Misplaced Pages

Talk:Man

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 01:27, 1 July 2022 (Fixing broken anchor: Update links to archived section : Talk:Man/Archive 7#Odd claims about intersex, and other kvetching). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:27, 1 July 2022 by Cewbot (talk | contribs) (Fixing broken anchor: Update links to archived section : Talk:Man/Archive 7#Odd claims about intersex, and other kvetching)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
Lead image

Important Note: The most appropriate image to use at the top of this article is a highly controversial issue with many valid viewpoints. Polite discussion and negotiation of the viewpoints is welcome below as we continuously strive to find an image which best matches the current consensus.

A gallery and discussion of potential lead images is available here. Please add new images there rather than on this talk page, although the image discussion is welcome here.

Any image which has not shown support here will be removed.

Template:Vital article

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 iconAnthropology Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMen's Issues
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGender studies Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.
To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSociology Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Template:WP1.0
Censorship warningMisplaced 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.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:


Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10



This page has archives. Sections older than 91 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Definition of man

See Talk:Woman#Definition_of_a_woman for question about how to define woman and man. --MGA73 (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I actually do agree that both articles should be reworked to refelect that "man" and "woman" are gender-identity-based terms. --1234567891011a (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
they are not. they are biological terms independent from thoughts, feelings and philosophy. 2407:7000:9DB3:F700:A19C:D389:338E:201D (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The currently used definition at the outset of the article does not reflect the cited sources. The definition currently used in the article places the word 'male' as a noun, whereas both definitions cited in the text use 'male' as an adjective to describe either the noun 'human being' (Cambridge dictionary source) or 'human' (Merriam Webster). This reflects standard dictionary definitions more accurately and is more consonant with etymology (see wikipiedia section on etymology). Ruthrendellmysteries (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. The change to "adult human male" only happened fairly recently and without much ceremony, so I went ahead and changed it back. I don't think the order is overly important either way, though I'd note that the article Male is about the male sex (and to a far lesser extent, gender), rather than male organisms, so using it as an adjective seems more appropriate.
Also worth noting that some activists prescribe against using male and female as nouns to describe people (outside of clinical contexts) as they consider it reductive and/or dehumanizing. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 20:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@MGA73 The reason not to refer to women as females is dehumanising and/or reductive because they are more than just female, and it excludes women that aren't female. It's also not done in that way when it comes to talking about men. It does not apply to discussing males or females in the abstract, as long as the terms are not conflated with man and woman. If modern gender theory says the word man refers to gender, and the sources used indeed do refer to the word in that way, why are we using a different definition? 81.170.165.69 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
It would be easier simply to ban the terms woman and man from Misplaced Pages. Then the problem is solved. The current text in Woman is "A woman is an adult female human.". So we say that women are female and similar that men are male. I think everyone agree that women (and men) are much more than one thing. But I think it is impossible to find a definition so that all women (and men) would agree to everything in that definition. --MGA73 (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Expand Article with info

This article must be expanded. The man article currently has merely 1300 words while the women article has around 5700 words (4.38 times more words). There's definitely a lot more useful information to add about men. See for example the Russian page ru:Мужчина, French page fr:Homme and German page de:mann . -Artanisen (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Bold edits

I've made some bold edits: , , , , , , , , , , and .

If anyone disagrees with anything, we can discuss it here. Content can be re-instated if nessecary. I'm just trying to improve this article in general because a vital article like this should be better. Clovermoss (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I reinstated the tag from the first edit after I went here and noticed the talk page discussion about it above. Clovermoss (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Trans content in lead

Newimpartial, can you show where there was a prior consensus to have the trans-content in the lead? It hasn't been in the lead since at least 1 Jan, 2022. I would say that means it needs to show consensus to add. While I understand some people see this as a political hot point, I don't see why this is DUE in the lead. Currently this appears to be a NOCON case which means revert to the last stable version. Springee (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The last stable version was pre- December, 2021, and it contained the content in question. Newimpartial (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
We're overdue for an RfC on this matter. Rather than rehash the trans (and intersex) discussion, which led to at least one TBAN last time, can we work on crafting an RfC? I am agnostic on wording, but I'd like a short mention in the lead that there are some men that do not meet the definition we have provided. I'd like it to name and link trans men for sure and would prefer intersex men be included as well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
A RfC would make sense at this time. I looked in the archives and didn't see a clear discussion of this content in the lead. Springee (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, a clear discussion would be a lot to ask for. Maybe we could manage a discussion without trolling? That would be good. Anyway, the 2021 content should stay until then. Newimpartial (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
My expectation was that this is the sort of content that may have been previously discussed. If we had a previous RfC then we could say there was a clear, prior consensus. Instead we have implicit consensus. I agree that trolling isn't going to be helpful. I don't agree that the nocon status is the 2021 content but a RfC would be a good way to address that vs just removing/adding etc. Springee (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
A portion of the lead mentioning trans and intersex men was present in May 2017, July 2019, and December 2020. It was separated into a paragraph in August 2021 which Crossroads edited and eventually removed. Given that this material was present in some form for 4 years, I think the removal based on consensus of 4 editors in late 2021 was inappropriate. As a social category, it is 100% accurate to mention variation outside of the Western cisnormative definition. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Please note that the mention of trans and intersex men in the lead dates from 2014. Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps the answer is to reintegrate so it's a single sentence rather than a stand alone paragraph. Note that the trans part of the body is just 3 sentences yet it is a stand alone paragraph in the lead. Springee (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that what we need is more Trans (and intersex, now that the main POV-pusher in this domain is quiet) content in the article, not a reduction within the lead section. And what we need even more is content related to gender roles, etc. - that isn't really what the Masculinity section sets out to do, nor should it. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I think you need to show that an increase would not be a weight issue. Remember the relative weight of content should reflect sources at large, not just content we view as important. I'm not sure who the POV pusher was but we should probably avoid accusations like that all around. Springee (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes. And the claim above that the way it has been for all of 2022 is not the "stable version" is preposterous. If 5+ months can be treated as unstable and not having WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, anything can. And even if an RfC happened, what was the status quo matters in case of no consensus. Springee, in my view, anyone edit warring to enforce a very old version as though it were the status quo should be reverted. EvergreenFir called it "a consensus of 4 editors in late 2021" that removed it, even though they disagree - which shows that it was in fact a consensus, and I'd argue this is a case of WP:CCC. And if anything, what this article needs is more info on men in general rather than lopsided coverage of like 0.5% of the population when we already have an article on trans man. Crossroads 23:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
So which is the status quo version? Is it the pre-tban version from 5 December 2021? Post-tban version from 29 December 2021? Or some other revision before or after those dates? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@Crossroads:, the last two edit summaries for your reverts and are somewhat in conflict with each other here. I asked a short while ago which version was the status quo stable version. In your most recent summary, you say This has not been stably present since 12 December 2021 that implies that the stable version is prior to that date. If so then the longest standing stable version is what was present on 5 December 2021.
Can you please now confirm what version you consider to be the stable version, as this edit war between both you and @Newimpartial: is very disruptive. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The "disruptive" part is when one editor is maxing out 3RR on reverting two others to force text in against the stable version/status quo, and not waiting for discussion to reach consensus. That wasn't me doing that.
Unless I overlooked something, the stable version as it pertains to the content in question here is this from 12 December 2021. It only appeared after that when being swiftly reverted, hence not "stably present" or a part of a stable version. Crossroads 00:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you have overlooked. The disruption began on or around 6 December, according to the contributions from Maneesh. The version from 12 December was definitely in the middle of that period of disruption. The earliest version prior to Maneesh's contributions was this revision on 5 December 2021 which had stood since your prior edit on 19 August 2021. I believe based on the context of their reply that EvergreenFir tried to link the 19 August diff previously, but accidentally used the wrong URL. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Also this was discussed in the current page above under Talk:Man/Archive 7#Odd claims about intersex, and other kvetching towards the end. It was me, Quirinius Germanicus (via edit), and Tewdar (in the discussion) who supported removal, as well as Maneesh, who is now topic banned - but that doesn't make the previous decision invalid. Crossroads 23:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Crossroads, you were the only editor who removed this material from the lead between the banned editor (on December 11), and Springee this week. That isn't implicit consensus, it's stonewalling. Since that time, if I am interpreting Firefangledfeathers and Swideswipe9th correctly, there are now five editors (including the X-editor) who have recently expressed support for the content in one sense or the other and four non-topic-banned editors who have objected to the content - two of them having most recently done so almost six months ago. Given the clarity of the pre-December status quo and the lack of clarity of the December discussion (which still reads as including the tendentious arguments of the now-topic-banned editor, which might be misleading to new readers), you don't have consensus for anything except, apparently, in your own mind.
As far as the discussion above, which you linked, I will quote here the remarks with which I concluded that discussion:

Crossroads, you can't simply decide that something has consensus when 50%+1 of editors agree with you but lacks consensus when no matter how many editors disagree with you. That isn't how anything works.

Newimpartial (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Two of them having most recently done so almost six months ago - yeah, they haven't been very active in this topic area for a while... what's up with that? It's such a tremendously productive and worthwhile editing environment over here in WP:GENSEX topic areas!  Tewdar  09:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
And anyway, that previous discussion was not about the lede, was it?  Tewdar  10:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Apart from the "Sexuality and gender" section, in which trans / intersex men appear to comprise at least two-thirds of the content for some reason, there does not appear to be any other reference to trans men except in the lede. There may be other arguments for the inclusion of these groups in the intro, but WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY is probably not one of them.  Tewdar  10:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    • In this instance, my BOLD and IAR recommendation is to use LEADFOLLOWSBODY as an argument to include more sourced discussion of gender (including gender roles and gender identity) in the body, rather than trimming the lead. Newimpartial (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't that just mean the body is going to suffer issues of WEIGHT? As an example, take the bike article. I decide that down hill mountain bike racing is my thing so I push for inclusion in the lead. Editors push back based on LEADFOLLOWBODY so I hugely expand the limited details on mountain bikes to include all sorts of down hill bike specific content (technologies, history, racing, noted riders etc). I can then point to the body and say, "the lead doesn't reflect how much down hill content is in the body!" That may be true but only because I used my personal preferences instead of NPOV ("representing fairly, proportionately,") when adding content to the body. The down hill content may rightly reflect the relative weight of my thinking on the subject but not of a broader range of sources. This is exactly what you are proposing here. I can appreciate that this is a subtopic that is significant to you but that doesn't mean it is proportionate to larger sources on this topic. Springee (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
        • My premise is that, in the real world, most of the high quality reliable sources on this topic deal with men in terms of gender - more gender role than gender identity, but some of each and some of other aspects of gender. The current version of this article overrepresents both biological sex as an aspect of this topic and also offers a rather over-elaborate (and poor) treatment of "masculinity". This article could uncharitably be read as offering a biological essence of "men" and following on that theme by drawing out the cultural or psychological qualities of XY (etc.) males - 20th century pseudoscience as appropriated by the manosphere. I mean, don't get me wrong, Woman has issues, but it is a positive font of wisdom compared to this article. Fixing that in light of the actual sourcing of the topic would by no means be UNDUE. Newimpartial (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
            • So if I gather a bunch of RS articles on down hill mountain biking and add them to the bike article it's not a WEIGHT issues because I found high quality sources on the small part of the total topic that I happen to be interested in. That is your argument here. You aren't saying, "here are sources on the broad topic that show that we over represent this aspect of the topic". Your argument is still, "I think this is the most important aspect thus we need more content". I often find it interesting to look at encyclopedia.com and Britannica to see how much relative emphasis they give aspects of a topic. Essentially, what do the profesionals think is the correct balance. I would do that for the topic "Man" except they don't have an article on the subject. Britannica doesn't have a topic "Man". The closest seems to be "Human Being" which doesn't appear to have a subtopic on transgender. Springee (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
              • I don't think that's what Newimpartial was saying. But I agree that the differences between this site, on the one hand, and Britannica and encyclopedia.com, on the other, are often very large, especially when it comes to gensex or politics articles...  Tewdar  17:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
              • Springee, to pursue your analogy, what I'm actually saying is that in effect, prior editors have already delved into the mountain biking content (presumably citing the kewl online magz covering the topic) while leaving out the bicycles-as-transportation content that dominates the high-quality, academic sources. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
                • But the problem is you are claiming the topic is under represented without showing it. I can't show down hill MT biking is under represented by citing sources on DH mtb'ing any more than you can show transgender topics are under represented in this article by citing articles about trangenderism. You need to cite broader sources to do that. Springee (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
                  • But my claim has nothing to do with transgender topics, much less articles about transgenderism (sic.: that is an offensive expression, please don't use it). What I am actually saying is that moat of the RS literature on "men" is on various aspects of "gender" - including gender identity, sure, but even more so about gender roles and other aspects of gender dynamics. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
                    • I didn't realize that was considered to be an offensive term. Science Direct quotes the Encyclopedia of Endocrine Diseases (Second Edition), saying it's an umbrella term and " has moved from the margins of medicine to an accepted medical issue." No mention was made of controversy around the term. Still, I will avoid the term based on your request. I don't think your view that this article needs more gender dynamics type content supports the need for transgender in the lead. Large scale gender dynamics is something that isn't inherently governed by transgender subtopics. Also, man-woman gender dynamics is something that is probably better in a primary topic on that subject since it inherently involves a comparison between primary gender roles. This might explain why the other online encyclopedias don't have separate "Man" and "Woman" topics. Springee (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. And the thing is, that in order to talk about "man" in relation to any issues of gender, the article has to define (or at least discuss definitions) of "man" as "a gender" - doing so without explicit reference to gender identities would a denial of the best sourcing, as well as defeating its own purpose in terms of clarity. Newimpartial (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Man and Person in context of One man, one vote and One person, one vote

In Talk:One man, one vote there is no consensus if One man, one vote and One person, one vote have the same meaning. In this context does Man and Person mean the same thing? What is the consensus? HudecEmil (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Categories: