Talk:Man/Archive 1

message: Are we going to have Man reflect Woman in the scope of illustrations?  On Talk:Woman there's a lively discussion on how best to show a picture of a naked woman.  (Many agree that there should be such a picture, but it's more a matter of which).  Unfortunately, it may be a little difficult to get as good a picture for Man -- most nude photos and paintings are of women.  I would also like to note that the taboos are a little different in Europe and the U.S.A. on nudity; in Europe it is more acceptable, and male nudity is not as taboo as in the U.S.A. --  Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:10, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
:There's a nice picture at de:Mann of a male model, not nude (he's in sort of a racing-style swimsuit), that I would like to move here, but I'm not sure how. It would be better than the picture we have with its sarcastic-sounding "Notice that men and women are different" in spite of the fact that the woman in the picture looks like a man with breasts glued on. --Angr 08:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting you find the current picture "macho". I put it up here after a long debate at :de:Mann about what image to have there, and at least a few people found this picture not "manly" enough, complaining the model was too young and "pretty-boyish". Angr (talk • contribs) 10:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I forgot we have multiple images here. I was talking about , not , which might well be considered "macho". Angr (talk • contribs) 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, since the article is about men it's important to show what the male body looks like. The only disadvantage the photo is that his feet are cut off. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. 'Man' may be a complex idea, but the definition is anatomical, and a picture of a naked man illustrates that. It would be best to have the full legnth, including feet though otherwise Gloeden1895 is good. Thehalfone 09:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I say, a photograph of real human being is superior to a drawing of an idealized one any day, and that using a drawing to avoid showing (shock, horror) real genitals smacks of censorship. —Angr 05:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but right now the main pic for the woman article is the venus de milo, intended as a compliment to the david pic in this article, which needless to say is totally unacceptable. im trying to help gain a consensus while maintaining symmetry between these two articles. --70.162.84.48 07:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think parallelism between the articles Man and Woman is particularly important, but why not use :Image:Vintage nude photograph 3.jpg as a complement to the Gloeden portrait we have here? —Angr 08:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this suggestion would be more appropriate in the Talk page for Woman, rather than debating this issue on a completely unrelated page, where there is very little contestation about the use of David.  The people, who are taking issue with the images used on the Woman page appear to be avoiding debate in a proper place, and seek support or stir up controversy on a page that is not contesting the appropriateness of the image for their own article.  If anyone has any reasonable complaint about using David as a model for the Man article, then raise the objections here... on their own merits... don't drag in some argument from a different page to advance your goals for that page. --Puellanivis 05:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: As mentioned above, the debate in Talk:Woman over the main image is still very much contested. I suggested using these as the main images for the Woman and Man articles, for the following reasons:
*The image they are derived from is free
*The images are complimentary
*The images are recognizable
*The images are professional quality
*The images are non-photographic nudes with genitalia clearly visible
*The images are intentionally generic and intended to educate an audience with an assumed knowledge of zero
What say the stewards of this article? --popefauvexxiii 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say, a photograph of real human being is superior to a drawing of an idealized one any day, and that using a drawing to avoid showing (shock, horror) real genitals smacks of censorship. —Angr 05:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but right now the main pic for the woman article is the venus de milo, intended as a compliment to the david pic in this article, which needless to say is totally unacceptable. im trying to help gain a consensus while maintaining symmetry between these two articles. --70.162.84.48 07:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think parallelism between the articles Man and Woman is particularly important, but why not use :Image:Vintage nude photograph 3.jpg as a complement to the Gloeden portrait we have here? —Angr 08:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this suggestion would be more appropriate in the Talk page for Woman, rather than debating this issue on a completely unrelated page, where there is very little contestation about the use of David.  The people, who are taking issue with the images used on the Woman page appear to be avoiding debate in a proper place, and seek support or stir up controversy on a page that is not contesting the appropriateness of the image for their own article.  If anyone has any reasonable complaint about using David as a model for the Man article, then raise the objections here... on their own merits... don't drag in some argument from a different page to advance your goals for that page. --Puellanivis 05:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image suggestion for your consideration 

message: The word man comes from the Sanskrit word manu which means thinker. The Sanskrit word manu descended to and was borrowed by Latin where it was used to mean the thinker that used hands. Hence, our word manual as to operate manually which means for a thinker to operate with his or her hands. (Source: http://www.som.org/2laws/Store/bookdetails/ulmchapter.htm)
:Even if the above is inaccurate, is it notable enough for inclusion? I really like the concept of manu, so I'd like to have it if at all possible. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 13:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of articles address inaccurate or unlikely peices of info. if this one is common and notable it deserves inclusion in a balanced manner. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 19:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manu 

message: This seems like a bad redirect for boy.  It seems like boy, as a word and as the young form of men, should be better covered here if we keep this redirect.  Anyone concur?
Clarification:  Though boy redirects here, the content doesn't seem to cover that topic well.  The article is admittedly about man, as a "male human adult."  It doesn't cover topics unique to boyhood, really, though that might be covered appropriately in "child," but then that should at least be noted by the boy disambiguation.  This doesn't seem like an article that covers "boy" so well that boy should redirect here.  Notthe9 03:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well, I don't, but if someone wants to write it, Godspeed. Sam Spade  17:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, then what is a better choice?? Georgia guy 17:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably along the lines of what is appropriate.  Man can cover things about many things about boys as opposed to girls, and child can cover the rest of that plus boys as opposed to men.  Since both are valuable, I think maybe boy should go to the disambiguation.  Notthe9 20:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Do you mean anything similar to Boy (disambiguation)?? Georgia guy 20:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: *Also, child covers info on boys as opposed to men in the "Physical Development Milestones". Georgia guy 20:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Boy is now a separate article. The above discussion is outdated. Angr (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  As a Redirect of Boy? 

message: ::An estimated 1% to about 5-10% of all men are mostly or exclusively homosexual, 
This statement doesn't really make too much sense to me... 1% to 5% to 10%?  Also, where do these come from?  I find it hard to believe that 10% of men "prefer sexual and/or romantic relationships with other men" in a detectable sense.  Notthe9 19:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the 10% figure comes from the Kinsey report, but even then if I remember correctly it was 10% of all men have had at least one homosexual experience since turning 18. I imagine a lot of men have "fooled around" with other men on at least one occasion without considering themselves gay or even bi. --Angr/comhrá 19:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is really what the figure meant to convey, then we should definately remove that figure.  This does not measure whether someone is "mostly or exclusively homosexual."  Also, whatever does end up there should not be a range given by three points, though multiple studies could be referenced (if they were actually referenced). Notthe9 03:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, can you recomend some reliabe figures so we can fix the article?  Notthe9 17:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: I think it should list in the section "gender roles" that the typical man is physically stronger than the typical woman. I know that there are women out there who are stronger than some men, but on average, man is usually stronger than woman. Scorpionman 02:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be worth mentioning somewhere, but it's more of a physical characteristic than a gender role, isn't it? --Angr/ 05:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, it has an affect on the man's gender role, such as, heavy physical work is usually carried out by men rather than women because of the average man's superior strength. Scorpionman 02:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that causal link could be proved. Thehalfone 09:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  gender roles 

message: Sorry for not leaving a note.  After re-reading the top of that section, it seems a little better than I originally thought.  I still think it could use a bit of clarification, for someone (as I did) could simply stumble on those stereotypes and believe that they're stated as fact.
If nobody else has a problem with it, I stand overruled.  appzter 15:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I think you're totally right. It's a bunch of B.S. and should be harshly edited if not removed alltogether. Why perpetuate falsehoods? If you can't cite some proof, it shouldn't be on there. --Mmarchin 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov 

message: I deleted the following piece, which is totally false in the way it is written:
:Fashions change, however: whereas wearing jewelry was formerly associated with females, today in Western cultures it is common for men to wear earrings without being perceived as cross-dressing. The same has become true of the shaving off of unwanted body and facial hair, though removal of the latter has long been common among men in many cultures.
However there is a grain of truth there, so I am leaving its traces in the talk page, so that fashion history experts write something reasonable instead. mikka (t) 22:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is false about it as written? Angr (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What's wrong with that section? 81.76.99.58 01:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gedger roles" section 

message: Some of these differences have been supported by scientific research; others have not. All should be taken with a grain of salt, given the enormous variations among actual men and women.
I find the fact that the author beleives that gender differences supported by scientific research should only be taken 'with a grain of salt' to be a clearcut example of an opinion.  If their is scientific evidence to support an assertion, then this assertion should be taken seriously.  For example, if their is evidence that suggests women are generally tidier than men, then incorporating this fact into one's cognitive processes is an objective position to take.  The fact that the author objects to this position suggests he/she is a relativist (relativism is a positon common amoungst the left and feminists in particular).
:This is a wiki, which means there isn't one author. The passage was written by a number of authors with a number of different viewpoints. If it sounds relativized, it's merely to prevent creating the impression that all women are always tidier than all men without exception. Angr (talk • contribs) 05:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You really should check if you have paranoia if you see "liberal bias" in a suggestion to not to stereotype minor statistical differences. --Vuo 14:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  liberal bias 

message: There are two pictures of a white and young man, and one picture of a statue depicting the same, all in very little dress. None of them have facial hair. So, here's something that's missing: white man, Asian man, black man, old man, man with beard, and man in clothing, like: Italian suit, military uniform, Dani ornamentation, etc. --Vuo 14:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Maybe we can have a gallery of men at the bottom of the article. There are lots of images at Commons already. (And don't forget drag queens!) Angr (talk • contribs) 14:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've added a gallery (no drag queens yet). I couldn't find any photographs of Australian Aborigine men, and I'd like at least one more African man, preferably one where you can see his face. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No diversity in pictures 

message: Should this be on here? Skinnyweed 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should what be on here? There is no pornographic picture in this article. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A pornographic picture would depict a sexual intercourse, I think. --Vuo 21:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pornographic picture 

message: The gender role section is really bizarre and should probably be reworked or removed.  Its subjective and only a few of the bullet points have citations.
   
The following lack citations.  If the section is to remain, at a minimum, it should be labeled "gender stereotypes" instead of "gender roles." I don't personally think most of these are even common stereotypes.
    * More aggressive than women. However, in interpersonal relationships, most research has found that men and women are equally aggressive. Men do tend to be more aggressive outside of the home.
    * More courageous and adventuresome than women.
    * More competitive but also more stubborn than women.
    * More self-confident (even proud) and exhibit better leadership skills than women.
    * More self-controlled and less emotional.
    * More technically and organizationally skilled than women.
    * More prone to abstract thinking than women.
   
The following have citations, but I don't see how they are remotely relevant to describing "man."  They also don't strike me as gender roles. Is it a "role" to be messy? Or sarcastic?  Does the use of metaphors in conversation really tell us anything useful about men?
    * Less tidy than women.[2]
    * More talkative and more likely to interrupt than women.[3]
    * More likely to make a distinction between gay men and lesbians.[4]
    * More likely to be sarcastic and use metaphors during conversation.[5]
--Kdalton 03:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender role vs. Gender Stereotypes vs. REMOVE 

message: Why does the top picture need to be nude? I think having a nude image is better, but I have a problem with the picture being of an Italian, when right below we have a nude sculpture from another Italian. It's a pretty clear Western/racial bias, and visually repetitive. And I wish you hadn't done a flat revert, when I also noted that the man in the wheelchair was from the United States. As it is this article far too strongly normalizes "white" people as the ideal conception of being a man. Sarge Baldy 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The top picture needs to be nude because this is first and foremost a biology article, and the entire male body needs to be shown. The biggest problem with the van Goeden photo is that the model's feet are cut off. If you can find another free image of a nude (including feet), you're welcome to use it instead. When I put together the gallery I worked very hard to find images of men from all over the world, exactly so that it doesn't normalize white people. If anything, the gallery has a strong Asian bias, as it includes two Arabians, an Indian, a Thai, and a Vietnamese Hmong. By contrast, there are only three photos of men of European origin (I exclude David as that's a statue, not a human being). Angr (talk • contribs) 19:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Asia is a massive continent and contains 60% of the world's population, so I don't think it's too heavily biased in that direction. I'm not sure I'd say it's underrepresented though, either. The actual gallery is a nice collection, I think. I think someone from Eastern Europe or Russia (or perhaps Scandinavia?) would complement the gallery nicely, perhaps in the place of one of the Americans. But overall it seems a good selection. It's just the two images nearer the top that irk me a little. I guess I would have a preference for an African in the top image simply because that's where the human race began. I'll see if I can dig up something. Sarge Baldy 21:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual bias 

message: I want to know if there is anything that can go in a Man (word) article talking about the usage of the word man as a gender-neutral vs. gender-specific term. Georgia guy 00:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of man gender-neutrally 

message: Disclamer: I'm not a Serb. As a matter of fact, I live in a city which was shelled by cluster bombs. By Serbs.
I think it is not appropriate to explicitly mention Srebrenica massacre in this article and blame it on Serbs. Yes, the Srebrenica massacre is a horrbile thing. Yes, the people who did it were Serbs. Those are plain facts. But, I don't think it is appropriate to single out this one nation and mention it in an article about man in a genocidal tone. I will now remove this example. If anybody wishes to return it, please do it in a way that is less humiliating for milions of Serbs who never did anything wrong to anybody. Thanks. --Dijxtra 21:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way to please everyone, unfortunately. Explicit mention is necessary to confirm both of these: it is real, and it is done in the modern age that men are selectively targeted. --Vuo 13:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explicit mention of Srebrenica massacre 

message: I thought this version was rather good.  Why was the David statue, and the nude photograph removed?  Leonardo's drawing is okay, but if someone who has never seen a man saw it, they would think that man has 4 legs, 4 arms, and a really strange sexual organ.  Dionyseus 06:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just anonymous vandalism from over a month ago. I don't know why it wasn't reverted. I've restored them now. —Angr 14:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the David statue and the nude photo removed?   

message: I edited this to say that 'man' can include the female.  Indeed the first definition of 'man' in my dictionary is neutral with respect to sex.  My edit was quite quickly reverted by someone who claimed that this article is about the male human and not about etymology and meaning.  If that is the case, much of the rest of the first paragraph, concerning the use of 'man' to refer to non-human hominids or to boys should also go.
The opening paragraph should:
* give a stipulative definition of 'man' for the purposes of the article;
* say, briefly, how our stipulative definition relates to general use, current and historic;
* say that a detailed treatment of general use is under man (word);
* say something about boys, girls, women and non-human hominids - whether they are included under our definition.
Perhaps we should consider having man (disambig), man (word), and man (adult male), with man (disambig) as the default?
--Publunch 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead paragraph should be a lead to this article and not be confused with the disambiguation statement above it.  You seem to be trying to use the lead to summarize all three articles.  On whether man should default to this article or not - that's a big change to make on what is a reasonably main article.  Do you think there are far more people who come here looking for something other than the male equivalent of the woman article?  --Siobhan Hansa 18:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Readers who come to Man will want the male equivalent of the Woman article, and more.  They will want more because 'man' has been used variously by different people in different ages to mean just the male and then sometimes to mean a human of either sex.  This has led to etymology and meaning being put into a separate article, as it needs longer treatment.
Meaning and etymology has thus been almost completely stripped from the main article.  I say 'almost' because what was left was very misleading before I rewrote it.  If it is to mention apemen, which I've never heard talked of as 'men' (without prefix) before today, then it should also mention women and boys.
The opening statement: 'Man is a male human' is far too simple.  That is a valid definition, but it is not the only possible definition.  Leaving it just as it is without qualification is very confusing.  A German speaker, for example, would be misled into thinking that 'man' can only be translated as 'Mann' and never as 'Mensch'.  At a bare minimum, it is necessary to make the reader aware that there is an ambiguity in the use of 'man', and point to where a detailed treatment can be found.
When I first came to the article, I barely noticed the disambiguation statement, which was in a light italic type.  Even when I did read it, it did not say *why* I should read it.  It is quite likely, therefore, that our German reader would miss the nuances.
 
I have tried suggesting various rewrites of the opening paragraph, but it keeps getting reverted to something I find confused and confusing.
I am willing to continue making suggestions, but have come to think that whatever I put up will be quickly reverted.  I therefore think that mediation is appropriate.
--Publunch 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, someone who wants to search for the country article would definitely want to type "United States", not "America". Georgia guy 21:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps before mediation we could just try discussing on the talk page.  While (some) of your edits have been reverted, that doesn't mean there isn't a compromise that would be acceptable.  What about the lead seem wrong to you at the moment? -- Siobhan Hansa 23:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph of article, and definition of 'man' 

message: I think being trans inclusive is great and all but its not culturally respectful or NPOV to treat western progressive views on gender as absolute. In some cultures there is a modern western medical concept of transgender, in other cultures gender is a biologically based bianary or there are multiple genders. I don't think the article should take sides on this by reffering to FtMs as men or women. 
I reworded (but not reverted) in an attempt to balance the two. As is FtMs aren't reffered to as men or women in any absolutist sense and I've used what appears to be the most widely accepted terminology in english at the moment ([]).
Velps 18:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took the version that was previous on Woman and changed "woman" to "man".  The only thing I really have any issue with in your edit, was changing "not sufficient" to "not always sufficient".  Logically, sufficiency is a binary statements.  Something cannot sometimes be sufficient for determining something else.  By mere result of being only "sometimes sufficient", it would become "not sufficient", as saying "P is sufficient for Q" means that if P is true, then Q must be true.  If there is a state where P is true, and Q is not true, then P is not sufficient for Q.    Now, saying "(P or Q) is sufficient for R" a bit what you're trying to think of I think, but even in this case, it's not logically correct to say "P is sometimes sufficient for R", as P would only be sufficient for R if Q were false yielding "P is sufficient for R, if and only if not Q".  The wording for which would be quite confusing on a wiki.  I think it should be enough to say that "Biological factors are not sufficent to determine gender", which is a logically valid, and true statement. --Puellanivis 22:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I'm not very well versed in formal logic and don't know how context figures into it I can't really say much one way or the other about most of that, however when not dealing with formal logic sufficient simply means enough or adequate for a given purpose []. In some times and places biological sex is or has been adequate to the purpose of determining someone's gender in others it isn't or wasn't at some point. In any event I think I different wording or a completely different opening sentence might be better. Velps 06:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biology and gender

message: I don't know if anyone else is getting tired of all the vandalism that keeps happening here, but it's chewing up the history of this article, and makes it difficult to review any good changes that come in.  As there is no significant edit war going on, I don't think we need a full protect, we just need to keep the high traffic anonymous editors from replacing the page or images with nonsense.
Personally, I would also consider changing the image of George Bush to something less recent, but still highly notable, say George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or John F Kennedy.  This would likely reduce the amount of vandalism coming from people who are unhappy with his administration. --Puellanivis 04:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I replaced his image with one of the only president widely believed to have been gay. —Angr 06:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Semiprotect for the page 

message: The thumbnail about President Bush doesn't make very much sense. It sounds like it is subtly calling him a woman:
"George W. Bush is the President of the United States, a position that up to now has been held only by men."
Up to now? TheGamerDude 03:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, up to now, as in up to and including him. But who knows, the next president may well be a woman. —Angr 05:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The presidenta can't speak.  Why should we worry about clarity of writing either??? Dogru144 16:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Bush's Thumbnail