This 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.
At present, the Masculism/Masculinism templates do not seem to merit inclusion in the article. They have a heavy focus on the men's rights movement and closely associated movements. The MRM is a non-mainstream idealogy and the lead for the MRM article notes that the movement is often associated with hate and misogyny:
Claims and activities associated with the men's rights movement have been criticized and labeled hateful and violent. In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center categorized some men's rights groups as being part of a hate ideology under the umbrella of patriarchy and male supremacy. The movement and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynistic, and the perceived disadvantage some men feel is argued as often being due to loss of entitlement and privilege.
At Talk:Masculism I've proposed that the templates' focus could be changed to a broad, neutral overview of men and boys as a whole, under a name like "Boys and men" or "The human male", but until and if that happens, the templates are best left out of this article.
Per WP:ONUSThe onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, so if someone would like to restore these templates, please make the case for them here and wait until there is a clear consensus.
I am also interested in feedback on whether the feminism sidebar is a good fit for this article. Feminism is more mainstream than the MRM or Masculinism and, as I noted in the edit summary when I added the feminism template, feminism: can be considered relevant to any gender-related article, per the feminism article's definition of the term: "to define, establish, and achieve the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the genders." However, I don't claim to be an expert in feminism. I welcome any and all perspectives on this. Thanks. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
First, ONUS is on the editor making the change from a long term stable state. So the ONUS is on the editor trying to remove vs the editor wishing to restore. Second, it is unreasonable to think that a feminism template should be included but the masculism one should not. As for the specific reasons why you aren't comfortable with the masculism template, I took at look at the article and the intro is undue per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. However, that is too much of a quagmire to wade into. Springee (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Springee:WP:ONUS says exactly what WanderingWanda quoted. There's no mention of long-term stability there. Nor is WP:CONTENTAGE by itself an sign of consensus. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Onus says, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". WP:NOCONSENSUS says, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. " It's on the editor trying to include to make the case, not the editor objecting. I'm not primarily arguing if the masculine sidebar should be there or not. My primary objection was the ridiculous replacement of the masculine sidebar with the feminism sidebar. Sure, it can be debated if the masculine sidebar is legitimate or focuses only on controversial issues but it's crazy to think that the correct replacement is the feminism sidebar. Hence the onus is on WW as to why that change makes sense. Springee (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, but that's not the same as saying the ONUS is on the editor trying to remove, which is directly contradicted by policy. WP:NOCONSENSUS seems to be describing common actions, rather than prescribing preferred ones. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, "What to do for articles since the implementation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES?", which asks what kind of lead image should be used for this article and other articles about groups of people. This originated out of a discussion at Talk:African AmericansKolya Butternut (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Should the current lead image be replaced with this one?
Of the two, I prefer the current lead image. I like that it's a full body shot. I like his warm/hopeful expression and open body language. And aesthetically speaking, the weathered steps make for a background that's interesting without being distracting. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the current lead image should be replaced with the proposed new image. The new image is more focused on the man himself, whereas the current lead image has some features that distract from the man (phone, earbuds, background). SunCrow (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
No, use "sailor" - sailorNeither of the images "give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page (WP:LEADIMAGE) because it doesn't show enough dimensions which would, at-a-glance, communicate the topic of the page is the broad category of "man", and doesn't show enough differentiation from "woman". For example, a number of physical features typical of men (as different from women) are not shown clearly - such as musculature and lack of developed breasts - though the facial hair is a good start. Other indications of typical societal role aren't apparent either - for example, as the population which is most often involved in physical labor, a picture of a man engaging in it would be far more valuable. The most important thing when considering images for this is to imagine you cannot read the text of the page, the caption, or the filename of the image. If you saw the two proposed images on a Wikipedia page from a language you can't read, would you be reasonably be sure you are on the "Man" page? Because, for a basic concept article like this, its quite likely a lot of readers coming here are just learning English. My current preferred image which I think better fits these needs is "sailor" on the right. -- Netoholic@ 12:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment:Netoholic, with respect, the scenario you describe (i.e. a person coming to this page without being able to read the text, the caption, or the image filename and trying to figure out what the page is about by looking at the lead image) seems a bit far-fetched. Anyone who knows English at all knows the word "man", and anyone who doesn't know English at all isn't going to be able to use the English-language Wikipedia in the first place and will likely view Wikipedia in their own language instead. Also, while I understand your view that an image of a shirtless man is advisable because it allows readers to see physiological differences between the sexes, I don't think shirtlessness is essential here. The proposed image quite clearly depicts a man, and the article amply discusses the differences between the sexes. SunCrow (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes because the proposed image ("outdoors") is better than the current lead image, for a several reasons: (1) subject is looking at the camera; (2) subject is not wearing a hat, which shows human hair; (3) no earbuds and phone; (4) I personally prefer the blurred background to the steps background (the latter makes me think "man sitting on steps" as opposed to just "man"); (5) I agree with Wanda that a full-body shot would be better, but the full body is shown in other images in the article, so it's not a must-have for me for the lead image. I don't think the sailor picture is an improvement over the current picture because it's low quality (low-res: 426x646), among other reasons (distracting tattoos, hat covering hair, not looking at the camera, western-centric, partial nudity). – Levivich 14:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
None of the above, restore long standing image: The long standing image should be restored. It seems that just a few editors took it upon themselves to narrow the possible choices and then have presented the change as a fait accompli. The long standing picture works well as it is universally recognized as a man without being a photo of any particular person. That makes sense for this article since it isn't describing any particular person. I suspect based on image recognition alone readers are more likely to guess this article is about "man" with that picture vs any of the other options. Springee (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment:Springee, I take issue with your comment that "a few editors took it upon themselves to narrow the possible choices and then have presented the change as a fait accompli". There was discussion on this page about changing the lead image. An editor stated on this page that a sandbox page had been created for further discussion of the issue. That discussion involved several editors and lasted for over a month. All editors were welcome to participate in that discussion. The result of that process is not being presented as a "fait accompli", but has been submitted for further discussion here. SunCrow (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Second comment: To me, the image of the Michelangelo painting of Adam is less than ideal for a lead image. First, I believe the image should show a "real" man, not an artistic depiction. Second, the image depicts a nude man, which I don't think is suitable for the lead image and could be unsettling to some readers who aren't expecting it. Third, the man has absolutely no hair on his face or body, which--given that it does not depict a 21st-century metrosexual who shaves his body hair--is not representative of most adult males. SunCrow (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with your objections to using a painting vs photo for almost the exact same reasons you like photo vs painting. That said, absent consensus for a new image the one that has been the default for the last two years should be restored. Springee (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Do not use the painting of Adam or the sailor. The current image is preferable to those two as well. The painting is not representative of a real man. The sailor represents a man serving in the United States military in the mid-20th century more than simply "man" Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure. Seems like an improvement. -sche (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
As of now, I see four votes in favor of the proposed new image, one vote in favor of the current lead image, one vote in favor of using "sailor" as the lead image, and one vote in favor of using a photo of Michelangelo's Adam as the lead image. Based on that 4-1-1-1 vote, I have inserted the proposed new image along with an explanatory HTML comment. I appreciate the many thoughtful contributions to this discussion. SunCrow (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2019
This edit request to Man has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
change
A man is a male human. The term man is reserved for an adult male, with the term boy being the usual term for a male child or adolescent.
to
A man is a malehuman. The word man is usually reserved for an adult, with boy being the usual term for a male child or adolescent. The plural men is also sometimes used for male humans, regardless of age. Men with typical genetic development are usually capable of producing semen. There are also trans men (those who have a female sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity), and intersex men (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female). 89.156.128.118 (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Not done. There seems to be varying perspectives on what should be covered in the lead. I am restoring the lead to the version that stood for years before an editor recently made major changes to it, per WP:BRD. WanderingWanda (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Man vs Transman
"A man is a male human." and "However, there are exceptions to the above for some transgender...men." are not compatible. Tbe former is a sex/biological definition, the latter is a gender definition that is not expaned on in any way in the article itself.
If Man is to be considered a gender term as well as a Sex term then so be it but it should be made clear in the article and not just thrown into the lede without basis.
I agree in the sense that, in addition to being covered in the lead, trans men should also be covered in the body of the article. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Clarification: I agree that the current lede is self-contradictory. SunCrow (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Wanda that the body needs expansion. I don't see an issue with the current wording of the lead, since RS use "male" to refer to both a sex and a gender category. -sche (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it is fine as is. Crossroads1 (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
A matter that will also have an effect on this article: there's an RfC in process regarding inclusion of transwoman and intersex woman in the lead description of "Woman": Woman Article lead RfC. Pyxis Solitaryyak 23:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Why no Men and boys sidebar?
I added the Template:Boys and men sidebar only for it to be quickly removed. Why? Is it no good? Wouldn't it fit nicely on a page about men? Mangokeylime (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The sidebar is worthless. It's a recent creation and strongly pushes a single POV. The first thing it lists is drag queens. No reason to have it. Springee (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2019
This edit request to Man has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change picture of the article published I have the exact required picture Nirmal do (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Not done: Vague requests to add, update, modify, or improve an image are generally not honored unless you can point to a specific image already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that you would like included on this article. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC) ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2019
This edit request to Man has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORKTalk 02:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Photo
A big discussion is currently happening about the picture of the man in this page.If it is okay with the policy of Wikipedia, could anyone please disclose about this person in the page itself.(Angunnu (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC))
Hi (talk),
The discussions were going on in the local media and FM channels,mainly based on amusement to see a malayalee guy on this page.(A Malayalee is a person hailing from Kerala- a state in India)
(Angunnu (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC))
These things happen. I hope he manages to stay incognito, if that is what he wishes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Having born and raised in a nearby state, I'm sure he is probably rather delighted to be featured in Wikipedia. —Srid🍁 20:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Missing information
I have tagged the article because it is missing information about men's clothing, education, family lives, health, history, and work. By way of comparison, information on women's clothing, education, family lives, health, history, and work is included in the "woman" article. SunCrow (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's missing a lot... I was surprised, looking at the article again just now, by how short it is. -sche (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Unsourced material added to article 14 Dec
@Newimpartial:, please follow WP:BRD. The content in question [[1]] was just added, without citations, by a brand new editor. Based on their POV pushing @Crossroads: has filed a NOTHERE related ANI [[2]] related to that user which includes the content you are restoring. Looking at the content, since it was added without citations, we can't judge if this is supported by reliable sources. If you think it can be then the onus is on you to find those sources and insert them before restoring the content. Per BRD the material should not be restored until the issues have been discussed and resolved. Clearly adding content to the body with no citations for support is an issue. Springee (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
My restoration of the material is entirely based on the content itself and not at all on the editor. Do you really think that such statements as "Men can have any sexual orientation, therefore men can be heterosexual, gay, bisexual, or use others terms to categorize their sexual orientation" or "Some people assignedfemale at birth may identify as man, being typically classified as transgender man, and not everyone assigned male at birth may identify as a man, classifying themselves as a woman (called transgender woman) or non-binary. There's also intersex who may classify themselves and be classified as man" are controversial and as such require sourcing? The sources for the equivalent statements are all easily found in Woman and similar articles. I don't see anything remotely controversial in the additions in question, so their removal seems rather POINTey to me, regardless of who added them initially. Newimpartial (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The content lacks citations and no arguments have been made for DUE. The restoration was pointy as it was restoring an edit you knew to violate WP:V. The same basic information is already part of the article so why are the edits needed? Springee (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:V does not require citations for uncontroversial material. Just sayin'...
Also, you did not frame your removal in terms of LEDE...if you want to argue that this information is true and sourced in the article but not lede-appropriate, then that is an entirely different argument than the rationale you gave in your reverts.
My reply to this new argument, if you are actually making it, is that the second added paragraph deals with some crucially important definitional issues (gender identity) and boundary cases for the article, as per the lede and the extended discussions on the Woman page. Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The material added to the lead is UNDUE as it puts extensive emphasis on sexual orientation vs other aspects of the larger topic. The material in the lead doesn't require citations but it does need to be DUE for the lead. However, given it lacks any new citations I have to again ask, why is the change DUE or needed? What supports making this so prominent in the lead? Kind of a catch 22. It's either an issue of WP:V since it's all uncited or it's an issue of DUE. Either way, what is needed now is a new consensus for inclusion. We don't have that. Springee (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and it fails WP:LEAD because these things are not discussed in the body, save for a single sentence on trans and intersex men. Because of that, it fails WP:V - while citations are not strictly needed in the lead, this information was not supported in the body either, so it was unsourced. The statements do need citations to back them up; just making assertions will not convince readers. WP:BURDEN states that demonstrating verifiability is the reponsibility of those restoring content. This specific content is WP:UNDUE for the lead in any case, however, because only a tiny proportion of sources about men discuss gender expression or trans or intersex issues. Even sexual orientation is not discussed that much. There are already a multitude of articles on these topics. WP:NOTEVERYTHING means that even if true and sourced, it does not automatically mean it should be included. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Crossroads, if you feel that either "Men can have any sexual orientation, therefore men can be heterosexual, gay, bisexual, or use others terms to categorize their sexual orientation" or "Some people assignedfemale at birth may identify as man, being typically classified as transgender man, and not everyone assigned male at birth may identify as a man, classifying themselves as a woman (called transgender woman) or non-binary. There's also intersex who may classify themselves and be classified as man" are controversial statements, I would be happy to find sources. Uncontroversial statements, however, do not need to be sourced, per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The disputed material should not be included in the article because it is unsourced and controversial, and because it is poorly written. It should not be included in the lede for both of those reasons, and also because (a) it fails WP:DUE; and (b) the body of the article gives only minimal attention to these issues. SunCrow (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
What evidence is there, besides bald assertion, that any of these claims are controversial:
* that men express various sexual orientations
* that not everyone AMAB identifies as a man
* that some intersex and/or AFAB people identify as men
The question of DUE inclusion may be debated, but it seems absurd to me to refer to any of these obviously true and easily sourced statements of fact as "controversial". Newimpartial (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The phrases "assigned male at birth" and "assigned female at birth" are controversial. Those phrases imply that a scientific fact (the sex of a human being) is actually a legal or social construct. SunCrow (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
No, they really don't. As described in Sex assignment, society assigns sex based primarily on certain physical (not "scientific") criteria. However, as is clear from most recent, reliable sources, the term "man" is used to refer variously to biological, social and legal realities depending on the context, including sex and/or gender. To suggest that the lede of this article should reflect only one of these aspects would be manifestly UNDUE. As I have said before, see the discussion of Woman for much more extensive and better-informed discussion of these issues. Newimpartial (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Newimpartial, I disagree with your analysis, but I'm not going to get into it. You said earlier that this information was "easily sourced." If that is the case, why not find sources for it? While you're at it, why not rewrite the material so that it makes sense and isn't so sloppy, and then get it out of the lede and put it in the body of the article where it belongs (if it belongs anywhere in the article at all)? If you believe that the material is worth having multiple talk-page arguments about, shouldn't it be worth fixing? SunCrow (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
In my view, which I have expressed previously on Talk:Woman and elsewhere, one thing Man needs is some serious additions about intersex and transgender boundary issues and about Gender identity as a concept, parallel to what is gradually happening at Woman. The best practice for this is to expand the coverage of these issues in the body (with sources as necessary) and then subsequently to rework the lede. However, I do not have the time to do so at present, and am also entirely unwilling to lead a charge of the light brigade into the cannons of "Gender critical" POV. I would therefore rather attract attention to the relevant issues and direct others in the general direction of relevant sources, and can provide additional sources when there is a broader appetite to improve the article. This largely represents my attitude toward all articles that raise so-called "culture war" issues, and the problem with Man as I see it is that it simply has not attracted the threshold level of attention, as Woman for example has to some extent. Newimpartial (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Accepting the new material 100% at face value, it's not a "sky is blue" fact. Even uncontroversial statement often need a citation. Also, this is being added to the lead. That puts a great deal of weight on this subject, suggesting this is one of the primary subtopics of the article. It isn't. So while this material might be due in the body (with sourcing) it isn't due in the lead. Springee (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
In what sense are the following not "sky is blue" statements:
that not everyone AMAB identifies as a man;
that some intersex and/or AFAB people identify as men.
It doesn't matter what we think of the statements; would any of our readers (i.e. some in society in general) view them as controversial? Clearly yes. Readers can tell when we are asserting things as true with no source, and doing so does the info no favors. And again, we are not using the lead to subvert gender norms or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We follow the sources. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
All I have seen is POV assertions by a couple of crusaders that the statements are controversial. Nothing whatsoever from or about "our readers". You of all people, Crossroads, should remember the equivalent discussions from Talk:Woman and should know better than engaging in reductionism on this topic. Newimpartial (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Newimpartial, stop with the snotty tone and the name-calling. If you spent half as much time actually working on the article today as you spent picking fights on the talk page, you could have fixed the problems with this proposed content by now. SunCrow (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
My experience with those who remove content because they disagree with it, making vague or incorrect allusions to sourcing policy, is that they don't respond well to sourced content and simply move the goalposts. I would rather leave a clear record here of why I believe additional material on intersex, trans and gender identity issues is needed in this article than to add sourced content only to have it removed repeatedly by the POV crowd. In this case, I repeatedly suggested that a {cn} tag would have been a better approach to the lede material, which is in its way an offer to either add the sourcing myself or eventually see it removed if nobody steps up. What do I get instead? Moving goalposts, half-digested policy and name calling. No thanks, man. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Newimpartial, other editors didn't agree with you and explained why. Nobody here except you has been doing any name-calling. You have no reason to complain. SunCrow (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with suggesting the article has a problem that needs to be addressed. The way to do that starts with either a BOLD change or a talk page proposal. If the BOLD change is reverted then the talk page is the next step. Now about the material that was added. First, the lead follows the body so it would have to be in the body first. I suspect the body links to the article that support the new material but currently it doesn't. That said, a case could be made to include that content here vs linked in other articles. Next, is there weight for inclusion in the lead? Well that's a harder call. The topic of "Man" is very broad so it's hard to say what specifically should or should't be in the lead. My feeling is more than a single sentence on LBGT type material in the lead is probably undue given the VERY large scope of the topic. However, I don't see that such a debate has happened so that's just my preliminary assessment. Springee (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Calling your fellow editors 'POV crusaders' gets you nowhere good. And as editors we are not supposed to be talking about what we personally think about the truth or falsity of content (WP:NOTFORUM), so it seems clear to me that when editors say it is controversial, it means with reference to representing sources about "Man" with due weight, or else how it is presented to readers. What I remember from Talk:Woman is a lot of FORUM-esque debating, and an extremely long discussion, that ended up with a single sentence on trans and intersex in the lead, as we have here. As for reductionism, I don't know what this is referring to. I personally think the disputed content is factually correct, just undue. So I don't know how I am supposedly engaging in reductionism. And I certainly don't "know better" from that discussion, as I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. Except maybe not to waste so much time on talk page debates, except I'm still at this one, so probably not even that. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Sexual diversity among men is bog-standard mainstream gender studies stuff and should be included. I don't mean to upset anyone, but some men are gay, trans, bi etc...you may even know some men who are gay (I know, crazy right!?!). I've reinstated with citations, finding further ones would require a bit of time going through my uni readings, but I'm happy to do it when I have more time. It certainly bares mentioning that not all men are heterosexual, masculine etc. Bacondrum (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Bacondrum, the disputed material Newimpartial wanted to include in the lede was poorly written, unsourced, and failed WP:UNDUE. If you believe the lede needs more material on this topic, please gain consensus for it here on the talk page. Also, there is no need to patronize other editors or make assumptions about who we know or don't know, or about what might upset us. Thanks. SunCrow (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Don't call other editors contributions "gobbledygook". As for Newimpartial's material, it looked fine to me, it is mearly your opinion that those edits are "poorly written, unsourced, and failed WP:UNDUE", I strongly disagree, although the prose could use improving, that criticism applies to the entire article. The omission of male sexual diversity is a glaring issue - expect a fight from me on this, you can't leave out gay men and other non-hetro males. I'll get back to this when I have time. Bacondrum (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
SunCrow, arguments about the inclusion or exclusion of unsourced material in the lede don't offer you a justification to remove sourced material from the body. Just saying. Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Newimpartial, as my most recent edit summary made abundantly clear, my most recent removal of disputed content was based on the content not making sense. If it doesn't make sense, it really doesn't matter how well-sourced it is or where in the article you want to put it. SunCrow (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
The removed (and restored) material accurately paraphrases what many/most reliable sources say. If it "doesn't make sense" to you, then you either have difficulty reading 21st century English, or POV issues; I can't tell which. Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Current status:
The current dispute centers on the following language:
I have repeatedly reverted this material, which is so garbled and poorly written as to be almost meaningless. Newimpartial and Bacondrum have restored the material, with Newimpartial questioning my reading comprehension skills in the process. I am not going to waste time trying to rewrite these two sentences, as I am convinced that any rewrite would be reverted. However, this material does not belong in the encyclopedia in its current form. I have repeatedly urged Newimpartial to rewrite this garbled material, but he/she continues to edit war the content back into the article. SunCrow (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
References
^ abCite error: The named reference professorSavin-Williams was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
The passage cited is written in normal contemporary English, AFAICT. What rterms or constructions are you having trouble comprehending, SunCrow? Have you tried following wikilinks to the relevant concepts? Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
SunCrow If you think the prose are "so garbled and poorly written as to be almost meaningless" why note rewrite them? Homosexuals/Trans/non-binary/intersex etc. people do exist, so unless your aim is to deny this fact, just rephrase the content...the prose was clunky, so I gave rewriting it a go, this is how wikipedia works, the fact that men are sexually diverse, that some are Homosexual/bisexual/Trans/non-binary/intersex is easily verifiable, so removal of this easily verifiable fact is not the best option...rephrase rather than remove seems the obvious course of action, unless one was pushing a POV. Bacondrum (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
And repeatedly reverting is called edit warring. Rewrite, discuss, RFC etc rather than edit war. There's other options, RFC's etc. Unless there's a clear guideline violation you've no grounds for repeatedly removing content. Bacondrum (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Bacondrum, I have posted eight (8) comments on this feed, so I obviously don't need a reminder to discuss issues. I find your warnings--both here and on my talk page--curious, given that Newimpartial has reverted edits more times than I have during this dispute, has picked fights with several editors, and has engaged in juvenile name-calling, but has received no warnings whatsoever from you. Maybe you're the one who ought to check your POV.SunCrow (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
You have accused me of "juvenile name calling", which is (a) untrue and (b) a personal attack. Please be civil and do not make unsubstantiated accusations. Newimpartial (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Describing other editors as "crusaders" fits that description. I don't say things that are untrue. SunCrow (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I have now struck that comment. However, I entirely stick with My experience with those who remove content because they disagree with it, making vague or incorrect allusions to sourcing policy, is that they don't respond well to sourced content and simply move the goalposts., which pretty much foretold the course of your subsequent commentary on this page. And you have certainly, by accident if not by design, said things that are in fact untrue while also characterizing things in "minority of one" fashion based on your individual POV. Newimpartial (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) Meh. I was going to say, having come here at the time of this revision, that I agreed the paragraph was awkwardly worded, and I thought that using the standard "...who were assigned female at birth" wording instead of just "female" (and mutatis mutandis for "male") would make things clearer and less awkward / more intelligible. I now see this has been mostly fixed. This being the "man" article, I do think "may identify as men" might be more ...relevant... than "may identify as male", though. -sche (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
SunCrow Calm down and tone it down, at this point you are being disruptive. If you'd prefer I can go straight to ANI from here on out? Up to you. Bacondrum (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Not interested in taking orders from you, Bacondrum. I haven't violated any policies that I can think of, so I can't imagine what you think you'll accomplish by going to ANI, but you can if you want to. It's a free country. SunCrow (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Not giving orders, just a suggestion. I'm not really interested in dealing with aggro editors. As requested by you I will go straight to ANI next time there is an issue. Bacondrum (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Masculinity being a social construct
The article mentions, or rather asserts, that masculinity is a social construct when this is not necessarily the case. The author, with this myopic insertion, fails to bring forth nuance to the reader, making it seem more black and white than what it actually is. Thus, I reccomend that the author to alter the early sentence to elucidate the grey area. Inquisitive gentleman (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
There's a really strong academic citation for that claim that sits well within the mainstream academic view on the subject. Please feel free to read other research and present opposing mainstream views, if there are any. Failing that you are out of luck, it's merely your opinion that it is not necessarily the case that masculinity is a social construct - it does seem pretty obvious to me that masculinity is a social construct, what defines masculinity differs significantly from culture to culture - for example men in some cultures often hold hands (Sicilians, Arabs, Rwandans etc), in other cultures this would generally be seen as effeminate. Bacondrum (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I will go and research.
I objected to the statement because it infers that men's mannerisms are wholly socially constructed, that it doesn't derive one bit from nature.
The definition of masculinity, from Wikipedia:
Masculinity (also called manhood or manliness) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with boys and men.
Associated being the operative word.
You have the right to not alter the statement if, and only if, there is realiable and validated research that cover everything within the definition.
Sorry, for another reply, but isn't this sentence erroneous in its reasoning?
First the author says that macuslinty is socially constructed, and then he/she says there's research that indicates that some behaviors are biologically influenced. Both clauses cannot exist, for one contradicts the other:
"Although masculinity is socially constructed,[16] some research indicates that some behaviors considered masculine are biologically influenced."
I don't know mate, the citation for the social construct claim is a really strong academic citation that sits well within the mainstream academic view on the subject. I just go on the sources as per Wikipedia guidelines. Social and biological factors don't have to be mutually exclusive, as I already pointed out what qualifies as masculine behavior differs from culture to culture, so there's obviously a strong social factor in play. The article does make it clear that there is a biological factor and a debate over biology vs sociology, so I can't really see why you are complaining. If you can find quality, mainstream research that backs your claims regarding biological factors then please improve the article. You should start by reading and let the source inform your views, not the other way around.
As for this "You have the right to not alter the statement if, and only if" no one has any right to make any demands that anyone do anything, Wikipedia is entirely voluntary. Also, I didn't make the edit about social constructs, but it does sit well within the mainstream academic views on the subject. Bacondrum (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to weigh in on whether masculinity is a social construct or not. But if it is, then it must logically follow that femininity is also a social construct, but our article on woman doesn't mention it. If it's important enough to say it in the man article, then it should be important enough to say in the woman article as well. It would also seem to follow logically that if both are merely social constructs, then transgenderism shouldn't exist, as nobody should be born with predisposed, innate masculine of feminine qualities, so everyone would simply fall into the socially constructed gender norms associated with their biological sex. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
First of all, Rregan, that isn't what a "social construct" means. Social constructivism, for example, generally theorises that identities and roles are actively constructed and negotiated by participants, whereas the structuralist "head bearer" theory of social identity and social relations has been widely discredited.
Secondly, Woman does indeed refer to both gendered social norms and social identities, which are both socially constructed as that article indicates. I will grant you (and have previously pointed out elsewhere) that the treatment of identity in Woman is weaker than either biological or gendered norm/role aspects. Newimpartial (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2020
This edit request to Man has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
A man is a male human. People call a grown up male as a man. Other mammals are called males, while humans are men. WarPlayz (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2020
This edit request to Man has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
About a man's family life, clothing and education. A man, in the family is always considered as the leader. The man protects the family. Men's clothing is usually considered as shirts and pants. In a formal way, men wear suits. A suit is mostly black and white in color, but there are more variations now. There are blue suits too. A suit usually comes with a tie. Men seldom wear dresses. They wear dresses in special cases like dances. Scottish kilts are worn by men. Kilts look like skirts. Men ae treated better than women, according to history, so men had a better opportunity to study. Nowadays, men and women have the same rights. WarPlayz (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Not written like something you'd see in an encyclopedia. – Thjarkur(talk) 17:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
After being reverted, that man is a gender and male a sex, and that this simple differentiation should be used in the lead. Otherwise we can rename the article "Male human". The difference between gender and sex is apperent otherwise biology would use gender for sex, vice versa, basic biology.
Here my proposed and reverted version: "Man is a gender, associated with adult male humans. Prior to adulthood, a male human is referred to as a boy.
While gender and sex are not the same the male sex like with most other mammals, has a genome typically inheriting an X chromosome..." Nsae Comp (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree we are allready discussing at "Woman", but others might want to talk about the case for "man". Nsae Comp (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The thing is, we have reliable sources documenting that male is also a term for a gender and man is also a name for a sex, so the distinction being drawn here is spurious. Newimpartial (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. But the differentiation can still be drawn without fixing it to either term of man/male. Nsae Comp (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Requesting opinion on a page move request.
Hello,
@ Talk:Aurat (disambiguation)#Requested_move_11_May_2020 is taking place about article relating to women of mainly of Asian origin. In Past 2 days only two opinions are received and more opinions will be preferable. Although topic is more related to women and Asia I am making request here as part of neutrality in making such request. Thanks for your participation in discussion.
And this has what to do with this article?
I thought it was about Men, not women? ZL3XD (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
men’s clothing
many people believe that men must dress a certain way due to the societal gender norms. men should not have to conform to these gender norms, but rather should wear what they like and what they are confident in. men should be able to express themselves in a way they feel comfortable without being judged. items of clothing men should wear: jeans, shirts, dresses, skirts, shorts, hats, shoes, etc. Socks43336667 (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion to select image options for an RfC for the lead image at Woman. Discussion at Talk:Woman/sandbox. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2021
This edit request to Man has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This is the worst image you can put up in this article. Don't you have any other images? There's plenty if images in Commons. 157.44.174.204 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, why is it "the worst image"? EvergreenFir(talk) 16:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
= New main image
After reading the talk section, I've gleaned that there is some dislike for the current main image on the Man page. Someone made a very nice collage of men, but I understand Wikipedia doesn't approve of collages for groups of people. Others have objected to the current image without giving clear reasons. I think the current image is more or less fine, but since there's so much contention over the issue, and since there's no reason not to improve it, I thought I'd propose some alternatives that might make more people happy. I picked out some commons images. Please give these images your consideration and, if you think one would be good, I'll make the change. Joe (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
I don't remember any complaints about the current image. I think it works well. Crossroads-talk- 00:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
See 'Reopening discussion about lead image' and 'Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2021' - also, noted, you like the current image. If nobody else wants it changed, maybe I'll just add a few of the more illustrative ones into the article here and there, like what we've got for the Woman page. Someday I'm going to try to expand the Man article a bit so it's closer in content to Woman, assuming I can find sources. There are some sections in Woman that would be just as relevant on Man. Cheers for input! Joe (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I should have said that I don't remember any specific complaints. Those complaints don't give a reason. But nothing wrong with adding more here and there within reason I suppose. Crossroads-talk- 03:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh drat, is it? Well, I feel a fool. I removed 9 from the running, if anyone wants to see it just check the history. Joe (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Could you expand on that statement? I'm not too sure what you mean by it. If you're asking why the image depicts an Indian man over another ethnicity: Indians make up around 1/7th of the earth, I'd say that's a pretty good representation of all men. EnglandUser (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The person is a Malayali. Ethnically, the person represents only less than 2% Indians at best. Why not choose another picture with a different criteria, for example the highest resolution available on wikimedia commons? ChandlerMinh (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I can't help but notice that you are from the same state of Kerala where the Malayali ethnic group originates. What does this mean to you? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure any of these are great. IMO, the image should just be a image of a man, in a neutral pose, without too many cultural specifics or e.g. engaged in an profession/cultural activity/whatever else. Just a normal, neutral man standing there. For that reason I don't think all of the famous scientists, or the bodybuilder/musician, all of the highly culturally specific pictures, or Jimmy Wales himself (probably should keep meta stuff to a minimum for an encyclopedia) really do very well at all. I don't really have an issue with the current picture, though if someone suggested an image like it but that was better in some way I'd probably support it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I do not think it is possible to have a "neutral" picture of a man "without too many cultural specifics". If you mean a modern Western man wearing modern Western attire, that is not quite neutral. — Goszei (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Cosmopolitan attire is as neutral as we can get. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I think a collage of several images of men, or one image of several men, is much better than one image of a single man. The lead image must represent diversity of different races and ages of men all over the world. The present image of a single man clearly does not show this diversity. --50.30.178.10 (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
There's one country in the world, in very specific contexts, where an aboriginal man with ochre body paint playing the didgeridoo would not be out of place. For the vast majority of countries in the world, whether it be in Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, South America, or Australia, take a walk to any decently sized city and you'll find a man wearing a shirt and pants (and maybe a jacket if it's cold). There's no one representative man, and we shouldn't aim for that, but that doesn't mean we need to be laser-focused specific. We can at least avoid culturally specific activities (standing there looking at a camera isn't that culturally specific, playing the didgeridoo is), and strive for attire that's at least somewhat broad. Rikbaktsa headwear doesn't really fit that bill, but a shirt and pants, very loosely speaking, is something you'll find in the vast majority of cities around the world, and is probably fine. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
This is gender, not ethnicity. I can not see any discussion threads in the link for "no ethnic galleries". Only a statement. Besides, it seems that the current image is given by the subject for self-popularization. A single man's image is not representative of majority of men. It would be better to show multiple men of different races and cultures, to show some diversity. (And if a single man's image has to be shown, then at least show a professional model.) --50.30.178.10 (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean the image is given for self-popularization? I'm sure the editor who found the photo has no connection to the man. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
NOETHNICGALLERIES is just a common term for the link. Also called MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY, it clearly states: Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members... (emphasis added). Discussions are linked there. Crossroads-talk- 04:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I suggested the following image and was reverted because of a previous discussion. So I want to reopen the discussion with a simple argument: I want to advocate that a collage of images is in any case better, because: mainly to depict diversity and doesnt leave it to one image, even if the single images are changed again and again, the value of the collage goes beyond the single images for that it allways, no matter wich selection depicts a range of people.
(I am not the author of the image)
Looking forward to your input. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
As in the discussion about the lead image of "Woman" am I suggesting to have no lead image, because its apperently Wikipedia code to have no collages for peoples. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Please feel invited to discuss the issue(s). Nsae Comp (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the photo appears appropriate in showing some of the diversity of man, which is useful considering the lack of images.TauGuys (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Support collage vs single image. It might be better if the picture didn't consist of photos that are readily identified. I'm OK with painting/sculptures as they are typically of people from centuries back. Still, I would be OK if we just used photos since that shows diversity of "man" while not highlighting any individual as representative of the sex. Springee (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I support this proposal. Image should not be limited to a single one, both in Man and Woman, disagreements will never end. Limiting to one will also violates WP:NPOV as people are diverse.--157.44.174.204 (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it's likely that a collage will lead to the same problems that led to MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. "This guy must/must not be included!" "Why are there too many/too few of this particular kind of man!?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and I believe "man" qualifies as a "similarly large human population". Crossroads-talk- 23:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Why don't we use paintings or sculptures? (or do we need a picture at all?). In that way disputes can be reduced. 2409:4073:4E01:44:C87D:143F:D456:7DDC (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I think a collage of several images of men, or one image of several men, is much better than one image of a single man. The lead image must represent diversity of different races and ages of men all over the world. The present image of a single man clearly does not show this diversity. -50.30.178.10 (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Those images IMO all are not good TheRightofHerWay (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021 (2)
This edit request to Man has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change:
A man is an adult male human. Prior to adulthood, a male human is referred to as a boy (a male child or adolescent).
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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Please make the articles for man and woman equal and parallel.
Please choose one of the following options:
On man, Replace "However, there are exceptions to the above for some transgender and intersex men." with "Trans men have a female sex assignment at birth that does not align with their gender identity, while intersex men may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male biology."
On woman, Replace "Trans women have a male sex assignment at birth that does not align with their gender identity, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology." with "However, there are exceptions to the above for some transgender and intersex women."
I had edited the page to the first option, however, someone had edited back as they deemed the detail added to be unnecessary. I feel that the first option should be used, as it’s far more comprehensive than the second one. ThatOtakuGuy37 (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary isn't the correct word. Any input about transgender would be in article about transgender, not an article about biological men or women. Objectiverealist (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Older revisions of the article had the Da Vinci's Vetruvian Man as the lead image, or Michelangelo's David, iconic... Now it's some random nobody! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.23.199.230 (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
It’s not any different for the Wikipedia page for woman. Men, in reality, are not sculptures or artistic interpretations. I believe it’s intended to show a ‘generic’ man for the sake of accuracy, a real-life photograph instead of a statue. ThatOtakuGuy37 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Then give the ladies a sculpture too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.196.13.132 (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Odd claims about intersex, and other kvetching
Such an odd sentence "There are also intersex people who may identify as either female or male." No cite and completely vacuous. Virtually all intersex people simply *are* either male or female. Both males or females can identify as males or females or basketball players, royalty, alien beings or just about whatever they want. Maneesh (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The claims in article amount to *anyone can identify as a man* and have no citation. Their removal has been reverted. WP:UNSOURCEDManeesh (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The intersex statement was re-removed by me because no direct connection to this topic was made, and as you note those conditions are sex-specific. It was also unsourced. I added CN tags to the gender identity stuff for now, not sure what to do with it. Crossroads-talk- 06:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Focusing only on intersex, precisely the same issue exists in woman. The WPATH citation that is there has one occurrence of the term in the body, does not define it so and would not be an appropriate cite if it did. I have tried to correct this many times. Maneesh (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
How odd that the strange and unsourced mention of intersex would be accepted here on man but just now reverted on woman. Maneesh (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
If you had looked, you would have found the supporting citation in the body of the article, where it belongs. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Uh huh. Why don't you add that here to support the mention of intersex if you really think that. Maneesh (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial has described these citation needed tags as "transphobic" and suggested to go to arbitration/noticeboard without participating in talk. Maneesh (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Since the passage in question has nothing to do with intersex people, I didn't realize that this section has anything to do with the tags suggesting that the existence of trans people was deserving of a cn-tag. As specified in my edit summary, that seems to fall afoul of the last bullet of "When not to use this tag" at WP:NEEDCITE and indicates a behavioural issue, in my view. Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the correct topic but I think these CN tags are justified [3]. I would assume they aren't hard to find but this is in the body of the article yet not a blue sky claim. Ping involved editors Newimpartial. Springee (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Springee: are you suggesting that the existence of trans people is not a blue sky claim? Are you sure that's the move you want to make, here? Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial, this is a strange interpretation by you. Consider reading the claims around CN tags more carefully. Maneesh (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The relevant bullet says, Do not insert a "Citation needed" tag to make a point ... or because you "don't like" a subject. It seems to me that placing tags that question whether trans people exist falls under this broad heading, though as I say, a behavioural noticeboard might help in assessing that issue.
The claims you have referred to are essentially, "some AMAB people are trans women" and "some AFAB people are trans men". That is the same as "trans people exist", since those two categories account for nearly all trans people (excluding certain nonbinary and intersex trans people only). Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Consider that not all people reading this will be as progressive on this topic as the typical Wikipedia editor. It would be good to have an authoritative source saying that yes, sexuality and gender aren't 1:1 and supporting the percentage claim. This isn't a blue sky claim and it is in the article body so it should have citations. Note that this isn't the only part of the article that is poorly or uncited. Springee (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
You mean, that sex and gender identity aren't 1:1? That is indeed a blue sky statement, because trans people exist. If you are questioning that trans people are a small percentage of the population, that seems bizarre: do you think we are more than, say, 10%? Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it does. The sentence in the article makes a claim about a "small percentage" the cite says "It is difficult to accurately estimate the number of transgender people, mostly because there are no population studies that accurately and completely account for the range of gender identity and gender expression.". Maneesh (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I have replaced "percentage" with "proportion". Newimpartial (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how that change makes the source support the claim in the wp article. The claim in the source is that there is no estimate known, not that it is "small". Maneesh (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
How would you feel about "Some" instead of "A small proportion". I was trying to preserve information that is relevant for our readers, but I'm not willing to get into a slap battle over estimates. Newimpartial (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I don' think the cite supports that either, the cite says "we don't know". Tewdar is concerned about other user's hobbies and has added this cite. I can't WP:SOURCEACCESS, but the abstract doesn't break down the balance between trans-identifying males and females => does not support the claim in the article. Maneesh (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I added a source which estimates an absolute maximum of 5% for TGNC as a whole, and probably less. Tewdar (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
It does give AFAB vs AMAB breakdowns, if you really need them... Tewdar (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
How about you provide the quote here? Maneesh (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
It summarizes a whole bunch of studies worldwide. Perhaps I'll paste some more quotes tomorrow, but for now, "The reported proportions of people self-identified as TGNC ranged from 100 to 2000 per 100,000 or 0.1% to 2% among adults. The corresponding range among schoolchildren was 1.3% to 2.7%. One study reported an even higher proportion of almost 5%, but there is a good reason to suspect that the specific survey item (“I wish I was the opposite sex”) used in that study may have resulted in an inflated estimate." And how come you can't access the source anyway? Tewdar (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, "in summary, it is clear that people who identify as TGNC represent a sizable proportion of the general population. Based on the credible evidence available to date, this proportion currently ranges from 0.1% to 2.7%, depending on the inclusion criteria, age of participants, and geographic location." Tewdar (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Not clear to me if trans-identified females are the same as GNC females, and same for males => doesn't support claim in article. Why would you expect me to be able to access paywalled source? Maneesh (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Like I say, I can't be bothered pasting the full breakdown right now. I didn't realize it was paywalled, my ever so humblest apologies etc... Tewdar (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
"TGNC" = transgender and gender non-conforming, btw Tewdar (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I am aware, and the is the union of two sets, one of them not the subject of the claim in the wp article. Maneesh (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
eg For Holland: "Using the Dutch Bureau of Statistics data for denominator estimates, the proportion of TGNC in the Dutch population was calculated as 5.6 per 100,000 for AMAB and 1.9 per 100,000 for AFAB" - I think we can summarize that as "a small percentage", without any OR. The trans men/women proportion certainly can't be more than that in Holland, can they? Tewdar (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
"A study of Taiwanese university students conducted interviews with 5010 partici-pants using the Adult Self-Report Inventory-4 instrument.45Self-reported “gender dysphoria” was determined based on a response to the statement “I wish I was the opposite sex.” Responses “often” and “very often” were interpreted as evidence of gender dysphoria. The use of this rather loose definition produced high estimated proportions of TGNC people: 7% for AFAB and 1.9% for AMAB." - now either stop being such a cheapskate and purchase the bleddy article, or learn to use scihub or something. Tewdar (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I don' think you've read what I've written above. Nothing you've quoted seems to appropriately support the claim this wp article, I will keep my hard earned money in my wallet, thank you.Maneesh (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what you want. According to the study, it's 0.1% to 2.7%, with an AMAB:AFAB ratio between 1.7—1:1.What do you want them to say, "this is a small proportion?" Tewdar (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
"The reported proportions of individuals with TGNC-specific diagnoses across populations in these studies ranged from 0.7 to 28 per 100,000. The corre-sponding estimates for AMAB and AFAB individuals ranged from 0.7 to 36 and from 0.7 to 19, respectively." Tewdar (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
How many of those are transgender and how many are GNC for both sexes? Maneesh (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
380:310 per 100,000 identifying as transgender AMAB vs AFAB (US) Tewdar (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
You've selected multiple different estimates from the same source. Which study is that estimate from exactly? It seems to be one of the cited within the review, but I can't check the claim until you point to the underlying source. Maneesh (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Reisner et al 2014 Tewdar (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
You haven't provided URLs/DOIs for your studies and not facilitated verification of your claims. E.g. there seem to be multiple Reisner et al 2014 studies, the ones I can find don't support your claim. Maneesh (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
You cited numbers of 380:310 per 100000 are for *gender minority*, in this paper transgende is, apparently, distinct from cross-sex. This is also only young adults. Quite muddled to support the claim in the article. Maneesh (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
1157:1199 AMAB vs AFAB per 100000 (NZ secondary school children) Tewdar (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Thats Clark et al 2014 - are yourself, Crossroads, and Newimpartial having a "most annoying Wikipedian" contest or something? Tewdar (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
And this study is the journal of Adolescent Health and the study is about "The Health and Well-Being of Transgender High School Students"..yet this article is about adult males. Do you think that cite supports the claims in the article? You really need to read things more carefully, this is a bit silly at this point. Maneesh (talk)
I'm not sure you understand how secondary studies work, Maneesh. It seems obvious that "a small proportion" is backed up, so we can offer that to our readers without descending to "some". It doesn't seem that any of the primary studies produced findings thet conflict with "a small proportion": 5% is a small proportion, and 0.1% would still be a small proportion. Newimpartial (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Stop saying stuff I agree with, right now. Tewdar (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not totally clear on what Maneesh is asking for - is it to specify exact percentages? That may be worthwhile, but also shouldn't be hard, so long as the secondary source specifically says that it is speaking of people with transgender identity rather than wording it in a broad way that it ropes in GNC cisgender people.
Simply asking for a source that supports the claim in the article. Coherence in this area is known to be poor (you can see in the link that Newimpartial provided, "we don't know"), wp needs to say something that is verifiable and it is not right now. You can see in the long thread above, none of Tewdar's sources support the claim either (different groups of people, adolescents). If the sentence said something like 'some men identify as as women and some women identify as men, estimating the number of such people is challenging since...', that is probably easily supportable. The current sentence in the article is hard to support because it isn't a very good one to have in an article about adult males. Maneesh (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
The current sentence does say that some assigned at birth as men identify as as women and some assigned at birth as women identify as men - as has been previously discussed ad nauseam, sex assignment is the way recent reliable sources present these categories of people. Describing them instead as "men who identify as women" and "women who identify as men" is transphobic language that denies transgender existence - don't do that, Maneesh.
So aside from this aspect of "do trans people exist", the current text also points out that AMAB women are trans women, AFAB men are trans men, and that they represent small proportions of people. If there is anything there that is either controversial or unsupported by sources, I would love to know what that is, since Maneesh has failed to communicate this so far. Newimpartial (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
You keep seeing denial of people who identify as trans in many places. Strange. The current sentence does not say that and includes children since it uses "male" instead of "man". Maneesh (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
You are imagining a problem that does not exist. Some people AFAB are adults (amd are men) and therefore trans men. Some people AFAB are, in fact, children, but that is irrelevant to the veracity of this statement. There are similar usages of "male" throughout the article; there is no reason to allege an issue specific to this section where none exists. Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
The claim and the cite that support the claim have to be about adult males and have to use "transgender" in the right way, some reading shows you wwhy that is difficult. Not much to it. Maneesh (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
The claim in the text is simply that some AFAB people are trans men and some AMAB people are trans women. Denying that BLUESKY statement is, in fact, to deny that trans people exist - and you haven't provided any alternative explanation of what your are actually objecting to, meaningfully different from the current, factual statement in wikivoice that trans men and trans women exist. Instead, you have been cavilling and kvetching about what seem to be utter irrelevancies. Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I am rather baffled that Newimpartial above takes an attempt to improve text about trans people, by asking for citations to be added via CN tags, to be some sort of denial that trans people exist. Wikipedia text is supposed to be WP:Verifiable. Text with citations is stronger and more authoritative. Crossroads-talk- 07:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
When what the text says is that trans men and trans women exist, and citation-needed tags are added to those statements, I see no other interpretation than that the tags demand citations demonstrating that trans people exist. I have no issue with the sources that have now been added, of course, but there is no requirement that tags be added before sources can be, and these particular tags were rather against the spirit of that last bullet, given the content they were demanding verification for. Trans people do in fact exist. Newimpartial (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
" Difficulties with measuring the trans population stem from the definitional dilemmas that we have discussed thus far. Though numerous researchers have reported prevalence statistics, they must be cited with caution because of the inconsistency with which “transsexual” and “transgender” have historically been defined." that pretty much captures the problem you've had above. Maneesh (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, that paper suggests that estimates of the number of trans people range from 0.00007% to 3% or more. Now, for an article called "man", we can either (a) Wikisummarize this as "it's estimated that a small percentage of (AMAB) males identify as trans women, and a small percentage of (AFAB) females identity as trans men", which I believe the data supports, or (b) reel off a half-page of stats, with data for specific countries, who was included, the methodology used, etc. I wonder which we should prefer? Tewdar (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
"The prevalence data most frequently cited come from a gender clinic in the Netherlands and demonstrate that 1 in 11,000 (.009%) per-sons are MTF, and 1 in 30,400 (.0032%) are FTM (van Kesteren et al. 1996 ) . A recent study from Singapore found 1 in 2,900 (.034%) MTFs and 1 in 8,300 (.012%) FTMs, while a study in Belgium found 1 in 12,900 (.0077%) MTFs and 1 in 33,800 (.0029%) FTMs (Winter et al. 2009 ). The American Psychiatric Association, using GID criteria, suggested that MTFs had a 1 in 30,000 (.0077%) prevalence rate, while FTMs were 1 in 100,000 (.0029%) (APA 2000 ) ."
There is a definitional dilemma ('identifies as a man' vs. 'identifies as transgender' vs. 'identifies as masculine' vs. 'gender dysphoria' etc.). Best you can do here, I think, is be conservative "A transgender man is defined by some sources as a biological female who identifies as a male. Counting the number of such individuals is challenging due a variety of reasons but most estimates of prevalence are much less than 1% of the (female? male? general?) population." The clarity around "biological female" or something like "female anatomy" is essential in this article which has considerable focus on male biology/male anatomy. Transmen are, of course, female but this simple fact remains obfuscated in most sources, the one I've provided is on the clearer and also has an (international) prevalence number. Maneesh (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
There is also a big table (for all over 15s):
Australia (1981): 1 in 24,000 MTF, 1 in 150,000 FTM
Belgium (2007): 1 in 12,900 MTF, 1 in 33,800 FTM
Germany (1996): 1 in 14,400 MTF, 1 in 33,200 FTM
Iran (2009): 1 in 555 MTF [sic], 1 in 833 FTM [sic]
And now Newimpartial has twice reverted the removal of "There are exceptions to the above in regards to transgender men." after a detailed paragraph on the anatomy of adult males. "Exceptions" is a terribly odd way to describe the differences between male and females. EDIT Forgot to sign earlier: Maneesh (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Just revert it again. It looks ridiculous and POINTy. Tewdar (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I believe there was a previous discussion that arrived at consensus on this vacuous language. Newimpartial (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I have no doubt about that. No doubt whatsoever. Tewdar (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Let me guess - a martial arts instructor, a gin distiller, a c++ programmer, and a phonologist? Tewdar (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I just reverted since new consensus (WP:CCC) of 4 vs 1 (I think) editors is to keep it out. It really helps though if you click revert if you don't want it either. :) I see no need to shout-out to specific exceptional subsets of minority men, whether trans men, men with other physical conditions like no prostate due to prostate cancer, or the like, in the lead. Crossroads-talk- 23:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
We give a mention to trans men / women already somewhere in the article. Good enough,imo. Tewdar (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads, you can't simply decide that something has consensus when 50%+1 of editors agree with you but lacks consensus when no matter how many editors disagree with you. That isn't how anything works. I would be fine to write this up as an RfC, though I'll come up with better options than the rump sentence of the status quo. Newimpartial (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Note: This issue is already being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies § Men's rights sidebars. I suggest closing this thread to keep the discussion in one place. —02:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
outdoors.jpg)
current lead image
.png)
Not done: Vague requests to add, update, modify, or improve an image are generally not honored unless you can point to a specific image already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that you would like included on this article. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC) ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK Talk 02:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17..jpg)
.jpg)
(I am not the author of the image)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Artwe. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Artwe until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)