Talk:Man/Archive 6

Collage - new diversification discussion
I made an edit here to show what it would look like to have the a nude image in place outside of the collage. I just used the image that is under the hidden section above. Now feel free to alter, remove or whatever but please first discuss the pros and cons of what I did first. I thought adding the image into the article directly would allow for editors to see what it could look like. This is more than I wanted to do for being uninvolved but I feel someone needed to get the discussion going again in a positive direction. Of course this can be put up in the collage or whatever is decided. I'm just trying to help. Thoughts? -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your testing. The discussion above focused pretty much on the infobox, and trying to make it more representative of all races and geographical regions, something I think should still be done. Also, I'd still prefer to go with the more clinical photo, if for no other reason than to show some respect for the sentiments of those opposing nudity at all in this article. Also, why caption in a non English language, what is that German?  He  iro  15:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't even notice the caption. I was trying to show what an nude image would look like outside of the collage.  If you don't like it, please feel free to revert it.  Like I said it was a test edit to try to get discussion going in a more positive direction.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you to the editor who changed the caption, very much appreciated. I was going to take care of it and got too involved in something else.  Thanks again, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Per BRD, I removed the pic. My reasoning being that I think we should concentrate on the Infobox, making it more representative per the discussion above. I think the image in the infor box is more clinical and less likely to incite another protracted edit war/overlong discussion here. Plus the pseudo tribal tattooing isnt very representative, if we are going to have an unclothed figure, it should be unadorned in any way. Any thoughts?  He  iro  16:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I put in my subject line that I just snagged this one to show what it could look like outside of a collage, or words to this affect. I also said I don't have any problems with anyone editing or removing the image which I still stand by.  I would like editors though to keep one thing in mind, young people,at least where I'm from in FL., have tattoos, some have lots of them.  You can see them during football games, wrestling ie: WWE along with lots of other places.  So having tattoos are no longer considered for use only by tribal people or people related to well whatever else you can think of.  It now seems that tatooing one's body is as common as females getting their bodies pierced.  I think that the image removed could have a place in the article or collage if editors want it.  If you look at the collage at Woman it starts with a naked woman and then the rest of the images are varieties of different things.  There are two head and two full body statues, five waist up images and a woman with child.  This one looks clean and as of yet, knock on wood hard ;), there are no one opposing them.  I think we should do the same thing here with the collage.  That article uses 11 images so how about this article doing the same with the collage but also doing the same with the types of images chosen? I definitely think the image of the man with a baby should be used.  Thoughts too, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with tattoos per se, I have several myself as can be seen by the image at my user page, I was just following the line of thinking that was argued for the inclusion of a nude figure, if its unadorned ot should be unadorned, but maybe thats just my line of thinking. Also, if the small infobox version thats as tame as it is caused such a protracted brouhaha, a standalone larger image of a tattooed man is sure to stir things up again. I think for now we should concentrate on the Infobox, working out a consensus of images and placement for them. It just seems more productive and less likely to reignite the dispute. Thoughts?  He  iro  20:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, have started working on gathering a few possible images, will add more later, something IRL came up.  He  iro  17:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Am I right in thinking that the generally agreed approach is to go for generic men from a representative mix of ethnicities, rather than a random selection of famous men? If so, I will see if I can assist here.-- K orr u ski Talk 17:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what I was proposing and what I have so far gone for here. A few lists of possibilities is above in the collapsed section(toward the bottom of the section). We were still working on a consensus about that particular issue, so am open for suggestions.  He  iro  17:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably the best approach. Showing a variety of ages and ethnicities tells us a bit more than the current mix of celebrities and general shots. Perhaps it might be good to find some full-length images as well, as they will make the nude picture look a bit less out of place.-- K orr u ski Talk 17:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are probably correct on that, its just the best images that seem representative so far have been head and shoulder shots, lol. Am welcome for alternate suggestions, was just trying to get the ball rolling.  He  iro  18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) It's looking good. I think it may be good to add the picture that is already in the collage of a man holding a child. Also, can the 'guy' image be enlarged a little? I just think it should look like all the other images that are going to be added. Also, remember that editors have suggested that the collage looks similar to the one at Woman. Keep up the good work. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  18:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have problems with "the guy" because 1) he's white and using a white naked dude has serious overtones of establishing whiteness as a "norm" or "natural" by the association with nudity as "natural", 2) he's artificially posed, and the pose is pretty bad. The Australian aboriginal man isn't a contemporary socio-culturally typical representation; the European man isn't a contemporary socio-culturally typical representation (it is aged ritual costume, posed). The current set has a bias towards ritual costume. I'm concerned a bit about the age range (biased old). I'm concerned that there's no man caring for children. As a debating point, does the article cover "man" as a social construction, or as a physiological exhibition? If the second, then we probably need a "man" occupying an alternate gender role or position. If the first, we may very well require a transman. I'm somewhat concerned about the facial focus. Man-ness involves assumptions about physical posing and social exhibition, which are best displayed through body shots. Physiological and geographic range of men seem to be well exhibited, though I'm a bit concerned about the absence of a Papuan man. In relation to the Maori man, is he encyclopaedically notable? If he is, we should probably avoid him and stick to non-notable men entirely. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tame Iti is encyclopaedically notable, better to not use him as an example. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, went with "the guy" because it is the most clinical representation I've see and was opting for that. We can use the man with the child from the previous collage, which another user has already included in this section. As for the Maori man, we can use a Papuan if you prefer, didnt realize he was that notable, just liked his face, was hoping to have him represent Polynesia as a whole. I was sorta going by the suggestions generated last month for the geographical and ethnic diversity, whbcih I will just duplicate here for convenience sake.


 * 2 Africans-one Subsaharan and one San
 * 2-a North and South American native
 * 2 Caucasians-say Mediterranian and Nordic?
 * 1 Middle Eastern
 * 3 Asian-Indian subcontinent, ethnic Chineese and Thai/Indonesian?
 * 1 South Pacific Islander/Polynesian
 * 1 Australian Aboriginal

It has been harder than I thought finding just normal people who arent recognizably famous. Thoughts?  He  iro  22:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the problems with homogenising the Pacific Islands diaspora with the Papuan-West Irian Jayan peoples is that they're culturally distinct. Then again, the Pacific Islands diaspora is internally culturally differentiated to a very great degree.  Tame Iti has a very distinctive face, with clear gendered practices of body modification for cultural reasons, but unfortunately he's encyclopaedically notable.  If we're going off geography, then I'd say we can conflate the Pacific outside of Australia as an area to represent.  However, we can probably ditch one of the European Caucasians to introduce new cultural diversity; especially if "the guy" we end up with is the current "the guy".  Especially given that our best male-relationship-to-infant picture at the moment is a Caucasian European-diaspora culture male.  A possibility for replacing the male-relationship-to-infant picture, we could find a male-relationship-to-child or a male-relationship-to-adolescent.  Many cultures emphasise a greater male involvement in child rearing once children are walking?  I do understand how difficult this is without access to licensed stock photos. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we conflated all of Asia to 3 images, all the ethnic groups of Africa to 2 images and all of North and South America to 2 images, so I dont see a problem with 1 person representing Polynesia/the South Pacific. I dont see a problem with losing a European, although I'm not quit sure why there is such an insistence on having a man with a child. Considering the insistence with the dispute before, I think the only way we cold lose the nude male is by finding a more suitable image. Open for suggestions from gthe community.  He  iro  00:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Most men live in societies and take some responsibility for reproduction, either in a family, or through education. In part it is to avoid a natalist bias by showing women in a relationship with a child at the counterpart article, but neglecting the socially reproductive function of men. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the question is what, exactly, we want this collage to show. It cannot possibly show every variation of male appearance/culture/behaviour, so we have to limit its scope to some extent. On reflection, I think it would be better containing only a mix of head-and-shoulder shots of non-famous men of different ethnicities. Any other aspects of 'maleness' that we want to show could be placed in a more appropriate point in the article. E.g. the nude shot should replace the da vinci (which is not a helpful depiction of male biology) and the shot of the man holding the baby could go under culture and gender roles. It could replace the picture of the pope which, although I get the point it is illustrating, strikes me as an unecessary picture for this article. Any thoughts on this approach?-- K orr u ski Talk 10:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would strongly prefer to have "the guy" (or some other guy) in his guyness separate from the collage. The collage seems to be mostly Mona-Lisa style upper body images or head shorts with natural backgrounds. Having a single clinical full-body image in there strikes me as odd. On the other hand, I strongly support inclusion of an image of a man (and nothing else) in the article on "man". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the suggestions of the above two posts by Stephan Schulz and - K orr u ski Talk. What would the other page watchers thnk of these suggestions?  He  iro  13:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Any naked black male images might be better here. I'm not saying that they are better, nor am I trolling, but is it not fair to say that people with an African skin color range- i.e. dark-skinned, have more genetic diversity owing to the Out of Africa theory in evolutionary biology. Apologies if this message seems out of place, I haven't been following this page until recently.--Graythos1 (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously wikipedians who illustrate the concept of man should volunteer for a nude high quality photo without artificial posing. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Heracles is not a good example, he's a demigod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.22.3.126 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

machismo
"Machismo is a form of masculine culture. It includes assertiveness or standing up for one's rights, responsibility, selflessness, general code of ethics, sincerity, and respect.[8]" This definition of machismo is in absolut contradiction with what is written in the "machismo" wikipedia page and with outher definitions for the same word that we find in outher pages. Surelly you can tell the difference between the personal view of the author and the general definition of the word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.250.45.65 (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Machismo does have both positive and negative connotations and we should strive to represent them both here in a neutral way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to represent both, where is the negative one? Not only it looks odd to read that about machismo and then, click on the link to read something completly diferent, as it sounds dissonant. I mean, you don't read about the positive view about white supremacy in the caucasian page, you don't read about the positive view of nacional socialism on the german page. If you ask me, you are exposing the male gender to ridicule (as you try to defend it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.50.6.138 (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the "machismo" entry is very strange, providing a definition I've never heard of in 54 years. No mention of what the word itself means, either = "male chauvinism". Change this please! 50.54.228.188 (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is there Mao zhedongs picture here?
Mao Zhedong is a political figure and this article is not limited to politics or any specific country so I think the picture of Mao Zhedong dosent belong here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.158.32.112 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He WAS a political figure, who had a huge influence on a big chunk of mankind for a while. We don't just post pics of the goodies here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mao was obviously a man, so I cannot really see your point. There is also a picture of Albert Einstein. That doesn´t mean that the article is limited to physics. --Oddeivind (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A discussion (above) on how to rejig the collage died out around 30 December 2010; you could contribute to the debate on what the collage should show. Consensus was for ethnic, cultural and age diversity, with one dude with a kid, and one "anatomical" naked dude, with most "men" being not encyclopaedically notable in themselves.  Under that consensus Mao nor Albert would appear. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there consensus that we need a collage at all, rather than a single image? To me it looks dreadful, and is clearly unnecessary as we manage well without one on similar pages like Human. It will also lead to endless disputes about which people to include within it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Image of Presidents of United States
I really don't know why the images of United States presidents is present in this article. There are lot of examples for titles which are held only by men so far. In fact there are lot countries in which the presidents/state heads have been only men (E.g China,Japan etc). Can we please remove this image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivasamyk (talk • contribs) 18:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

New montage
It occurs to me that we should strive for some symmetry between the articles on man and woman. Of the introcuctory montages in the two articles, the one in the woman-article appeared to be the better-prepared one, so I decided to use that one as a "template" for a montage for the man-article. I've kept most of the images originally used in the old montage in the man-article, but left out some. Using File:Woman_Montage_(1).jpg as a template, here are some of the things I've considered:
 * focus on head shots
 * including men from all parts of the world, different ages, time periods, etc. (It's not a perfect distribution of course, I'm biased like everyone else, but I did my best at least. Feel free to improve on my work.)
 * mix of paintings, sculptures and photos
 * including one farmer
 * including one father (I've got two actually)
 * trying to avoid controversial people (which is why I did not include Mao Zhedong)

Hategroups
Why does this page promote hategroups and credit those very same hategroups with the work of hundreds of years of feminism? --Voidkom (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

lead should summarize topic, see WP:LEAD
Trying to make the lead more of a summary. Pitch in and help, if you like. Leadwind (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit on 19 February 2013
The previous edit requests had a racist basis seeing as how the people who requested the initial change to the etymology had no issue showing england and germany's influence on the word; but the country of origin, which is India, was asked to be removed. How much more racist can you get anyway? If you have a problem with grammar feel free to fix it, however DO NOT omit an entire race's contribution to the word (ESPECIALLY WHEN THE WORD ORIGINATES IN THE COUNTRY). If you look down on Indians then you should take a look at which race earns the highest gdp per capita in America.

English and German are new languages in comparison to the Indo-Aryan Languages that still use the word [such as Sinhala (Manuseya) man]. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archetypex07 (talk • contribs) 19 February 2013


 * You are not adressing the problems. We don't have any evidence that the word originated in the country of India. The sources states that it orginates from the Proto-Indo-European root man-, of which the Indian word is probably also originated. But it is highly unlikely that the English word is derived from the Indian word, rather they both derive from the same Proto-Indo-European origin. If you want your version to stay in the article you will need to provide us with some reliable sources for your claim. The reason why the English (Germanic) etymology is prominent is because this is an English language encyclopedia. The etymologies of other languages are only mentioned if it is relevant for the term, and that is not the case here (at least not until you provide a source to that effect). And please spare us from the nationalistic nonsense, it has no bearing on this whatsoever and does not help your case at all, in fact quite the opposite. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem here is racism as well as your incorrect, unprofessional, and racially biased sources. Someone even brought up some etymology site created by another biased person. Please bring in actual facts like the links on the superscripts in the current version of the article. Many German born linguists agree with my statements. It saddens me to bring the nazis into this but it is sadly one of the reasons why Hitler chose to: have so many excursions in India, use the term Aryan, and use the Swastika symbol. It is well documented that people high up in the third reich had the same sentiments; people like Heinrich Himler who followed indian culture and kept a copy of the Bhagavad Gita in his back pocket.-Archetypex07 (talk)


 * Please stay focused on the edits and refrain from making spurious accusations. As long as you do not provide any WP:RS for your claims, your version cannot be accepted in the article. I am not quite sure what you mean by "superscripts in the current version of the article". The version you have edit-warred into being the current version does not contain any Citations. As long as that is the case they can be removed or altered to a version which does contain such citations. That is what is going to happen here shortly unless you provide some sources. Also please refrain from refactoring comments here on the talk page. The newest post goes at the bottom of the page, don't move them around, and please remember to sign your posts using ~ . --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No where does it say that the newest posts must go on the bottom. Stop enforcing your self created rules on me.-Archetypex07 (talk)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.156.9.68 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2013
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.[3]" 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 [3] 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 Wikipedia page itself.

Thank you!

14.96.214.161 (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. Leadwind  (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems like there one editor 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 WP:Edit warring 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 User:Archetypex07 can provide some reliable sources that backs up the claim of Indian origin, the edit request version is going back in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 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 Wikipedia! The same applies for the meaning of the word woman! Must be that Wikipedia belongs to a select group of human cultures. Anthropological expansion of Wikipedia is needed to overcome the limitations of cultural bias endemic on Wikipedia ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.249.232 (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia belongs to a select group of human cultures. Anthropological expansion of Wikipedia is needed to overcome the limitations of cultural bias endemic on Wikipedia !” 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 Wikipedia “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 Wikipedia. I was well aware of how Hindu “nationalists” had (and have) been using Wikipedia 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 English term "man" is derived from Old English mann, which in turn is ultimately derived from the Indian name Manu.” And further, “The Germanic form is derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *manu-s "man, person", which in turn is derived from the Indian name Manu, 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 Wikipedia 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.200.54 (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2013 (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)

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)
 * please provide it  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:48, 1 September 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)

Edit request on 13 January 2015
A protected redirect, Manhood, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows: 
 * from this...
 * 1) redirect Man


 * to this...
 * 1) REDIRECT Man

Template Redr is an alias for the This is a redirect template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. No protection category is needed, and if pp-protected and/or pp-move suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect protection level(s) and include them automatically. Thank you in advance! – Paine EllsworthC LIMAX ! 23:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE MIDDLE LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, very much, Red rose64! –  Paine    18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  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!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please 23:53, 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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not Chaz but Buck Angel? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/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)

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)
 * Though I'm not sure about the claim that transgender men are not "real" men (perhaps not biologically), I do find it somewhat strange that we're including unknown men on the basis of their being transgendered, and at the exclusion of some of the most influential and famous male figures in history (e.g. Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Hitler, Caesar). What are the priorities here? To prove how liberal and progressive wikipedia is? LokiiT (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is WP:DUE. The article talks enough about trans men to warrant inclusion in the collage. That said, it would be hilarious to see how people would react to Hitler in the image collage.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please replace Erik Schinegger
Erik Schinegger neither considers himself a man nor is legally a man and therefore should not be included. Asians seem underrepresentated. I suggest Michio Kaku. BenjaminKay (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Erik Schinegger article uses masculine pronouns and seems to refer to them as a man. Do you have any sources about them not identifying as a man? Also, legal status doesn't matter much per WP:IDENTITY.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you bother reading the wiki article about him. The sources are on the bottom of the article. BenjaminKay (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * We could swap out Schinegger and swap in Buck Angel (mentioned above), I suppose. Thoughts? People might dislike the inclusion of an adult film star. Who else could be used? -sche (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

New Infobox
The current collage of pictures is extremely arbitrary, as it is impossible to say these men represent the idea of a man better than others. Why would some of these men be more qualified to be in the infobox than others? The current set up is subject to constant, bias changes that cannot be fully resolved. This was also an issue in the Americans article, in which a group box of people was once used, but eventually removed due to the group's arbitrary composition. I believe one classic image of a man should be used, such as Leonardo Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, which is already used in the article, Michelangelo's David, or Benvenuto Cellini's Perseus, to name a few. It does not even have to be a Western image; a classic image from any culture will do. What do other editors think? JosephSpiral (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's intended to show a variety of types of men. Choosing just one would be more bias imho.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * An article about a topic as vast as the human man can show a representation of man, in whatever medium, rather than a bunch of men in a group collage. This group collage is incredibly bias. How did you choose those men? Editing this page is under such a close watch and the people who are chosen to literally represent "man" is not done in any particularly logical way. It seems as though people are just putting in people they personally admire. Ronaldo? Seriously? And Errol Flynn? That infobox collage has not been created in good faith. It's very obvious what's going on: a few editors who decided to put people they admire and are ardent about anyone changing it. JosephSpiral (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't assume ill intent.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * JosephSpiral, until you make it clear what you think is wrong with the collage, this is an empty complaint. I have not been involved in the writing of this page or the creation of the collage, but if you look at this talk page and the archive, you'll see there has been plenty of discussion and changes made as the editors attempt to represent as much of the variety of men as they can. That's the exact opposite of "arbitrary". If you think there's a kind of man that's not represented, a kind of man that's overrepresented, or an individual you think should or shouldn't be there, then please say so. Otherwise, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nicknack009, this is hardly an empty complaint. Calling it as such, and simply saying that I don't like it, is empty on your part. I am calling for an open discussion about the type of picture(s) in the infobox. As such, I would like to know what the criteria are for the pictures being used. Also, I would like to know if there is any categorization as to the type of pictures used in the collage. I believe there should be transparency. JosephSpiral (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You still haven't explained what you think is wrong with the collage. I don't think this need detain anybody any further. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Joseph has explained. I would put things this way. By having a collage we show some intent to represent the concept of 'man' in it entirety and in a completely neutral way.  This is in impossible task and one at which the current collage fails.  Better to admit defeat and have just one image. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's right, Martin Hogbin. This failed attempt at representing man through a collage will forever be an impossible task, one forged with constant bias and underrepresentation. The changes made to the collage will never cease. Using one image shows that it is an example of a man, but creating a collage with many men gives the appearance that it is a comprehensive depiction of what a man is. However, you will never fully represent the notion of the "man" and thus, the collage becomes a transparent representation of who the editors want to see there, complete with their own bias. JosephSpiral (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality
Homosexuality is defined by the common man as "being sexually attracted to the same sex". The true meaning of homosexuality has been ignored for decades. To be homosexual is to be sexually attracted to males, regardless of gender. (Sex and Facts, Harris) (The Psychology of Attraction, Thompson). — Preceding unsigned comment added by S812534ariana (talk • contribs)
 * The definition above does not appear to align with that in several dictionaries, each of which support a definition of same sex attraction. If the definition above is to be included it must be be verified by sources; per WP:BURDEN. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with Ryk72 here. The reference above here to the definition of homosexuality is absolutely ancient and obsolete. It applies to the first half of the 20th Century and probably the 19th Century as well. But has been replaced since that time, by Ryk72's cited definition. It hasn't been a viable definition since before the 1970s, which for those folks who haven't paid attention to the last 40 years or so, begins with the advent of the 1970s as a general rule, when academic research is institutionalized and takes off exponentially. But the "true meaning of homosexuality" has not been viable, as described above, since women were included in the equation of societal consideration, and that begins post-mortem to the "feminist movement" that is jettisoned in the late 1960s and becomes the foundation for everything since, again at the start of the 1970s, as a springboard into the most recent epic... Regards... Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2016
There is one thing about this article that is so absurd, the fact that they say that transgender men are men is not right they might identify themselves as men or whatever but that does not make you a man or a woman, Being a man is not a social construct it´s biological the article is crawling with flaws for example when they describe what it is to be a man the X and Y hormone and it all makes sense but when they are done explaining that they wreck what they just said with words like but or however, this page is not scientifically right when did our feeling matter more than logic, i don't care if you call yourself a pony a dragon or a woman or a man it does not mean that you are one, if I would say I'm a pony from space with a huge spaceship does not mean that I'm I can gladly say mam instead of sir if they ask me to but the idiocracy in this article is so bad this feminist propaganda. men are men women are women I feel bad that you are not what you want to be but we need to respect logic and feelings at the same time I have nothing against trans or homosexuals or whatever people are calling stuff now but we need to respect logic and the truth and the truth is these women are not men what makes a man is not social construct or strength or speech it´s our hormones our body structure our penis and brain what you like sexually does not describe your gender I love you Wikipedia and I know that you most likely will ignore this but just hear me out, you made this site for one reason and that reason was to educate but how can we do that when we have false evidence. 4+4 is not 5 and we can't just change that to suit our needs my name is Guðmundur Bjarni jónasson and this is not my opinion this is the fact.

194.144.73.158 (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes (Talk) 17:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2016
WikiMan024898 (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

❌ it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Machismo redux
That the given definition is biased and blatantly contradicts the Machismo article has already been noted in 2011, but still nothing has been done to address this issue. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If it's problematic, tweak it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Male
This article says that a man is a male human, but not all men are male. Trans men are female. It should say a man is generally a male human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminikuta (talk • contribs) 06:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The statement that trans men are female uses the point of view of people who think the easy way, which is that transgenderism is just playing make-believe. Please do research on how transgenderism works. Georgia guy (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're playing make believe, or not real men, but a male is defined as the one that produces sperm. Benjamin (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The article should say that a man is generally a male human. I made this change, but it was reverted. I will make it again if there is no comment. Benjamin (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do research on exactly what transgenderism is. Christine Jorgensen is a trans woman. She had male anatomy until it was fixed with surgery. But she has always had her female brain structure. This is how experts think of transgender people. Such people need to be thought of in a respectful way. Georgia guy (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * While I don't fully agree with Georgia guy, since the sex and gender distinction does exist, and since a number of transgender people use that distinction to state that their sex is different than their gender identity (even after surgery), and since the causes of transsexuality are not clear-cut and not all transgender peoples' brain anatomy will correlate with their gender identity, I reverted you because I don't see that "generally" is needed. It's awkward, and the lead already notes the topics of being transgender or intersex. I also don't know of any sources that use "generally" like that for the definition of a man or woman. I reverted you at the Woman article for those same reasons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the statement "A man is a male human." is simply not always true. Benjamin (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem with upholding the sex/gender distinction is that there is no way around the fact that it implies that trans people's genders are less valid than those of cis people, because "being male" and "being a man" are generally considered to be one and the same. This makes it extremely awkward at best to call trans men "female" (regardless of the addition of a qualifier such as "biologically"), and vice versa. There is no way this is not in effect being read as "a trans man is really a woman (who pretends to be a man)", and vice versa. Therefore the sex/gender distinction – an instance of biologistic gender essentialism – is inherently cissexist and transphobic, as it forces, through a backdoor, gendered labels on people even though they reject them. (Worse, these labels come with an authority that makes them seem "more real" than whatever the subjects say, with disastrous consequences especially for poor trans women of colour. The idea that trans women are "male" merely empowers bigots, who treat them as deceivers.)
 * Whatever it is that makes trans people have an identity that is not congruent with the gender they were assigned at birth, it probably has some biological basis (or bases) too. And not only in intersex people, but also in non-intersex trans people, especially those who transitioned very early so that they never underwent the puberty consistent with their gender assigned at birth, and who had extensive surgeries to remove as much of the anatomy inconsistent with their identity, "sex" can be quite difficult to define. Even in non-intersex people, the Y-chromosome isn't as crucial as popularly thought (compare, for example, the ISNA website).
 * The whole sex/gender business is not nearly as clear-cut as laypeople assume, which has led to some trans activists calling to abandon the concept of sex as distinct from gender altogether: people who identify as women are female and have female bodies, people who identify as men are male and have male bodies, people who identify outside the conventional gender binary are androgynous and have androgynous bodies, full stop. Some people have untypical bodies with untypical properties, both cis and trans. Some people take sexual hormones and have surgeries related to reproductive anatomy, both cis and trans. Some people are infertile, both cis and trans. Trans people aren't inherently different from cis people, their bodies, lives and experiences are just unusual. Deal with it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Florian Blaschke, the sex and gender distinction wasn't created to be cissexist and transphobic; it was created to distinguish genetic sex from all the social aspects of gender. Although some people use it in cissexist and transphobic ways, I don't consider it cissexist and transphobic. And like I noted above, a number of transgender people use the distinction. So do a number of intersex people. In these cases, the point that transgender and intersex people are making is that it can be problematic for people to automatically assume that one's genetic sex, or rather assigned sex, automatically determines their gender identity/gender expression. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said that the distinction was created to be cissexist and transphobic, but (intent isn't magic, remember?) it still works that way now because most people assume that gender is only a social(ly constructed) "mask" while sex is biological and "scientific" and "objectively real" and all that. But gender is far more complicated than this simplistic dichotomy. In Whipping Girl, Julia Serano uses "gender" as the overarching term, and distinguishes between "physical sex" (which itself is composed of a large number of variables, not only chromosomal or genetic ones, which are in itself considerably more complicated than assumed by laypeople, but also primary and secondary genitals and hormones among others), "subconscious sex" (which is not identical with what gender identity is usually understood to be now) and "gender expression", which includes numerous intrinsic inclinations, especially presentation, behaviours, interests and affinities.
 * A cis man with a "feminine" gender expression (for example a cis crossdresser, or a mild-mannered man with interests that are culturally coded as feminine) has no problem with his assigned gender and his body and is therefore completely different from a trans woman, some of whom are butch lesbians who are not traditionally feminine in the slightest (and vice versa for cis tomboys/butches vs. trans men and transmasculine people). She does use the term "sex", but differentiates between "assigned sex (at birth)" and "preferred/identified/lived sex", so a trans woman's sex is not male and a trans man's not female in her view, and that of most trans activists.
 * The lazy sex/gender distinction completely blurs these complications and is therefore unhelpful and even harmful. The womanhood of a trans woman and the manhood of a trans man are not merely "a social aspect". A female, male or nonbinary identity is not part of the clothes you wear, and is strictly separate from a feminine, masculine or mixed/androgynous gender expression. Much harm is being done when the manhood of a man or the womanhood of a woman (regardless of whether they are cis or trans) are called into question based on the way they express their gender, and when gender identity is assumed to be obvious by the way one looks and behaves in the first place. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Florian Blaschke, I know that you didn't state that. I was stating why I do not fully agree with you. You stated, "most people assume that gender is only a social(ly constructed) 'mask' while sex is biological and 'scientific' and 'objectively real' and all that.", but that's not true. Like you stated earlier, "'being male' and 'being a man' are generally considered to be one and the same." In my experience, most people do not subscribe to the sex and gender distinction. They generally view a penis as belonging to a boy or a man. They think that if the body is anatomically male (by that, I obviously mean that the anatomical literature defines some body parts and internal makeup as male and others as female), then the gender is a boy or a man. In my experience, informing and/or educating people on the sex and gender distinction in cases like these helps people understand why gender/gender identity and sex are not necessarily the same thing. It helps them understand transgender and intersex matters. I think Trankuility, who mainly focuses on intersex matters while editing Wikipedia, adheres to this distinction for reasons I've noted. Some are still stubborn in their beliefs even after the matter is explained to them, but others are not. I know your views on sex and gender, but this is not the place to debate them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you're probably right that most laypeople don't make any distinction between assigned gender (usually based on external anatomy at birth, not chromosomes) and gender identity at all and think a trans person is simply playing pretend. But when they learn about the distinction, it's obvious to think "aha, so sex refers to what they really are and gender to what they pretend to be". And that's how transphobic feminists use the distinction too: to invalidate trans people's gender identities. Because they argue that "gender" is only a social role that can be arbitrary selected, while sex is what really matters (because it determines initial socialisation).
 * But "physical sex" or "biological sex" or "anatomical sex" is just as much a social construct as gender is, and no more "objective" or "scientific" (because in reality it is a continuum, not a binary). Very much like race vs. ethnicity or nationality, by the way. Sex assignment can be fairly arbitrary and is prone to error. That's why trans people prefer to talk about "assigned gender" and "gender identity" instead, which is far more neutral and objective. That's far from my unique personal opinion, it's a widespread critique we should acknowledge. Gender is extremely complex and the sex/gender distinction is a highly misleading simplification.
 * (In fact, I've seen a trans friend bring up the sex/gender distinction a few days ago and argue just this – that it is can be problematic, especially when using the "sex is what's between your legs, gender is what's between your ears" talking point, and opens up pathways to erasure and discrimination especially against transfeminine people. So I take offence at the dismissive suggestion that "yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man", as the catchphrase goes.)
 * Let me just quote Serano (20162, p. 332): "The unilateral feminist notion that women were coerced into femininity was further facilitated by the growing use of the sex/gender distinction, which differentiated between one's sex (which arose from biology) and gender (which arose from one's environment, socialization, and psychology).4", where the footnote says the following: "The sex/gender distinction is generally attributed to Robert Stoller (Sex and Gender). For two varying feminist critiques of the sex/gender distinction, see Judith Butler, Bodies that Matter [...], and Moira Gatens, Imaginary Bodies: Ethics, Power, and Corporeality (London: Routledge, 1996), 3–20." Wikipedia can't simply ignore this discussion and insist that trans men are "female" and vice versa. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank for mentioning me, Flyer22 Reborn. I agree that the sex/gender distinction is sometimes useful, and also that it is generally ignored. I seek to respect sources, and document them. In terms of my personal opinion, the distinction is moot. Sex is also socially determined and means many different things in different contexts. In discussions about (rather than by) intersex people, a biological sex/ gender identity distinction is often presumed, ignoring that legal sex is probably more relevant than whatever is meant by biological or genetic sex. Biological sex is often simply irrelevant or difficult to reduce to a neat and simple classification. Clinically, chromosomes and androgen response are significant in making an assignment, but most cases are likely diagnosed at times other than at birth, when legal sex is likely established and where rates of gender dysphoria are known to be higher than amongst dyadic (non-intersex) populations but are still generally between 8.5 and 20%. There are other ways of being lazy: in citing the ISNA website when that organization closed in 2008. It is also lazy to illustrate a point by mentioning the existence of intersex people, without considering the implications of that distinction for intersex people. It is lazy to reduce intersex to a talking point (a point made eloquently by Graffam here), failing to consider the well established human rights issues involved in imposing sex and gender norms on intersex people, and finally by failing to consider a range of different perspectives held by intersex people. Looking at notable sources, Georgiann Davis maintains a strict sex/gender distinction (here, for example). Mauro Cabral Grinspan doesn't use that distinction because he favors a different distinction between bodies and identities (for example here). The available data suggest that intersex people have, to quote Organisation Intersex International Australia, "very diverse understandings of intersex bodies, sexes and genders". The distinction between bodies and identities seems more pragmatic, particularly taking a less anglocentric perspective on a world where many languages don't maintain a sex/gender distinction. Trankuility (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to criticise me indirectly for linking to the ISNA website. It was simply a convenient way to demolish the argumentum ad Y-chromosoma. This is about a widely acknowledged fact among experts; whether the organisation is active or not is completely irrelevant in context. I do feel uncomfortable "exploiting" intersex people to make a point about "biological sex", but there's no question that intersex is simply of central relevance to the discussion when alleged "objective realities" are trotted out again and again to erase both intersex and trans people. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, as one of my citations (Graffam) points out, intersex people are erased in such discussions, in part because a sex/gender distinction is not itself the primary issue for that population: the primary issue is medicalization, the treatment of bodies. So instrumentalization is real and assuming that the interests of intersex and trans people are the same, and that the locations of erasure are the same, is part of that. But I also agree with Flyer22 Reborn below. What matters on Wikipedia pages is what is verifiable and notable. Trankuility (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can ignore most of this particular talk page discussion since Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. And I don't see it insisting anywhere "that trans men are 'female' and vice versa." I see one editor at the beginning of this discussion insisting that. As for opinions, since some transgender and intersex people would disagree with some of what you've stated, and not all of what you stated is a fact, some of what you stated can be considered opinion. I'm not stating that I disagree with all of what you stated; I'm stating that I don' fully agree with everything you've stated and that Wikipedia has a certain way it's supposed to work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Transgender text
HeliumPearl, this text that you are insisting on is gibberish, offensive and lacks accuracy. That is why I reverted you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Unsourced and incorrect.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How so? Please explain.HeliumPearl (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll I restore it with sources (because WP:NOTCENSORED). A: It blatantly makes sense, please stop adding your feelings. B: Offensiveness shouldn't mean anything on Wikipedia. One of its core principles is to be uncensored.HeliumPearl (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I genuinely don't see how it was offensive in the first place. Could you enlighten me please?HeliumPearl (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And considering how you just fail to be objective in your point of view, you should be grateful that I undertook the burden to reword the sentence to make it less "offensive".HeliumPearl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The only thing that makes the sentence even remotely close to offensive seems to have been only the wording. But it doesn't really hold that much offense value if you just look past the wording. I don't get how this can be labelled as offensive.HeliumPearl (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for all the comments on this talk page, I was just too dumbfounded that I didn't find the right words to express myself with. I promise never to spam comments, but only to speak after I have found the right words.HeliumPearl (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Intersex" refers to chromosomal abnormalities. "Transgender" refers to those biologically female (XX), but had their genitals surgically modified so as to fit what they identify as. Nevertheless, they are still XX, so they should be insparate sentences from intersex people. Does this make sense? I beg your thoughts.HeliumPearl (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And no, please don't even try to interpret "abnormal" as somehow bigoted. It just means "uncommon", and isn't even in the articleHeliumPearl (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your latest addition of "Some lesbians undergo numerous surgical operations to mimic males (so as to fit their gender identity) as transgender men." is also inaccurate. Taking sources from the Transgender article (ones I added to that article) and then using them to try to support your inaccuracy does not make your text correct. For one, your statement is calling trans men lesbians. A number of trans men identified as lesbians before realizing/coming to terms with their true gender identity, but other trans men never identified as lesbians. There are gay trans men (those who state that they are primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to men).

For now, I will contact WP:LGBT about weighing in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Flyer22 Reborn, I see nothing in the added sources to support the statement about "lesbians mimicing males" made in this edit. Transgender men are men who were assigned female at birth. Not only is their sexual orientation irrelevant, so are their chromosomes (which normally you have no knowledge of, as genetic testing is not routinely performed on newborns or adults for that matter), and not all trans men undergo surgical or hormonal procedures. Also, intersex encompasses more than "chromosomal abnormalities", but that's also irrelevant to the edit in question. Funcrunch (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060519035935/http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE295.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE295.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Man as Obsolete Reference for "Mankind" and what we now refer to as Humankind
Shouldn't there be some early referral in the article to the use of "Man" as indicating a generic label for "Mankind" since all academic references until about 25 to 40 years ago consistently referred to Man etymologically for Mankind or Humankind. It is, of course, no longer PC and isn't applicable or recognizable for a consideration of Humankind in our evolved usage of the term, but shouldn't there be a very brief mention of its prior obsolete use to facilitate those who encounter it in older texts and articles, so they can use that information as a quick means of dispelling the inherent confusion that could occur to someone who is younger and maybe offended by its use and applicability in the current world? Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially as an awful lot of people still use the word in this "obsolete" way.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean, this article should be at Man (gender) with Man re-directing to human?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the earlier use of "man" should be covered. If you disregard the PC aspect, this is a most neat and elegant way of referring to the human race, used in the past in texts that will always be read. See
 * What a piece of work is man! Shakespeare
 * Of man's first disobedience  Milton
 * Essay on Man Pope
 * Man's inhumanity to man  Burns
 * The Descent of Man  Darwin

15:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Seadowns (talk)

The Images on this Article
The article's main image is of Adam touching the hand of God. This should be replaced. It is sexist in nature because no such other image (of a female touching god's hand) exists in the same context. Likewise, it is Judeo-Christian in nature and not inclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snuggleton (talk • contribs) 21:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Use an image depicting several men in a collage (see [carnivora]). --169.231.181.119 (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This painting of Adam is not representative of an actual man. I think the following photo would be perfect if it weren't for what he is holding (but it is fairly inconspicuous) : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sri_Lanka_(569453197).jpg

Things to consider in representation: Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Activity- going about his life as normal, unposed, but not visibly defined by a form of labor
 * 2) Nudity- 3/4
 * 3) Race- Asian
 * 4) Non-western cultures- Sri Lankan
 * 5) Facial and body hair- both
 * 6) Age- early middle age
 * 7) Attractiveness- average
 * 8) Cultural signifiers- limited, emphasis on man not culture

, shall we discuss? It didn't seem like there was particularly a consensus on the painting, but it was the status quo for a long time. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do what we did at Talk:Woman or start a WP:RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 Reborn, add several pictures to the talk page to discuss rather than just changing the lead image after considering the discussion at Talk:Woman? I can do that, it just didn't seem like anyone was interested in commenting after I edited this section of the talk page.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't like the current image at Man either, but I am also not a fan of the image of the guy with a knife. If the current lead image is changed, I would vote for an image that matches the current lead image at Woman. Leviv&thinsp;ich 01:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Leviv, do you dislike the image I added because of the knife, or did you have other thoughts? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , no, also the working thing, about which I think you and I reasonably but fundamentally disagree (BTW 150 million American workers out of 250 million American adults = most people work), and if we're going to change the picture, I'd rather change it to something that matches Woman. I'm not opposed to changing either or both, though, nor would I insist that the person must be working. My preferences there aren't that strong. Leviv&thinsp;ich 02:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is true. I didn't consider that these articles are only about adults. I'll see what else I can find that might be a temporary consensus option.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Men's rights
, Men's Rights is linked to twice in the See Also section. Should these be removed? --Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It's also linked to in Boy. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that to others to sort out. I don't necessarily have a problem with the men's rights article being linked, I just objected to the giant men's rights sidebar at the top of the page. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 09:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead images: future RfC
I have put a gallery together of image options for an RfC for the lead images of both this article and WP:Woman. We can use the associated talk page to narrow down our choices prior to an RfC. I have included more images of men because IMO the existing lead image of WP:Man is worse than the existing image of WP:Woman. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

For reference: Manual of Style: Lead Image Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think any picture currently in the gallery would be an improvement over the painting of Adam that is the current lead image here. Originally I liked the idea of a picture of a person working, but I've come around to the idea that it's best to have people doing nothing (just people, existing). Looking forward to hearing others' thoughts. Leviv&thinsp;ich 14:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Of the photographic candidates my favorites are the current one (steps crop), which I really like, as well as one I added ("Wizened") (I feel like Wizened was maybe the lead image of Man at one point?) Didn't like the paintings of famous people that were briefly added, feel the image should not be a well known real figure. I'll also add that while I can think of several reasons why Adam isn't a good choice (Eurocentric, Christiancentric, idealized fantasy painting rather than encyclopedic reality, etc,) it is a powerful and beautiful image to me and so I am a little torn about it being removed. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The current image is awful for illustrating a man. First of all, the position of the camera shows none of the basic male form. he's wearing clothing and electronic accessories that cover the form and are extraneous. He's not shown doing anything particular that would indicate the male role. -- Netoholic @ 13:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As of now, Netoholic is the only editor who has expressed a preference for the Creation of Adam painting to be the lead image. Is there anyone else who agrees with him that Creation of Adam should be restored as the lead image? Leviv&thinsp;ich 14:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have a preference for it. I believe the current image is non-illustrative and so restored the image that's been here since 2017 until a consensus is shown to change it. -- Netoholic @ 16:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a new gallery (a talk subpage, no longer userspace) for presenting options. -- Netoholic @ 16:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm. The image of a sitting man is not great (the pose and electronics are distracting, though I recognize that some might see it as inconsistent that I don't find the Woman article's image of a woman doing something to be similarly problematic), though I recognize that the image of Adam also has issues, including being a painting (not even a photograph) and being religious. It's somewhat impressive to me that with as many pictures as we have on Commons, there aren't more obvious candidates. I don't want my comment to be used as fodder for further edit-warring, but I am not sure the few users who've commented here can really be considered a consensus for the sitting man. I recognize that the diversity of preferences any large group of editors would have might make finding consensus for anything very difficult. Perhaps we should try and assemble the best candidate we can and set up some kind of ranked-choice/instant-runoff RfC (as have been done in the past for a number of contentious things). -sche (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree about that path forward, and I think that's the direction Kolya had in mind when setting up Talk:Man/sandbox and Talk:Woman/sandbox. I also don't want to set off (or participate in) any more edit warring; the question is whether we have consensus to go with the sitting man picture over the painting, for now, until a more permanent replacement is chosen. For my part, I'd support going with almost any photograph over the painting. But as there are only two other editors who have expressed support for it, it won't take much disagreement for us to have a "no consensus" situation. (But it would take the disagreement of more than just one editor.) Leviv&thinsp;ich 21:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Young man in Brazil sitting on steps - crop.jpg

Requested move (Masculism)
Hi all, your considered input would be appreciated here:

Talk:Masculism

One proposal is to move the Masculism article to Masculinism and template:Masculism sidebar to template:Masculinism sidebar

An additional/counter proposal is to move template:Masculism sidebar to template:Boys and men sidebar and template:Masculinism to template:Boys and men

WanderingWanda (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This notice originally presented the proposals incorrectly, and has now been corrected. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding boys and men to Template talk:Feminism sidebar
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Template talk:Feminism sidebar. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)