Pages ! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| To 46.7.249.232, 21:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC): | |||
| Although in all probability you are the same individual who went under the username Archetypex07, since your comment was unsigned, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and treat you as a different person. | |||
| The development of comparative linguistics, like all other branches of enquiry, has a historical context. It is a matter of historical fact that it was the Europeans, who, after travelling east, first found similarities between their languages and the Indian ones. It was they who ultimately framed the discipline and contributed the most to it. (Before you bring in Panini, I’ll remind you that he worked only on Sanskrit and didn’t try analyzing similarities between Sanskrit and other languages.) Of course, the Arabs had earlier contacts with India, but Arabic happens to a Semitic language, not an Indo-European one, so it’s no surprise that they didn’t indulge in comparisons. | |||
| Furthermore, the Europeans didn’t presume it upon themselves that any of their languages was the “original”. They sensibly hypothesized a proto-language from which Sanskrit and the European languages (among others) could have descended. So, your question (without the question mark) “Why is it that the origin of words begin from the ethnocentric linguistic Indo- European view point” doesn’t even begin to apply. You obviously don’t know what you’re trying to talk about. The Europeans weren’t ethnocentric (still aren’t, compared to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in India, at least) and never tried to forcibly trace word origins to their languages, which the RSS most certainly does. Of course, you would deny that. | |||
| The rest of your comment is even more gibberish. Adam derives from “adamah”, which means “of the earth” in Hebrew, the Bible was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and so the English word “man” has no place in it. The “Holy Word of God”, as you put it, is not the first mention of man. The civilizations of Mesopotamia had writing long before the Jews. In fact, the Mesopotamian Anu predates both the Sanskritic Manu and the Germanic Mannus. It’s strange that you should mention “woman”. Are you going to give us a Sanskritic origin to that too? I’d like to see you try. | |||
| “Must be that Misplaced Pages belongs to a select group of human cultures. Anthropological expansion of Misplaced Pages is needed to overcome the limitations of cultural bias endemic on Misplaced Pages !” Pure BS, by any standards! It’s also a very natural churlish schoolboy reaction from one who can’t present his case in a mature manner and in fact knows that he is in the wrong. | |||
| To User:Archetypex07: | |||
| I am the person who made the edit request at 09:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC). I came back to this page a few days ago and discovered the nuisance that you had made of yourself. | |||
| Firstly, I live in India and am Indian. I came to the Misplaced Pages “Man” page that day fully expecting to find the rubbish that I requested to be changed. I had occasion to explain the etymology of my name to an orthodox Hindu friend of mine. I told him that Andrew derives from “Andros”, the Greek word for man, whereupon he immediately said, “Man comes from Manu”. I naturally knew that man derives from the German “Mann”, but didn’t bother contradicting him. It was only the next day, when he repeated it as if he had verified it, that I realized that it had to be Misplaced Pages. I was well aware of how Hindu “nationalists” had (and have) been using Misplaced Pages to disseminate their propaganda. I’ve even corrected some articles myself and always given full explanations as to my edits. I made my request, it was accepted by Leadwind that day itself and I forgot about it, till now. | |||
| The original lines to which I had objected read thus: “The ] term "man" is derived from ] ''mann'', which in turn is ultimately derived from the Indian name '']''.” And further, “The Germanic form is derived from the ] root ''*manu-s'' "man, person", which in turn is derived from the Indian name '']'', mythological progenitor of the Hindus." The reference that was given was Julius Pokorny, ''Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch'', I, 700; I, 726-8. Regardless of the truth value of these sentences, can you not see that an inherent contradiction is plainly manifest in the second line? The Germanic form derived from the Proto-Indo-European root and this in turn derived from the Indian word? Something which by definition was earlier than both the Indic and European components derived from the Indic one? Was it not your responsibility as an editor to at least make sure that statements on a particular page do not contradict themselves? | |||
| You say that I have a racist bias because I “had no issue showing england and germany's influence on the word”. You then say “but the country of origin, which is India, was asked to be removed”. Prove it! You claim that “Many German born linguists agree with my statements.” Name even one linguist worth his/her salt who has unequivocally stated that he/she believes that the English word “man” and the German “Mann” derive from the Sankritic “Manu”! To the best of my knowledge, they all state Proto-Indo-European as the source for all three. None of them say that India is the “country of origin” with the unflinching certainty that you do. If you know any better, do let us know, with proper citations. I emphasize upon the adjective “proper” because your Julius Pokorny citation makes no such claim. Here is an online source of the same with only a few typos corrected and some rearrangement of the material, the text itself being practically unchanged: | |||
| http://dnghu.org/indoeuropean.html | |||
| Had you really read the entry yourself before citing it? It only mentions the relatedness of Man, Mann and Manu, and does NOT say that one derived from the other. So, I was totally right when I said that I seriously doubted whether the citation would state something as stupid as you had claimed it did. Whether Himmler kept a copy of the Bhagwad Gita in his pocket or not has as much bearing on the matter as where Angelina Jolie has her latest tattoo. | |||
| “DO NOT omit an entire race's contribution to the word (ESPECIALLY WHEN THE WORD ORIGINATES IN THE COUNTRY).” This is both petty exaggeration and exaggerated pettiness beyond description. An entire race’s contribution to a word??? What utter rubbish you talk! Do you think that laddoos (as would be said in India) are being distributed over here just for the heck of it? Again, prove what you so confidently assert, that the word originates in India. Of course, don’t give us any Meerut Publishers or Diamond Books rubbish or anything of a similar nature. I’m Indian, remember, so I know about these pathetically produced books with their lousy grammatical, punctuational and typographical mistakes, books that no one takes seriously on beholding, leave alone actually perusing their contents, which are only to glorify India at any cost (even outright lies) and undermine all others. Give us something which the mainstream agrees upon. Forget about the “ethnocentric Europeans”, show us a work in which even the liberal scholars in India, not to mention other non-Europeans, agree to your claim. The only people who desperately wish to believe your claim and propagate it are the extreme right-wingers in India, who in one way or another are affiliated to the RSS. They never were interested in scholarship; their only agenda is Hindutva. Anybody who bothers to read their so-called “scholars” can tell immediately where they’re at and where they’re coming from. “Someone even brought up some etymology site created by another biased person.” Do you want any more sites? The “incorrect, unprofessional, and racially biased sources” are the only ones which seem to know what they’re talking about, unlike your “non-biased” self. | |||
| “If you look down on Indians then you should take a look at which race earns the highest gdp per capita in America.” I don’t look down upon Indians, or anybody else for that matter, unless they’ve really earned that distinction. I have no idea about the “racewise” breakup of the American GDP and neither am I interested in it. I didn’t even know that they collected such useless statistics. Also, the fact that English and German are later languages to Sanskrit doesn't in any way mean that they derived from the latter. It seems that you wish to imply precisely this. Hittite is the oldest known attested Indo-European language. By your logic, Sanskrit derived from Hittite. | |||
| You scream “racist” at others and then make clearly racist statements yourself: “When the people of england were busy moving large rocks in a circle (aka stonehenge) the people of India had CITIES made of 2 story brick houses, toilets included.” This not only proves you to be a hypocrite, but also proves that you have absolutely no sense of history. The respective nationalistic identities of England and India were post-Stonehenge and post-Mohenjodaro, respectively. Saddhiyama called your statement “nationalistic nonsense”. To me, it’s just plain nonsense. At least, things looked up for the British Isles after that, whereas the Indian subcontinent never had it as good as far as town planning and sanitation were concerned as in the days of the Indus Valley Civilization, which was long before the Vedic Aryans arrived on the scene. Even today, India is lousy as far as civic sense is concerned. Are you going to call me a racist again just because I’ve stated an undeniable fact? | |||
| So, in the ultimate analysis, what do we have here? An individual (can’t call you a man, since there’s a 50% chance that I’ll be accused of exhibiting a gender bias next) who deliberately tried to propagate misinformation (actually downright lies) on a public site encyclopaedia and then cites works which don’t back up his/her claims. (Was it you who wrote those lines on the article’s main page in the first place?) An individual who has the sheer audacity to call all those who correct him/her racist and then proceeds to indulge his/her own racist inclinations. An individual who exhibits a poor, nay pathetic, understanding of the issues involved and can’t even argue for his/her own case in an objective, straightforward manner without resorting to unnecessary digressions and sensationalism, leave alone avoiding self-contradiction. (How you could be an editor on Misplaced Pages is beyond me, that too one who had reached the stage where he/she could edit protected pages.) An individual who was so desperate for his/her version to stay that he/she kept continuously changing others’ edits and so got himself/herself suspended indefinitely. | |||
| As far as I’m concerned, you got your just deserts. I shall shortly be writing to Jimmy Wales about you and your ilk. It’s a good thing that he has an open-door policy. He needs to be informed about propagandists like you. I’m not going to be checking this page very regularly, but you can bet that I won’t wait for eight months the next time. It would be interesting to see if you have the ability to reply like a mature adult. Don’t forget the citations, which you can be sure I will rigorously cross-check. And yes, I know that you'll come back in a new avatar to start your nonsense again. You'll be dealt with when the time comes. | |||
| Andrew Cabral <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==Suggestion for a transgender man in picture== | ==Suggestion for a transgender man in picture== | ||
Revision as of 00:22, 26 September 2014
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
 | Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Suggestion for a transgender man in picture
I notice that the grid with pictures of men contains no pictures of transgender men, which could be taken to bolster the incorrect idea that such men are not "real" men. I also see that the grid contains a picture of Vitruvian Man which is also shown in the body of the article. Does it need to be shown twice? Perhaps it could be replaced with a picture of a transgender man. I would suggest Chaz Bono but I am open to other suggestions. If nobody objects or has other suggestions, I will make that change in a week. I know the grid can't contain examples of every type of man, but I think an example of a transgender man is especially important because some deny such men are men at all, and we don't want to seem to be in favor of that idea. Maranjosie (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Going with WP:SILENCE here. Image edited and page updated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted the image, since changing a person in the montage breaks the image description on all the other wikipedias using the image, but I uploaded a new version File:Men montage 2.jpg. I took the freedom to use Erik Schinegger instead for the sake of geographic distribution :) – Danmichaelo (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted the image, since changing a person in the montage breaks the image description on all the other wikipedias using the image, but I uploaded a new version File:Men montage 2.jpg. I took the freedom to use Erik Schinegger instead for the sake of geographic distribution :) – Danmichaelo (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I just found a pack of transphobes gloating over the fact that an intersex man (with male internal organs) is included, not an actual XX trans man, while the Woman page includes an actual trans woman (Laverne Cox). Apparently they want to interpret it as some sign that "they" t value XX people, including trans men, as highly as XY people. The comment in all its glory: http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/laverne-cox-launches-media-campaign-in-support-of-transwoman-synthia-china-blast-convicted-for-the-rape-murder-and-abuse-of-the-corpse-of-thirteen-year-old-ebony-nicole-williams/#comment-40395 by "ImNoCissie". To be "above reproach" I suggest also including an XX trans man, not necessarily Chaz Bono, without removing Erik. Ramendik (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- We could remove David and replace with Chaz since David's already included as an image in the body of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps not Chaz but Buck Angel? https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Buckangel_cowboy.JPG here is a file that has a license clearly allowing "remixing", and it's from himself. Ramendik (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Buck Angel woudl be a great idea. There definitely should be a trans man in the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.214.238.133 (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps not Chaz but Buck Angel? https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Buckangel_cowboy.JPG here is a file that has a license clearly allowing "remixing", and it's from himself. Ramendik (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- We could remove David and replace with Chaz since David's already included as an image in the body of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
But dear, transgender men aren't real men, that's just a biological fact. We need important men of history in the picture, I don't think half the people viewing this article even know who that man is. FactChecker102 (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Citations for anti-male sexism?
"Research has identified anti-male sexism in some areas which can result in what appear to be unfair advantages given to women." Should there be a citation? Ramendik (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes Secondplanet (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Secondplanet please provide it EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Western Bias
Beyond the infobox, all the pictures are related to Europe or the United States - a picture of US presidents in particular seems like a silly thing to include in an article called "man". Secondplanet (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
About Age
A man, by definition, should be identified by his age at which he has grown long enough to be known as a man. Where is this outline located in this article ? I don't want this article to misinterpret that every man is simply a man no matter what his age is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.65.124 (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Categories: