Talk:Male
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Male was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on 5 February 2006.
For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations. |
- A male individual cannot reproduce without sexual intercourse with a female.
except if the species does external fertilization, of course. Morwen - Talk 13:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Encyclopedia:male
First listed in most wanted stubs, this article's scope is not wide enough. See "What links here" :
- Andre Agassi
- Abortion
- Talk:Abortion
- Andrew
- Body
- Bee
- Carolus Linnaeus
- Clitoris
- Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
- Discordianism
- Dog
- Distributism
- Endocrine system
- Frodo Baggins
- Fallacies of definition
- Female
- Faramir
- First-person shooter
- Gamete
- Grammatical gender
- Horse breeding
- Heterosexuality
- John
- Man
- Male (disambiguation)
- Medicine man
- Neo-druidism
- Naked News
- Orgasm
- Pregnancy (mammals)
- Postmodernism
- Pope John XXIII
- Paul
- Patrilineality
- Biological reproduction
- Sex
- Doctor (Star Trek)
- Worf
- Odo
- Chakotay
- Tom Paris
- Leonard McCoy
- Geordi La Forge
- Spermatozoon
- Squirrel
- Sex symbol
- Talk:Sex
- Secondary sex characteristic
- Semen
- Scorpion
(1050 links ; also, I can't tell the order those links are listed with).
- May I suggest a "See also" section to the most prominent subjects ? --DLL 10:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Maybe I'm being dense today, but I don't really understand what you're asking for. Could you be more explicit?--Curtis Clark 17:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- And I must have missed sth, sorry. Such an article could become a kinda portal, if you take note that it has got nearly one thousand links. A stub, even enriched to an average article size, should not be enough : there must be communication between subjects, e;g., as sex, artists, specific religion rites and animals link here, the "see also" section must exist and link back to such articles and/or categories. That's encyclopedic. Thank you for your advice and help. --DLL 21:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- What would be the criteria for including an article in "see also"? I could understand semen or spermatozoon, but I think I'd draw the line at Geordi La Forge or First-person shooter.--Curtis Clark 23:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
-
I find this paragraph extremely weird: "Human males are called men (singular man). In humans, there are several different components (in addition to genetics) to assigning biological sex and gender identity such as "male". Most men have XY chromosomes, with XXY and XYY each occurring in about one in a thousand male births."
What are the "different components" that determine biological sex in human males? Are those components also present in other apes, mammals, vertebrates?
Also is the concept of "Gender identity" relevant at all in a biological article? It is after all a sociological term. The sociological implications of the term "male" are already addressed in the article Man as it is indeed noted in Male (disambiguation)
I think the error in the paragraph is that it conflates "gender identity" with biological sex when it is extremely clear that they are different things.
To finish, are there any particularly notable differences between sex differentiation in human males and other mammals to make a special reference to human males needed in this article? If there are what are they? Notice the mammalian system of sex differentiation is already mentioned in the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.36.158.120 (talk • contribs) .
The above comment has been posted without any response for a few days. I will wait for a few more days and in case nobody answers or otherwise argue against it I will delete the above mentioned paragraph from the article as I feel its inclusion is unjustified. I do not relish the prospect of doing this unilaterally so any comment for or against are encouraged and will be welcomed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.36.158.120 (talk • contribs) .
- Although I agree with you, an unsigned comment by an anon doesn't have as much weight as a signed comment by a registered user (sorry, but that's just the way it is). If you delete it, be sure to write an edit summary so it won't be reverted as vandalism.--Curtis Clark 04:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I will not delete it until I have given everybody a chance to comment on the proposed change. So far it seems two persons agree and nobody has said anything against it. I will still wait some more time and follow your suggestion in case I finally do the edit.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.36.158.120 (talk • contribs) .
- After a week without anyone making any comment for or against, and with the present count of two people agreeing and none objecting I have decided to go ahead with the edit. To anyone wishing to revert it I would beg to come here to discuss before taking any action. 80.36.158.120 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "sexual identities" template
I think this is extraordinarily POV for an article about males among all organisms, since it is clearly meant to be about humans only (although parts of it are perhaps applicable to other mammals). If it were an article on sexual identity, I'd have no objection at all, but the template dominates Male by its size, and makes the article even more human-centric.--Curtis Clark 04:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
males by itz size, human-centric?? im confused and angry!Qrc2006 23:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, let's analyze it:
- Sexual orientations—Although this part is primarily about humans ("anthrosexuality" even presupposes it in its etymology), sexual relationships between members of the same sex are not all that uncommon in social mammals and birds. Whether it is biologically equivalent to human homosexuality has not been firmly established, though, and mammals and birds make up a small fraction of organisms with sexes (any random male or female is statistically most likely to be a beetle). This part also leaves out bestiality, which is seen by many as an "aberration" among humans, but which is much more common among closely related species in other groups (we killed off all our close relatives), especially in plants. And although many organisms are strange and unusual, none are "queer" in the same sexual-political sense as humans.
- Sexes—The sex chromosome configurations given are primarily mammalian, and some are not well-attested except in humans:
- Female (xo)—X0 fruit flies are male
- Female (xx)—The xx/xy system is found only in therian mammals, if I'm not mistaken.
- Female (xxx)—I think this syndrome has only been reported in humans, although it may occur in other mammals.
- Female (xy)—I think this syndrome has only been reported in humans, although it may occur in other mammals.
- Male (xx)—This is a very interesting syndrome that should be linked from Sex-determination systems, but again is substantiated in humans only.
- Male (xxy)—I think this syndrome has only been reported in humans, although it may occur in other mammals.
- Male (xy)—Again, therian mammals.
- Male (xyy)—I think this syndrome has only been reported in humans, although it may occur in other mammals.
- Man—"A man is a male human."
- Intersexuality/Intersex, Intersex (xo/xy)—Hermaphroditism is unusual in vertebrates, but common in many other organisms.
- Woman—"A woman is a female human."
- Gender—These terms (not including, of course, grammatical gender) apply specifically to humans.
- Other—It's hard to imagine "Swinger" or "Womyn" applied except to humans.
This is an article about all males, in the biological sense. I would hate to need a separate Male (biology) to encompass that.--Curtis Clark 00:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Great Article!
I just read the first part about biology. But, as far as I got, it is one of the best Wikipedia articles I've read. I did some light editing to clean up some typos and very minor stylistic errors. I need to go to sleep, so I didn't finish. Fabulous! Eperotao 06:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your edits!--Curtis Clark 04:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Electronics
Why isn't there mention that device connectors (that plug into sockets) are referrred to as 'male', and the receptacles are labelled 'female'? Mr.bonus 23:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
