Talk:Man

Gender vías against men ¿Could you add this information to give the article balance and prevent it from appearing biased?

Some time ago, a study was included that shows that men are at a disadvantage in the West, however, Wikipedia removed it, what I question is this a bias that seeks to see men as privileged? The Study is:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6317789/

Study Summary: The authors developed the Basic Gender Inequality Index (BIGI), an index that assesses gender inequality in 134 countries, representing 6.8 billion people. Unlike other indices, the BIGI considers three key factors: Healthy life expectancy Overall life satisfaction Educational opportunities in childhood The study found that: In 91 countries, men face more disadvantages than women. In 43 countries, women are in a more disadvantaged position. In nations with high human development, greater gender parity is observed, although with a slight advantage for women. In countries with low human development, women are often at a disadvantage, mainly due to fewer educational opportunities. This approach provides a more balanced view of gender inequality, recognizing that both men and women may face disadvantages in different contexts.

¿ Marcelapop (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to how that even got through peer review. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Could you add this information to the rights and social role section? Marcelapop (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Misandry is also minimized in the disparity of criminal sentences and, as I mentioned, the disadvantages of men in various countries: "In most societies, men have more legal and cultural rights than women.[46] And misogyny is far more prevalent than misandry in society." Marcelapop (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I share EF's incredulity. Regardless, it's an avenue of brand new analysis that doesn't seem to have influenced the literature very much. Gender gap index is still used prolifically, and the BIGI has not caught on. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Marcelapop, can you please self-revert and discuss your changes here, rather than repeatedly restoring them over objections? Many of the sources you're citing are poor, dated, or misrepresented. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Marcelapop, I have reverted it for you. But discussing your inclusion is the next step. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a primary source study anyway, this seems inappropriate per WP:PSTS. This does seem like a novel interpretation of data. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

its PloS one. I think they have peer review, but are much less stringent than many.

Seems that Geary's politics (guy who is corresponding author) is quite clearly spilled out here in this oped: https://quillette.com/2025/05/15/the-wefs-gender-disinformation-campaign-feminism-global-gender-gap-index/ Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

OP indeffed for personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Anti-male vender bias

Stop promoting anti-male bias, I'm adding several reliable and verified sources.

I am providing various sources of information. In addition, the article talks about men and men have problems. It is too biased to manipulate the information to victimize women and support the idea that misandry does not exist. There are many empirical studies that support what I say. Marcelapop (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Marcelapop in the conversation above this one, multiple users have asked you to engage in discussion of your inclusion. You are using a primary source, and generally that isn't going to work. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

While I don't deny that men have advantages, this article should be fair; it should mention male disadvantages and not just claim that there is "male privilege." Marcelapop (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The content you changed did not claim that "there is 'male privilege'", it just linked to the article Male privilege as a "further information" link. The status quo ante was pretty defensibly fair, mentioning both the "advantages" that you acknowledge and some important men's issues. Your version has multiple unaddressed problems, and I again call for you to self-revert so that it can be workshopped. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

cultural bias in "Social role" and "Work"

The "Social role" and "Work" segments are biased towards - not necessarily using the exactly correct term here - patriarchal societies. Although in the minority, there are several societies in which women perform most of the roles desribed here as traditionally male and hold the commensurate positions. Someone with no knowledge or experience on the matter would assume from reading this article that the situation described in the article is valid the world over. It should at least be highlighted that the male 'model' and the distribution of roles differ across cultures. 2A02:1810:1402:9C00:E909:ADFD:5ACB:7562 (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Why is Talk:Woman protected?

The protection log is two years old! 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:DD71:523C:3D67:14D2 (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Ask at WP:RfPP. Remsense 🌈 论 20:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Contentious topics in general, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2023/08#Talk:Woman in particular. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 00:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Why are the Man and Woman articles protected?

I want to add the plural template on them. 131.150.163.32 (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2026

Change the first sentence in this page to "'Man' is a human gender identity typically attributed to adult human males" ~2026-34044-5 (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before creating an edit request. This is a highly contentious topic and an edit will not be made without a full discussion and consensus. Aston305 (complain/compliment) 15:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I would like to see this change Goetia [She/They] (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, need consensus. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 03:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey Crash! I was going to go looking for you! I'm reviving Wikiproject feminism and thought you seemed like a person who would be interested in that

also, I don't really know about how to get consensus I've never been in this position yknow? so i just added my name as a user who agreed i guess? Not quite sure but if someone could explain I'd be happy to try my best to get a consensus for this change. I'll read the link rn though that Aston sent Goetia [She/They] (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, awesome! I don't especially edit BLPs or articles on people, just mostly things related to my interests and behind-the-scenes work, but I'd love to take a look!

For the consensus part, you can either make an official proposal (with {{RfC}} or the other) or just make a talk page section explaining the changes, etc. The second option is one I do more often, although it can have a smaller range of editors. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 03:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the help I'll look into both of those options.

Feminism isn't the exact same as WIR so theres more than just BLPs and I bet we could find something for your behind-the-scenes skills to do if you join but don't feel pressured either way Goetia [She/They] (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)