Talk:Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
  1. February 2004 to March 2007


Contents

[edit] Pictures always from one perspective

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)

Sure. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

this article should be merged with male. -Mrsanitazier March 29,2007 3:45 PM Eastern Time.

No, it shouldn't. Male should discuss maleness in all species that have a male/female distinction, while Man should have a limited focus on male humans, and Boy an even more limited focus on young male humans. There's far too much information in these two articles to be productively merged into another article. —Angr 19:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it should not be merged. Male can pertain to any animal. Man is specific to humans/homo sapiens sapiens. Has not anyone read dictionaries lately? Dogru144 16:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree, man and male can't be merged together, man is human male, male in general is any male, human or not.86.69.191.87 07:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Sourav

[edit] Etymology

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

Thanks for pointing this out! I hadn't even noticed that the etymological information was nonsense. I've replaced it with the standard view, as reported by the American Heritage Dictionary. —Angr 08:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for changing, yes that's making more sense now. I've put up another page, Manus, u can link up if u feel so. Sobuj 17:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
I would like to add that I actually came to this page for etymological information. It seemed odd to me that ME "man" has little relation to the "vir" of Latin or the "were," of early Germanic (which in and of themselves are nearly identical in classical pronunciation).
The only supposition I can make is that the middle syllable of "hominis" (the Latin genitive of "homo," or human, also incidentally masculine) was at one point adopted as the shorthand for the species. If this is the case, then an extraordinary instance of coincidental confluence occurred at some point, when the noun "man," meaning adult male human, and the phonetic equivalent "men," meaning the aggregate of the species Homo sapiens, somehow became associated. An unlikely scenario at best.
Although I hate to resort to such a gutless academic cop-out, the true origin probably lies in Proto-Indo-European. Sanskrit, though older by far than many modern languages, is still related at its roots to other Indo-European languages. What I'm trying to say is that the Sanskrit "Manav / Manush" is just another tine on the fork of a very old word, whose origins are regrettably lost in the ocean of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.215.79 (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michaelangelo's David

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)

Yes, having a photograph is inevitable given the nature of the medium. It wouldn't be possible to have an actual human being attached to the page. However, there is still an enormous difference between a photograph of a human being and a photograph of a statue. A photograph of a statue is a fine illustration for Statue, and the image in question is in fact used there. I also don't mind having the David image here, but a bit further down the page, since it is inadequate for the purpose of illustrating a man. The lead photo, on the other hand, must be a photograph of the actual topic of discussion: a man. Restoring the image of David is fine, as long as the van Gloeden is also restored to the top of the page. I honestly don't understand why the van Gloeden gets removed (without an adequate replacement) every few months or so. —Angr 14:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
David illustrates what a man is better than any photograph I'm aware of. I'd like to hear from someone else who finds it "inadequate" as the primary illustration for this article. The photo you reference is at least far removed from the actual man as is the photo of Michaelangelo's David. Were not looking at an actual man, or even an actual photograph--just a computer screen's approximation of a scan of a copy of a photo somebody took. The relevant question is: what best illustrates the subject for the article's reader? We should address this question by determining consensus and then place that image in the lead; if you were claiming the image you're removing is a poor-quality photo of David, I could understand the argument not to include it. But your refrain: "it's not a man, it's a statue" strikes me as more than a little absurd. A reader, by they way, could infer what the statue depicts just the easily as if he/she were looking at "a photograph of a human being". In any case, I would like to hear what others have to say.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
No matter what, the image of a statue is always one degree further away: a computer screen's approximation of a digital photograph of one side of a portion of a statue showing one person's interpretation of a man. —Angr 15:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
My point was meant to be that splitting hairs over the number of degrees of removal is silly. Just use the best image for the purposes of the article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'm trying to do, and you keep removing it and replacing it with an irrelevant image. —Angr 21:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you don't think superlative works of art are relevant to the the subjects they depict. I don't foresee many editors agreeing with you.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you think a photograph in which no man is anywhere to be seen is an adequate lead image for an article about men. —Angr 08:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems Angr's thinking here is a little concrete...no pun intended. I think that the sculpture of David is an ideal opening image for this article. —Gaff ταλκ 04:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Why? There is no man anywhere in it. It's not a man. The van Gloeden image is a photograph of a man. The photograph of David is completely irrelevant to this topic. —Angr 05:01, 7 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)

[edit] White men only?

Globe icon
 The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

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)

Good idea. I was thinking of Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and Desmond Tutu. On the other hand, for the sake of NPOV, we should avoid the impression that men have only been forces for good in history: Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Idi Amin were men too. If we can get a global enough gallery of men of historical importance, we could do away with the other one. The article shouldn't become predominantly a picture gallery. —Angr 21:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm for it, but the guys you mention are all 20th century figures. Some more non-white men from antiquity would be interesting (although--brace yourself--you're only likely to find paintings--not photos--of such people).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That's okay; I only mentioned 20th century figures because they're the ones I could name off the top of my head. —Angr 08:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. There are billions of non-white men in the world, and several have been prominent historical figures. Someone should add some. Ztrawhcs 14:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

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. —Angr 13:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think a picture of a man would work well there - David is a statute, not a man. --Haemo 05:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, which joker put that {{fact}} tag on the caption for that image. 'Fess up! --Haemo 05:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I also removed the {{disputed}} tag, since there's no argument over the factual accuracy of the article - just over whether this image is the right one. --Haemo 05:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I put the {{disputed}} sign up because I question the factual accuracy of the implication that David is a man. Having a lead image that is not actually a depiction of the subject of the article puts the accuracy of the entire article into question. —Angr 05:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it clearly states that David is a statue of a man; not a man. Your dispute is over whether or not the picture of a statue of a man is appropriate as the first picture. --Haemo 06:05, 7 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)

Our choice here is not between a photograph and a statue. Our choice is between two photographs: one of a man, and one of a statue. By the nature of the medium we are compelled to use a two-dimensional representation of something as the lead image. The question is, is it more appropriate to have a two-dimensional representation of a man, or a two-dimensional representation of a statue? My answer is that it is blindingly obvious that only a two-dimensional representation of a man is relevant; a two-dimensional representation of a statue is not. In the case of the van Gloeden image, what the photographer had before him when he took the picture was a man. In the case of the David image, what the photograhper had before him when he took the picture was a statue. While it's a very beautiful statue, it isn't a man. Using that image as the lead suggests that men tend to be 17 feet tall and made of marble. It is completely inappropriate for an article about the biology and sociology of men. —Angr 20:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Tend to agree with the above; imagine you came from an all-female society in some far-flung future. You have never seen a man before - they are like mythical creatures, from some long-forgotten past. You find this website in an archaeological archive, and click on "man" - what do you see? A 17-foot tall being composed mainly of marble. --Haemo 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Presumably, your futuristic women from the future, being sophisticated enough to use Wikiepdia, can also read the caption "Michelangelo's David is a statue of a man." Also, being so sophisticated, they are capable of abstract thought and recognize that a symbol of a man is not a man. Language is a system of symbolic communication. The David image in my opinion is the better symbol. —Gaff ταλκ 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The David statue is a symbol of a man. The van Gloeden photograph is a symbol of a man. But a photograph of the David statue, which is all we have available to us here, is not a symbol of a man; it's a symbol of a symbol. Why should we use this indirect representation of a representation of a man when we have a perfectly good direct representation of a man? Why should we confuse the hypothetical reader who's never seen a man before by presenting her in the first instance, at the very top of the article, with a photograph of something else? —Angr 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
A skilled artist can capture and highlight the "essence" of a subject better than a photograph can. We have a few medical articles that are have artwork as the lead image instead of a photo – I remember Lathyrism, Gout and Parkinson's disease. There may be more. Image:The_gout_james_gillray.jpg shows in one throw the swelling of the toe joint, the redness of the inflamed area and the pain suffered by afflicted individuals. It's emblematic. You could recognize gout in an individual from that. The photograph Image:Gicht_am_Grosszehgelenk.jpg is weaker - you wouldn't know that the condition is painful from that picture. Also, the classic illustration Image:Sir_William_Richard_Gowers_Parkinson_Disease_sketch_1886.jpg shows clearly the posture and gait of a Parkinson's sufferer. To do this with photographs would be difficult. Now Michelangelo's David is classical image of youthful male beauty in Western art. It tells what a young man is supposed to look like The Gloeden photo is, well, weak, in poor taste, not exemlpary of anything (and that youth dressed up as Hercules just looks plain dumb). Dr Zak 23:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
David is emblematic of Western men - very few people from, say, China would look at that statue and say "Ah, that best represents the men I know". The fact is that Wikipedia has a systematic bias towards Western things, and holding a famous piece of Western art as representing all men merely reinforces that. Why not go for a picture of a couple of men standing together, or a person who has a number of ethnic features? --Haemo 23:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean (and I think it's Angr's point as well). If the issue is if the lead image should be an illustration of the "idea of a man" or an image of a man why not use Image:Pioneer_plaque_line-drawing_of_a_human_male.svg, which is the man from the Pioneer plaque? At least it's better taste than the Gloeden photo. (Whatever it's status in Western culture, I still think David does a pretty good job at liiustrating the male features of the human body. Dr Zak 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not a terrifically compelling image, and - again - it's a drawing. I think an image along these lines would be a good choice - someone who displays both Western, and non-Western features. --Haemo 23:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not a bad picture, but not a good illustration of a man. Whatever goes in the lead cannot show just the face. We need an image that shows the male build of the body and the genitalia. Dr Zak 23:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
One point in favor of Image:Sabaa_Nissan_Militiaman.jpg: he does have a beard. We should have something with a beard. Dr Zak 23:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
A collage of images like on race articles such as Han Chinese and African American might be nice. Maybe a sampling from several races.--Daveswagon 00:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is about the male of the human species, not about human races. Dr Zak 03:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of a collage. I don't know why you consider the van Gloeden image to be "in poor taste", but that's only your opinion, not a fact someone can do something about, so it can be safely ignored. And how on earth did you get the notion that someone who is completely naked is "dressed up as Hercules"??? —Angr 17:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Von Gloeden was the first widely published gay photographer, but is by no means considered a great artist. Why Hercules? Because of the animal skin. You know that Hercules wore the skin of the Nemean_Lion, and that von Gloeden preferred to cast his models in an an antique theme. Dr Zak 21:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It looks to me more like he's holding a blanket. At any rate, we're not looking for Great Art here, we're looking for a full-body nude photograph of a man. If you can suggest another one, that's fine. —Angr 21:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


(deindent) So, it looks like we have some criteria here:
  1. Show the full body, including genitals and build
  2. Show a beard, or other "male" features
  3. Be ethnically neutral
I think an illustration, or picture would be acceptable - but not necessarily a picture of a statue. I also think a single person would be important, since it's about man not men. --Haemo 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that (1) is a prerequisite. (2) is optional in my opinion with respect to a beard (and I don't know what other "male" features you might mean that aren't already included under (1)). (3) is completely impossible, especially if it's an image of only one man. A collage of three or four images would allow us more leeway (one image that meets criterion 1, another that meets criterion 2, one or two more to increase compliance with criterion 3). —Angr 22:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, for (2) you could have, instead of a beard, body hair. I don't think (3) is impossible at all, even as a single picture - just choose a man from an ethnic group which is not classically any single racial archetype. --Haemo 00:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
There was a BIG discussion about this last summer, and Angr, you were a part of it. As I recall, there used to be a picture of a naked man there. (In fact, it's the black and white 1895 picture from lower in the article.) There was a big commotion because several people (including me) thought it was stylistically preferable to have a more artistic representation of "man" as the first image, then moving down toward the full naked man in the biology section. VERY lengthy discussion about this in the Talk Archives. Ztrawhcs 15:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the image you mean is the van Gloeden image, which has been the lead image since March 2006, until it was replaced last week (without discussion or even a coherent reason being given). To me, this article is and ought to be primarily a science article: the biology, physiology, psychology, and sociology of men. As such, the lead image should be neutral, not artistic. I had difficulty finding an image that depicted a nude man in a way that was neither prurient nor artificial, but I think the van Gloeden comes very close. (It's much less "posed" than all his other photographs.) Today I found another one that I think also meets those criteria, Image:Wadshagga-Tribesman.jpg. Advantages to the Chaga tribesman image: it's a photograph of a man; he's almost completely nude; he's not posing, he's just standing there; and it would help counter the European bias of our images. Disadvantage: The adornments on his legs, arms, and head are a distraction (our hypothetical reader who's never seen a man before might be led to believe man have horns and one tusk on the right side). —Angr 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That is not correct. It was the lead image until August 2006, at which point it was replaced with the Vitruvian Man after EXTENSIVE discussion. I don't know what happened after that. Ztrawhcs 15:55, 11 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)

[edit] Gallery

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)

The gallery is back, and I'd like to see it stay. I think it actually is rather educational to have a diverse cross-section of images depicting men. There are people in the world who have never seen a person of western European ancestry, or of African ancestry, etc. As Wikipedia gets more widely distributed, for example through OLPC, maybe we'll actually reach some of these people. In particular, given all the struggle over the definition of "man" over the past 300 years, I would say it's worthwhile to remind people how diverse men actually are, instead of only depicting men of a certain ethnicity. In that vein, I think the gallery does over-represent European men. Also keep in mind that in alternative distribution formats (paper, DVD, offline download, etc.), access to the Commons might not be available. -- Beland 17:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not correct. The gallery is not back. I was referring to this gallery, not the gallery of Men throughout history.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should decide whether we keep an ethnical gallery or a historical one. --Andersmusician VOTE 04:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
A gallery of famous men in history is pointless, arbitrary and a potential cause of disputes about status ("my dad should be there"), ethics ("Hitler's there!"), professions ("we need an artist/engineer/farmer/policeman...) and any numder of other criteria. It will also just grow pointlessly. An ethnic gallery is far more useful. Paul B 16:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with you, but let's keep this issue on hold for a while. --Andersmusician VOTE 03:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The famous men gallery is one of the stranger things I have encountered on wikipedia -- I think it should go, and go now. I'll wait a few days to see what thoughts there are, but I think the issue has been on 'hold' long enough. -- Sammermpc 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Characteristics..."unemotional" true in many cases but i dont like the way that section is dsiplayed in a factual sense...please...change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.75.90 (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing unsourced statements

I am removing the following statements, as they have been tagged as needing a source since last February:

  • For example, in interpersonal relationships, most research has found that men and women are equally aggressive. Men do tend to be more aggressive outside of the home.

If anyone can find a source for these claims, feel free to re-add them. —Angr 18:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masculine Characteristics

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)

[edit] I call for the removal of the Pope photo

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)

A picture of a Catholic priest would be better as there are thousands of priests but only one pope. An imam would also work. --Ephilei (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Man#Men throughout history

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)

[edit] Article keep getting smaller

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)

[edit] Derogatory chacteristics displayed as fact

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)

Whether is derogatory is subjective. But it is factual. The context explains, as does gender studies, that gender depends on society's perception and consensus. --Ephilei (talk) 02:33, 19 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)

[edit] Re: "Genital Cutting"

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)


[edit] Call for protection

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)

[edit] characteristics section

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)

[edit] Modern man

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 don't know, I'm not well read in anthropology or socialigy. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Somebody changed it...--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)