![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
this article should be merged with male. -Mrsanitazier March 29,2007 3:45 PM Eastern Time.
Agreed; male refers to sex of any species whereas 'boy' is more of a gender issue encompassed in human sociology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msavidge ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The idea that man has the same root has main meaning hand, is probably wrong. The word man has probably come from Sanskrit Manav / Manush, which is much older than both Man (human male) and Main (hand). However, it would also be interesting to know where from the word 'Main' (hand) has come. 86.69.191.87 07:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Sourav
I read somewhere that back in around the 6th century and earlier, "man" had absolutely no connotations of gender, and simply meant "person"... thus one princess of that era was described as being "a wonderful man"... if this is true, and citeable etc, surely there should be some information about that? This article currently has no etymology section, which is a shame, as that's the reason I came here (to verify or disprove what I'd heard). Xmoogle ( talk) 16:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Doing a quick search turned up [1], which says... "Sense of "adult male" is late (c.1000); O.E. used wer and wif to distinguish the sexes, but wer began to disappear late 13c. and was replaced by man. Universal sense of the word remains in mankind (from O.E. mancynn, from cynn "kin") and in manslaughter (q.v.).". Xmoogle ( talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Angr has been deleting the image of Michaelangelo's David from the article lead. During recent revert warring with me, his edit summaries have included arguments like: "the article on men needs to have a photo of a man at the top, not a photo of a piece of marble." " The lead photo of "Man" should be of a man, not a statue" "This is not an image of a man."
I'm sure User:Angr is an intelligent fellow; thus it troubles me that I would even have to broach the following truth: a photograph is but one type of artistic depiction. A statue is another. Other examples might include a painting, a drawing, or a computer graphic. Michaelangelo's David is an image of a man in the same sense that a photograph is an image of a man. Different medium, same goal. Neither is the real deal; both are attempts to represent an ideal reality; they are not reality themselves. Any beginning art, photography or philosphy student had no problem understanding this.
I would sound very foolish if I deleted a realistic photo of a man using the argument: "We need an actual man at the top of the article, not a bunch of pixels arranged to resemble a man."
Once you accept that photos do not have any inherent, literal truth that supercedes other types of depcitions, we must ask: according to reliable sources, what is the most famous, most notable, most celebrated artistic image of a man that's ever been created? David has to near the top of this list.
I would like to know if there's even one other editor who sees things the way Angr does. If not, the image should be restored promptly.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
i agree that the picture of David is totally irrelevant to this article. It would be the perfect example for the "statue" article but not here. This statue reflects what one mans vision of what a man looks like. It also "complies" with the social and cultural standards of that time...eg a smaller penis on a man was seen as better than a larger one. Therefore the statue doesn't portray what a "man" is. I'm only new to this editing so i dont know how to put my signiture in. My username is Adashio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adashio ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
David is irrevelant for the reasons already discussed in detail on this page. Any initial or leading picture to this article would inevitably bear the responsibility of being a prescriptive image. It would be impossible to have a sample of pictures of every physical "type" of man, since that would be a cultural construct as well. So, any photograph of a man, from whatever race one chooses to see, should be the optimal choice. Even though a statue and a photograph are strictly representational art, a photograph is more acceptable at describing a man, regardless of his ethnicity or culture, than is a statue, at least from a scientific viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.25.193 ( talk) 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a
worldwide view of the subject. (December 2010) |
The Man#Gallery shows men of many different races. It would be nice if the Man#Men in history gallery also showed some depictions of men of non-European descent. Maybe Gandhi or Saladin or Genghis Khan or one of the Pharaohs or maybe an Aztec emperor or a couple of black guys who did something important. Yes, I could add some of these pictures myself (yeah, right), but right now I would prefer to solicit discussion over some additional historical men other editors would like to see in this gallery.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added the {{ disputed}} template because I still dispute the accuracy of having a photograph of a statue as the lead image of this article. It's simply lying to the readers to pretend that Michelangelo's David is a man. A statue is no more a man than a painting of a pipe is a pipe. — An gr 13:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't see the problem. Throughout Wikipedia we use images of paintings, photographs, sketches, and sculptures. A photograph of a man is also not a man. I cannot believe that someone is disputing one non-man in favor of another.
I think David is perhaps the best option. If we go with a painting or a photo, who should be the subject? Jesus, Ghandi, Malcolm X, Mr. Universe, George W. Bush? Everyone sees David as the model of "man." As the pipe link itself states: "In one sense, the [representation] is more truly [the object] than any other. It is the [object] in general" (emphasis added).— Red Baron 18:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
To me, it seems the debate over whether a literal photo of a man and an iconic representation of a man is better seems pretty moot. It is not a crime to have an artistic representation as the lead image. Every single person who comes to this article already knows what a living man looks like, thus having what is arguably the single most famous artistic representation of a man as the lead image is not deplorable, it's admirable. The image of the African man is crap quality and is too unusual. The photo of the Middle Eastern gentleman is fine, but it's not a full-body portrait. Those who have an objection to the David statue have not provided a better alternative, either in encyclopedic content, comprehensiveness of portrayal, or aesthetic composition. VanTucky 18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the "Gallery" which showed many portraits of men from many diverse backgrounds. It looks like User:Angr removed it here. I'm not necessarily saying I think we should bring it back; I'd just like to understand the reason for its removal.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
It's kinda nice, but it's gratuitous. NPOV doesn't require an image of every possible variation in a man's appearance, nor images of so many famous dead white guys. A simple link to Commons will suffice. VanTucky 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the following statements, as they have been tagged as needing a source since last February:
If anyone can find a source for these claims, feel free to re-add them. — An gr 18:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The section on Masculine Characteristics and the discussion following is extremely eurocentric and highly inaccurate.
Male vanity, for instance, was/is a well known trait amongst many Native American and African groups, especially Maasai warriors. Vanity has also been a historically well-known trait of upperclass males even in European societies.
Men are also described as responsible for the building of permanent shelters in hunter-gatherer societies. In most hunter-gatherer societies in North American and Africa, women built the houses. This is true in a variety of other hunter-gatherer societies as well.
In general, this articles seems tilted towards the modern Western archetypes of the male rather than actual cross-cultural understandings of what constitutes masculinity and the roles of men. 4.249.171.71 ( talk) 22:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the Photo of the Pope with the text "Pope Benedict XVI is the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, a position that is reserved for men only." should be removed. Do we really need something as emotionally charged as this? there are other activities that are reserved for men only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adashio ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The section Man#Men throughout history strikes me as hopelessly arbitrary and, in its current form, Western-centric. This section is strange and should go. Fireplace ( talk) 04:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Why does this article keep getting smaller? Look at the history page and you will see what I mean. Only last year the article was at around 25,000 bytes now it's only 20,000. Almost every edit according to the history page has steadily reduced the size of the article. The Woman article however has steadily increased in size with almost every edit according to its history page. It is the duty of editors to make sure this page doesn't keep shrinking and to make the Man and Woman articles are roughly the same size as each other. 212.139.85.56 ( talk) 04:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
characteristics..."unemotional" true in many cases but i dont like the way that section is dsiplayed in a factual sense...please...change it 86.129.75.90 ( talk) 00:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that the derogatory characteristic of men being unemotional is simply untrue and is anti-male POV and should be removed. If such a characteristic were true it would literally mean men can't feel emotions, which is common-sense that they can. Signsolid ( talk) 07:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This article says something really, tremendously stupid:
Under 'Circumcision': "Around twenty percent of males world wide, particularly in the U.S. and non-Islamic countries, have been circumcised, wherein some or all of the foreskin is removed. Circumcision is also performed on some women, when they remove the vagina, called female genital cutting."
OK. I'm not about to lecture on human physiology, but the fact is that the vagina is a muscular organ, primarily designed to facilitate the expulsion of human young from the womb. Female circumcision, which is a deplorable act, has absolutely nothing to do with the vagina and everything to do with the clitoris. It saddens me how badly this article is inaccurate, as should it sadden us all.
I just reverted that vandalism. Your comment seems strange and it seems strange you commented on it so soon after it happened as most changes on this article don't get a comment on for ages and I would have throught it was clear that it was vandalism anyway? Also I noticed your account is brand new. Very strange indeed. Signsolid ( talk) 05:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I feel this article is in need of protection as the history page shows just how much vandalism has happened over the past few days. Signsolid ( talk) 05:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I added a characteristic to the list and then saw that it was supposed to be a quote from some person's book. I don't think we should restrict a whole topic to just one person's point of view. Certainly the addition i made is a distinct characteristic that (most would agree) belongs on the list but which Janet Saltzman Chafetz does not include.
What are your views on how we should handle this? 2nd Piston Honda ( talk) 11:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is meant by modern man (the caption under the new photo). Sounds odd if you ask me...-- Cameron ( t/ c) 14:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we ought to have a picture of a man as seen from all four angles. Even mobile phone articles show back and front and I think we will all agree that men are more complex than mobile phones...-- Cameron ( t/ c) 17:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Can editors help in contributing more information to this article as it seems to grow smaller and smaller by the month. The article was once 26,000kb or so and has steadily grown smaller over the last year and has become much smaller than its counterpart the woman article. If this removal of information from the article continues the article will become little more than a stub. I've recently had to rearrange the images on the article due to the messy nature the article was kept in with large gaps in the article due to pictures being jumbled together. Also according to this article's history page it appears to be vandalised on a regular basis. It seems this article needs semi-protecting like the woman article is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.59.44 ( talk) 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Surely there is an non copyright image somewhere? I think the images here at the moment are poor to say the least. Does nobody have any pics? I have taken a look at my human biology lit. but they are all copyrighted. I see the other language wikipedia's have images. The German one has two! I also think that more information needs to be added. The article is getting smaller by the minute. -- 217.227.120.98 ( talk) 12:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The term man (irregular plural: men) is used for an adult human male also known as a priya...
I've never heard of "priya" and several searches produced no results, except as a Hindi girls name. Is this vandalism or just ignorance on my part? Does anyone have a citation for this? In any case, priya doesn't seem to be a common synonym. If it is just me, a reply on my talk page would be appreciated. Thanks. Somerut ( talk) 00:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel due to the high volumn of vandalism suffered on this article it needs to be semi protected. Signsolid ( talk) 08:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be differing opinions on the inclusion of Image:Pioneer plaque line-drawing of a human male.svg in the article. Rather than continuing to add or delete it from the page, it would be better to discuss it here and reach a consensus.
I gather Bobisbob2 believes the image is redundant because similar images appear elsewhere in the article. There are presumably the reproduction diagram, the da Vinci sketch, and the statue of David.
Where all images are free-use and directly related to the article topic image placement becomes subjective, so what follows is just one person's opinion:
On balance the Pioneer plaque appears redundant to the article as it conveys no information not already conveyed by the da Vinci and statue of David pics. It's not doing any harm, but its not adding anything either. If the article is looking overly cluttered with images, this would be a good candidate for removal.
As I said above, this is just one person's view. Whatever we all think however, we ned to stop the slow-moving edit war over the Pioneer plaque. I suggest views for or against its inclusion are posted here, and whatever seems to be the consensus gets abided by. So - any other thoughts? Euryalus ( talk) 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I am against using the Pioneer plaque image. I can see nothing whatever to recommend it. It cannot be compared to the Leonardo image in terms of artistic value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the lead image should show a man with a beard. Despite the mention of facial hair in the 'Biology and gender' section there is only one man with a beard shown anywhere on the page. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
There is an error in the 17th line under the 'Masculinity' tab. It has one 'and' too many. I can't fix it because I'm not auto-verified or something. User:MeMB 1:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else think the masculinity section in this article has a lot of unsubstantiated claims??
For example:
"It is also commonly believed that men are better drivers and are more talented in fields like mathematics and engineering."
There's alot more that needs citations or ditching and rewriting.
Also, the "characteristics" section is over 30 years old - and since gender roles have changed dramatically over those years it may be time to get an update or just ditch it - it's embarrassing.
I know the file is protected so I just thought I'd address it here.
Themeda ( talk) 09:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The current revision (18:54, 18 November 2008) shows Barack Obama as the U.S. president. George W. Bush is the current U.S. president, Barack Obama is the President-elect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xylite ( talk • contribs)
Pope Image
I was wondering why you think the image of the Pope in the man article is offensive? Also why you think there's not enough room for the image when it was the only image in the largest section of the article with at least enough room for another similar size image below? If you can name me a better and more prominent male only role then I'd like to hear it. Usergreatpower ( talk) 18:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Should we use images of specific, especially now-living persons, in the section of the article discussed above?
My major concern is the unstable and controversial nature of the images related to this particular aspect of the subject, not just with the image of the Pope. There are disagreements (often only edit summaries) all the time over which images should be used and which President should be featured, and this indicates a fundamental problem with having such images at all. Since they aren't essential to the article, I suggest they just be eliminated. If the other editors decide we should have such images, so be it. We should then do something to ensure that they don't continue as the subjects of needless disputes. Unlike images, neutral text that doesn't name specific persons is less likely to be the subject of dispute. I'd like to hear responses from other editors. -- Fyslee / talk 22:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Men rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.11.60 ( talk) 21:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
"Many English words such as virtue and virulant (from the Latin vir meaning man) reflect this."
Virulant isn't a word, and if the term "virulent" was intended it has nothing to do with masculinity (the word 'virulent' comes from the latin word virulentus - meaning 'full of poison'). The word 'virtue' doesn't have latin roots (Greek word virtus), so it isn't connected to the latin root vir, or manliness. The sentence should be removed. 96.225.35.6 ( talk) 16:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
this article should be merged with male. -Mrsanitazier March 29,2007 3:45 PM Eastern Time.
Agreed; male refers to sex of any species whereas 'boy' is more of a gender issue encompassed in human sociology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msavidge ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The idea that man has the same root has main meaning hand, is probably wrong. The word man has probably come from Sanskrit Manav / Manush, which is much older than both Man (human male) and Main (hand). However, it would also be interesting to know where from the word 'Main' (hand) has come. 86.69.191.87 07:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Sourav
I read somewhere that back in around the 6th century and earlier, "man" had absolutely no connotations of gender, and simply meant "person"... thus one princess of that era was described as being "a wonderful man"... if this is true, and citeable etc, surely there should be some information about that? This article currently has no etymology section, which is a shame, as that's the reason I came here (to verify or disprove what I'd heard). Xmoogle ( talk) 16:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Doing a quick search turned up [1], which says... "Sense of "adult male" is late (c.1000); O.E. used wer and wif to distinguish the sexes, but wer began to disappear late 13c. and was replaced by man. Universal sense of the word remains in mankind (from O.E. mancynn, from cynn "kin") and in manslaughter (q.v.).". Xmoogle ( talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Angr has been deleting the image of Michaelangelo's David from the article lead. During recent revert warring with me, his edit summaries have included arguments like: "the article on men needs to have a photo of a man at the top, not a photo of a piece of marble." " The lead photo of "Man" should be of a man, not a statue" "This is not an image of a man."
I'm sure User:Angr is an intelligent fellow; thus it troubles me that I would even have to broach the following truth: a photograph is but one type of artistic depiction. A statue is another. Other examples might include a painting, a drawing, or a computer graphic. Michaelangelo's David is an image of a man in the same sense that a photograph is an image of a man. Different medium, same goal. Neither is the real deal; both are attempts to represent an ideal reality; they are not reality themselves. Any beginning art, photography or philosphy student had no problem understanding this.
I would sound very foolish if I deleted a realistic photo of a man using the argument: "We need an actual man at the top of the article, not a bunch of pixels arranged to resemble a man."
Once you accept that photos do not have any inherent, literal truth that supercedes other types of depcitions, we must ask: according to reliable sources, what is the most famous, most notable, most celebrated artistic image of a man that's ever been created? David has to near the top of this list.
I would like to know if there's even one other editor who sees things the way Angr does. If not, the image should be restored promptly.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
i agree that the picture of David is totally irrelevant to this article. It would be the perfect example for the "statue" article but not here. This statue reflects what one mans vision of what a man looks like. It also "complies" with the social and cultural standards of that time...eg a smaller penis on a man was seen as better than a larger one. Therefore the statue doesn't portray what a "man" is. I'm only new to this editing so i dont know how to put my signiture in. My username is Adashio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adashio ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
David is irrevelant for the reasons already discussed in detail on this page. Any initial or leading picture to this article would inevitably bear the responsibility of being a prescriptive image. It would be impossible to have a sample of pictures of every physical "type" of man, since that would be a cultural construct as well. So, any photograph of a man, from whatever race one chooses to see, should be the optimal choice. Even though a statue and a photograph are strictly representational art, a photograph is more acceptable at describing a man, regardless of his ethnicity or culture, than is a statue, at least from a scientific viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.25.193 ( talk) 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a
worldwide view of the subject. (December 2010) |
The Man#Gallery shows men of many different races. It would be nice if the Man#Men in history gallery also showed some depictions of men of non-European descent. Maybe Gandhi or Saladin or Genghis Khan or one of the Pharaohs or maybe an Aztec emperor or a couple of black guys who did something important. Yes, I could add some of these pictures myself (yeah, right), but right now I would prefer to solicit discussion over some additional historical men other editors would like to see in this gallery.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added the {{ disputed}} template because I still dispute the accuracy of having a photograph of a statue as the lead image of this article. It's simply lying to the readers to pretend that Michelangelo's David is a man. A statue is no more a man than a painting of a pipe is a pipe. — An gr 13:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't see the problem. Throughout Wikipedia we use images of paintings, photographs, sketches, and sculptures. A photograph of a man is also not a man. I cannot believe that someone is disputing one non-man in favor of another.
I think David is perhaps the best option. If we go with a painting or a photo, who should be the subject? Jesus, Ghandi, Malcolm X, Mr. Universe, George W. Bush? Everyone sees David as the model of "man." As the pipe link itself states: "In one sense, the [representation] is more truly [the object] than any other. It is the [object] in general" (emphasis added).— Red Baron 18:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
To me, it seems the debate over whether a literal photo of a man and an iconic representation of a man is better seems pretty moot. It is not a crime to have an artistic representation as the lead image. Every single person who comes to this article already knows what a living man looks like, thus having what is arguably the single most famous artistic representation of a man as the lead image is not deplorable, it's admirable. The image of the African man is crap quality and is too unusual. The photo of the Middle Eastern gentleman is fine, but it's not a full-body portrait. Those who have an objection to the David statue have not provided a better alternative, either in encyclopedic content, comprehensiveness of portrayal, or aesthetic composition. VanTucky 18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the "Gallery" which showed many portraits of men from many diverse backgrounds. It looks like User:Angr removed it here. I'm not necessarily saying I think we should bring it back; I'd just like to understand the reason for its removal.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
It's kinda nice, but it's gratuitous. NPOV doesn't require an image of every possible variation in a man's appearance, nor images of so many famous dead white guys. A simple link to Commons will suffice. VanTucky 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the following statements, as they have been tagged as needing a source since last February:
If anyone can find a source for these claims, feel free to re-add them. — An gr 18:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The section on Masculine Characteristics and the discussion following is extremely eurocentric and highly inaccurate.
Male vanity, for instance, was/is a well known trait amongst many Native American and African groups, especially Maasai warriors. Vanity has also been a historically well-known trait of upperclass males even in European societies.
Men are also described as responsible for the building of permanent shelters in hunter-gatherer societies. In most hunter-gatherer societies in North American and Africa, women built the houses. This is true in a variety of other hunter-gatherer societies as well.
In general, this articles seems tilted towards the modern Western archetypes of the male rather than actual cross-cultural understandings of what constitutes masculinity and the roles of men. 4.249.171.71 ( talk) 22:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the Photo of the Pope with the text "Pope Benedict XVI is the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, a position that is reserved for men only." should be removed. Do we really need something as emotionally charged as this? there are other activities that are reserved for men only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adashio ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The section Man#Men throughout history strikes me as hopelessly arbitrary and, in its current form, Western-centric. This section is strange and should go. Fireplace ( talk) 04:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Why does this article keep getting smaller? Look at the history page and you will see what I mean. Only last year the article was at around 25,000 bytes now it's only 20,000. Almost every edit according to the history page has steadily reduced the size of the article. The Woman article however has steadily increased in size with almost every edit according to its history page. It is the duty of editors to make sure this page doesn't keep shrinking and to make the Man and Woman articles are roughly the same size as each other. 212.139.85.56 ( talk) 04:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
characteristics..."unemotional" true in many cases but i dont like the way that section is dsiplayed in a factual sense...please...change it 86.129.75.90 ( talk) 00:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that the derogatory characteristic of men being unemotional is simply untrue and is anti-male POV and should be removed. If such a characteristic were true it would literally mean men can't feel emotions, which is common-sense that they can. Signsolid ( talk) 07:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This article says something really, tremendously stupid:
Under 'Circumcision': "Around twenty percent of males world wide, particularly in the U.S. and non-Islamic countries, have been circumcised, wherein some or all of the foreskin is removed. Circumcision is also performed on some women, when they remove the vagina, called female genital cutting."
OK. I'm not about to lecture on human physiology, but the fact is that the vagina is a muscular organ, primarily designed to facilitate the expulsion of human young from the womb. Female circumcision, which is a deplorable act, has absolutely nothing to do with the vagina and everything to do with the clitoris. It saddens me how badly this article is inaccurate, as should it sadden us all.
I just reverted that vandalism. Your comment seems strange and it seems strange you commented on it so soon after it happened as most changes on this article don't get a comment on for ages and I would have throught it was clear that it was vandalism anyway? Also I noticed your account is brand new. Very strange indeed. Signsolid ( talk) 05:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I feel this article is in need of protection as the history page shows just how much vandalism has happened over the past few days. Signsolid ( talk) 05:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I added a characteristic to the list and then saw that it was supposed to be a quote from some person's book. I don't think we should restrict a whole topic to just one person's point of view. Certainly the addition i made is a distinct characteristic that (most would agree) belongs on the list but which Janet Saltzman Chafetz does not include.
What are your views on how we should handle this? 2nd Piston Honda ( talk) 11:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is meant by modern man (the caption under the new photo). Sounds odd if you ask me...-- Cameron ( t/ c) 14:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we ought to have a picture of a man as seen from all four angles. Even mobile phone articles show back and front and I think we will all agree that men are more complex than mobile phones...-- Cameron ( t/ c) 17:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Can editors help in contributing more information to this article as it seems to grow smaller and smaller by the month. The article was once 26,000kb or so and has steadily grown smaller over the last year and has become much smaller than its counterpart the woman article. If this removal of information from the article continues the article will become little more than a stub. I've recently had to rearrange the images on the article due to the messy nature the article was kept in with large gaps in the article due to pictures being jumbled together. Also according to this article's history page it appears to be vandalised on a regular basis. It seems this article needs semi-protecting like the woman article is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.59.44 ( talk) 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Surely there is an non copyright image somewhere? I think the images here at the moment are poor to say the least. Does nobody have any pics? I have taken a look at my human biology lit. but they are all copyrighted. I see the other language wikipedia's have images. The German one has two! I also think that more information needs to be added. The article is getting smaller by the minute. -- 217.227.120.98 ( talk) 12:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The term man (irregular plural: men) is used for an adult human male also known as a priya...
I've never heard of "priya" and several searches produced no results, except as a Hindi girls name. Is this vandalism or just ignorance on my part? Does anyone have a citation for this? In any case, priya doesn't seem to be a common synonym. If it is just me, a reply on my talk page would be appreciated. Thanks. Somerut ( talk) 00:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel due to the high volumn of vandalism suffered on this article it needs to be semi protected. Signsolid ( talk) 08:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be differing opinions on the inclusion of Image:Pioneer plaque line-drawing of a human male.svg in the article. Rather than continuing to add or delete it from the page, it would be better to discuss it here and reach a consensus.
I gather Bobisbob2 believes the image is redundant because similar images appear elsewhere in the article. There are presumably the reproduction diagram, the da Vinci sketch, and the statue of David.
Where all images are free-use and directly related to the article topic image placement becomes subjective, so what follows is just one person's opinion:
On balance the Pioneer plaque appears redundant to the article as it conveys no information not already conveyed by the da Vinci and statue of David pics. It's not doing any harm, but its not adding anything either. If the article is looking overly cluttered with images, this would be a good candidate for removal.
As I said above, this is just one person's view. Whatever we all think however, we ned to stop the slow-moving edit war over the Pioneer plaque. I suggest views for or against its inclusion are posted here, and whatever seems to be the consensus gets abided by. So - any other thoughts? Euryalus ( talk) 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I am against using the Pioneer plaque image. I can see nothing whatever to recommend it. It cannot be compared to the Leonardo image in terms of artistic value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the lead image should show a man with a beard. Despite the mention of facial hair in the 'Biology and gender' section there is only one man with a beard shown anywhere on the page. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
There is an error in the 17th line under the 'Masculinity' tab. It has one 'and' too many. I can't fix it because I'm not auto-verified or something. User:MeMB 1:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else think the masculinity section in this article has a lot of unsubstantiated claims??
For example:
"It is also commonly believed that men are better drivers and are more talented in fields like mathematics and engineering."
There's alot more that needs citations or ditching and rewriting.
Also, the "characteristics" section is over 30 years old - and since gender roles have changed dramatically over those years it may be time to get an update or just ditch it - it's embarrassing.
I know the file is protected so I just thought I'd address it here.
Themeda ( talk) 09:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The current revision (18:54, 18 November 2008) shows Barack Obama as the U.S. president. George W. Bush is the current U.S. president, Barack Obama is the President-elect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xylite ( talk • contribs)
Pope Image
I was wondering why you think the image of the Pope in the man article is offensive? Also why you think there's not enough room for the image when it was the only image in the largest section of the article with at least enough room for another similar size image below? If you can name me a better and more prominent male only role then I'd like to hear it. Usergreatpower ( talk) 18:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Should we use images of specific, especially now-living persons, in the section of the article discussed above?
My major concern is the unstable and controversial nature of the images related to this particular aspect of the subject, not just with the image of the Pope. There are disagreements (often only edit summaries) all the time over which images should be used and which President should be featured, and this indicates a fundamental problem with having such images at all. Since they aren't essential to the article, I suggest they just be eliminated. If the other editors decide we should have such images, so be it. We should then do something to ensure that they don't continue as the subjects of needless disputes. Unlike images, neutral text that doesn't name specific persons is less likely to be the subject of dispute. I'd like to hear responses from other editors. -- Fyslee / talk 22:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Men rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.11.60 ( talk) 21:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
"Many English words such as virtue and virulant (from the Latin vir meaning man) reflect this."
Virulant isn't a word, and if the term "virulent" was intended it has nothing to do with masculinity (the word 'virulent' comes from the latin word virulentus - meaning 'full of poison'). The word 'virtue' doesn't have latin roots (Greek word virtus), so it isn't connected to the latin root vir, or manliness. The sentence should be removed. 96.225.35.6 ( talk) 16:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)