Talk:Man

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Anthropology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archives

February 2004 to March 2007

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. —An gr 19:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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. —An gr 08:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —An gr 14:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —An gr 15:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's what I'm trying to do, and you keep removing it and replacing it with an irrelevant image. —An gr 21:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —An gr 08:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —An gr 05:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White men only?

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)[reply]

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. —An gr 21:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's okay; I only mentioned 20th century figures because they're the ones I could name off the top of my head. —An gr 08:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. —An gr 13:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also, which joker put that {{fact}} tag on the caption for that image. 'Fess up! --Haemo 05:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —An gr 05:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —An gr 20:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? —An gr 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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)[reply]