Talk:Man

Patriarchial society

All this part below is a political messaging and should be at least rewritten in a proffesional tone without obvious, blatant agreement with a subjective and more often than not critisized abstract idea of patriarchial society.

[Throughout human history, traditional gender roles have often defined masculinity and men's activities and opportunities, furthering the prevalence of patriarchal society. This makes men have considerable privileges and power, particularly over women, enforcing stringent masculine dominance and hierarchies throughout society. Men are over-represented as both perpetrators and victims of violence. Men often are directed into professions with high mortality rates. Mostly men face conscription into military service. Many religious doctrines stipulate certain rules for men, such as religious circumcision. Critique of the impact of these roles has produced changes toward gender equality, and has been addressed by the diverse men's movement.] ~2026-41214-41 (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Man and Woman are Gender Identities

This page fails to include, at least in the definition, the fact that being a man is also a gender identity. Man is a gender identity associated with the behaviors of adult human biological males in a given culture. Woman is a gender identity associated with the behaviors of adult human biological females in a given culture. NonEuclideanG (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, didn't you see the footnotes..? ;)  Tewdar  13:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposal for an alternative lead image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Unidentified man with unidentified plants in Kauai, United States

I'd like to propose considering File:CROPPED (Unidentified man with unidentified plants in Kauai, United States) - DPLA - 9685e6a5c642bf213926d4c94e21bac9 (cropped).jpg as an alternative lead image for this article.

The photograph depicts an unidentified adult man in a natural setting in Kauaʻi, Hawaii, and comes from a documented archival collection. I think its candid, environmental composition could be a suitable way to illustrate the article's subject without relying on a conventional posed portrait, or, at least, using a more open pose.

I also find the photograph visually distinctive while remaining straightforward and documentary in character. The subject is presented as an ordinary person rather than as a recognizable public figure, which may be appropriate for an article addressing the general concept of an adult man.

Also, look at his bicep! And the slight bulge in his shorts! Exemplar man! Jokes aside, I think the photograph's natural pose and setting give it a distinctive character that could make it worth considering alongside the current image.

I recognize that the current lead image was selected following previous discussion, and I'm not proposing that this decision be disregarded. Rather, I'd appreciate feedback on whether this photograph offers a useful alternative, particularly regarding its legibility at thumbnail size, its composition, and its suitability for the article's lead.

Thank you for considering it.SanMaster17 (contribs) 02:43, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I also back this. ~2026-54474-69 (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't see this as a clear improvement; the casual pose is acceptable but the low quality is an issue, for starters (it looks blurry on my screen at normal sizes). I think there is a consensus here and at Talk:Woman that our representative "man" and "woman" photo should depict a non-white model, if we can help it. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 04:44, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Why should the photo depict a non-white model? 42manako (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

What kind of question is that? Why does the model have to be white? There are 4 billion men on earth, of which only 280 million to 500 million are white. Plumeater2 (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Well supposedly there is a consensus that the photo "should depict a non-white model, if we can help it.", to which "why should the photo depict a non-white model" is a perfectly valid question. The deeper question is why is there a supposed consensus among Wikipedia editors that excludes a particular race? That is quite a racist admission. Kutaisi73 (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Excluding an entire race of people is racist, especially because it seems to be politically motivated. Having multiple men in the lead image alleviates the issue of exclusion. Kutaisi73 (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

what?! Avli16 (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I would disagree with this proposal. As RoxySaunders said, the image looks blurry and is kind of low-quality. The man in the current image is not a recognizable public figure, also, as you mention (? maybe I am wrong on that). I don't see an issue with the pre-existing image either, or that this is enough of an "improvement".

~2026-54477-14, by the way, completely irrelevant comment. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:58, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

• I also oppose the change. Current picture is better as the proposed picture is dark and grainy. I have no problem changing the pic every now and then but the picture has to be a good one. This proposed one is not good. Masterhatch (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I back this. ~2026-54481-02 (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok so i saw the newest image, composed of various MEN with references to who they are/were. I quite like it! Great choice, having many guys instead of just one dude to represent men in general. You may disregard this topic now, as I had not considered something as simple as having many fellas. SanMaster17 (contribs) 10:27, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh! Maybe we could do the same for women? SanMaster17 (contribs) 10:29, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Probably not. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 16:49, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I would oppose this specific picture as low quality. This is not saying I oppose any lead image change but I think that one isn't a good option. Additionally, any lead change is going to need a RfC or similar process. See the discussion here . Springee (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

+1 ~2026-54415-96 (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. The current photo is representative of human males, higher quality, and has served as the photo for 7 years. Additionally, I would like to mention that this brigading is happening because of a post coming from the white supremacist corner of twitter, so arguments to change the image are not being done in good faith. https://x.com/adonispara/status/2108588307131363528 Plumeater2 (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

The spreading of awareness is not the depletion of faith, just the dilution of what you suppose to be the generality of your own. If everyone came in here and agreed, there wouldn't be an argument.

It is in fact not a good faith assumption that every dissenter is in here on bad faith. ~2026-54554-82 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose and speedy close: An abysmally bad faith off-canvassing attempt to dislodge the longstanding version, racist white-supremacist and Nazi X posts such as this, such Pov ridden requests must not be entertained. Yavuz Ben (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, I don't love the longstanding (mostly because of the blurred background, it looks like a clothes ad), but there's good reason for the image used to be a person of the so-called "global majority". Also, the proposal looks like it's cropping something out, even if it isn't, and more importantly is dark and somewhat grainy. Theodore Christopher (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose Suggested image is dark, incredibly grainy, and low quality, there's no issue with the current image either. Flixxy0 (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is this article so unnecessarily political?

Non-actionable POV complaints by WP:SPA.

First, why was it agreed that the lead image of this article could not be of a white male, being the case that most native english speakers are white.

Second, why is the introduction to the article already speaking about males position in society (both "privileges" and disadvantages) and the whole concept of patriarchy. I, as a man, don't see those themes as defining my manhood.

Third, why is there a definition of transgender men in the introduction, that is not the main theme of the article.

Last, Wikipedia should be politically neutral. Articles are not places where political discussions should be held. Let's have some common sense, this article clearly has a left-leaning bias.

Just sharing my opinion. DonTobias (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

the page reads politically neutral to me tbh. it's the page of "man", why would it not have information about the position of men in society? I, also as a man, think it's important for the page to be thorough. doesn't seem political to me mentioning the concept of patriarchy or men's position in society. only natural for the page for men to have info about men

the article also mentions trans men because the article is about men. trans men are, in fact, men. wikipedia strives to be accurate and detailed, and reality has a left leaning bias, which is why this page seems like it's also politically left leaning. but imo it seems fine Moazinaziz (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not arguing those topics shouldn't be mentioned, I'm arguing that they shouldn't be in the introduction. I'll reserve my opinion on transexual men to myself, but the definition of trans man doesn't belong in the introduction of the article in my opinion.

Also, reality doesn't have left leaning bias. If that's what most Wikipedia editors think, that would explain the state of this website. Reality is politically neutral.

~2026-54382-11 (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

don't think i classify as a wikipedia editor, i've only edited one article in my life.

but anyways, im not sure what you mean by introduction. trans men are mentioned in the fourth paragraph after two long ones and one short opener sentence. if by intro you mean the first section, then it seems like an appropriate place to mention it to me. the whole section is detailed, again, it has two long paragraphs. i might've agreed with you if the section was only like three sentences long, but as it is right now it seems fine to me.

you said you'd keep your opinion on transsexual men to yourself, implying you have a negative perception of them? that might be why you don't like their mention. looking at it very absolutely neutrally, transgender/transsexual men exist, and it seems fair to me for them to be mentioned in the article for Men. the first section serves as a sort of short definition or summary, so to me it seems like transgender men being mentioned there is appropriate. it's not even particularly detailed, just like two sentences. i might've agreed with you if it was highly detailed, but as it is right now i don't see any problem with it Moazinaziz (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree. People who self identify as trans men exist. They have their own article, they could have a separate section in this article. They do not define manhood or are a central part of it, thus shouldn't be in the first section of this article.

At this point, I figure you're either too deep into your political echo chamber to see the issue with this article. DonTobias (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

i think you've mistaken this article to be for Cisgender Men. the talk page we are on currently is for the article Men. in case you aren't mistaken, i don't really know what to say because i've already replied to you and you haven't said anything new.

the first section in this article (for men, not cis men exclusively) is not reserved for what "defines manhood" or what is a "central part" of it. imo both those things are very vague and probably very divisive as well. this is an article meant to be informative. and its succeeding at that. i really don't see how its political, its not like it mentions trans politicians, or tells you to go vote for trans men. just a sentence saying they exist and what they are. seems appropriate for it to be in the first section of the article Men Moazinaziz (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@Moazinaziz @DonTobias I notice a lot of folks have appeared on the talk page all of a sudden, did this page get brought up somewhere off-wiki? At any rate, I'll note that Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM for the general discussion of topics. Changes may certainly be discussed, but you'll need to provide a reliable source supporting the change you want. Please suggest changes in a "change x to y" format. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:15, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I saw a racist post on X (formerly twitter) about the fact the page had a south asian looking person as the main photo. the post also attracted a lot of transphobia in the reply. it got 488K views, and some quote retweets also with views in the 100K's. that might be it?

i'm new to editing wikipedia and participating in talk pages. i'll keep the info in mind for the future, thank you! Moazinaziz (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Theres been mentions on Twitter of the articles main subject photo, with some valid criticisms here and there, though most of the attention has been directed towards the person seeming Indian. Deltasvr (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi there! There was a post on X about this article, it led me to read it. There are valid criticisms about it. I wouldn't know how to format my point into "change x to y". My argument is more about the general tone and themes of the article. I think it is being misused to promote an agenda (I trust you know this my heart, but WP:AGENDA). I am using this platform to change the article in a general way. What would be the correct medium for that? Thanks! DonTobias (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@DonTobias well this is certainly the place to discuss changes and improvements to the article. But generally suggesting that the tone and themes are problematic isn't particularly helpful? For folks to change the article, we need to identify concrete sections and sentences, identify and agree on the problem, and then figure out a solution. Alternatively, the article could surely use more research in the body, and folks willing to hunt down and read reliable sources to expand the article with would be much appreciated. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:39, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the patriarchy part of the article is terribly written; looks as if a elementary student at best wrote it. Besides that, it shows clear bias and is overly political. Deltasvr (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

an*, apologies Deltasvr (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

If anyone wants elaboration, the paragraph uses pretty obviously loaded words and puts heavy emphasis on the parts regarding men's power. The word patriarchy is also an interpretation; it should not be used as a fact. There is a clear selective bias here, I mean just look at the end sentence. Deltasvr (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't really agree for the most part but the second paragraph definitely needs to be rewritten. Thea likes Sfera Ebbasta (talk to me, ooooh!) 09:18, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Why keep changing the image?

The original image with images of various renowned historical figures is fine, no need for constant changing of the image. Deltasvr (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

For newcomers to this page, the current lead image was chosen in a thorough community discussion in 2019. See Special:Diff/903516477 and Talk:Man/sandbox. The image has been relatively stable for seven years. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:45, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Could another one could be discussed sometime soon? Maybe pointless, though it feels as if the current image is too styled. More specifically, the color grading, his hair, and the depth of field. Perhaps India v2 could work, it's natural and unposed, and seems ordinary. Deltasvr (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it feels too styled and unexpected. This is probably reason enough to change the lead image to something else or remove it entirely as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Images for the lead. Surely there is no reason to not reconvene a thorough community discussion, especially due to an apparent "edit war" occurring in this article's edit history. My opinion is that these types of articles don't require a lead image as it leads to representation battles and many examples of a man already exist within the article with a relative wide range of representation. For example, semi-parallel articles such as White people and Black people have no lead images and were directly addressed in the 2016 RfC on gallery-type leads alongside this article and Woman. Kutaisi73 (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

This image has been in use for 7 years. Go back to twitter. For wikipedia editors, all of this brigading came from twitter white nationalists, who posted about this today https://x.com/RoyalSerf/status/2108721056374800878 Plumeater2 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

You are projecting your own racism, the collage image depicts men of a wide range of ethnicities. Ramlaen (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Your only messages on this talk page have been accusing people wanting the collage image, or at the least a different lead image of being Neo Nazis. You're the only one acting in bad faith - and actively interrupting discussion of a new lead image. Deltasvr (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

The lead image looks like AI

The facial structure looks unnatural and reminiscent of AI generation. The background also has that blur filter used by photographers to focus on the subject. It is undeniable that the photo has been edited to some degree, making it a bad lead photo. CerealContainer (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

It was first added in 2019 so I doubt it is AI. Hasn't been edited since its upload, likely just that we now question everything on whether it is AI. LordOfBrum (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

it does look like AI... Easym0neysniperrrrr (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

The image was edited in Photoshop, according to the file metadata. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Proposal for lead image to settle recent arguments

Lately, numerous arguments have emerged on the topic of replacing the lead image of this article, and while I do believe that the lead image should be changed, many of those arguing for its change as well as those arguing against its change, both seem to carry racially motivated views on what the image should look like.

I propose the three following images to replace this image, so as to settle these recent disputes as they do not portray any specific race:

File:Pioneer plaque line-drawing of a human male.svg

File:Vitruvianischer Mann.png

File:Leonardo da Vinci- Vitruvian Man.JPG JustBweh (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Do we even need a lead image? Plenty of images of men in the article. Killuminator (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

All three of these images depict european men. I'm not sure how you can say that these don't portray any specific race.

Replacing the image would mean bending to the will of twitter Neo-Nazis who hate the mere existence of people of color. The image has stood for 7 years, and there is no reason to replace it. Plumeater2 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Actually, the Pioneer plaque line-drawing of a human male was intended to be "panracial". There is more information on this at Pioneer plaque#Criticism, such as in this excerpt: "White people, Black people and East Asian people each tended to think that the figures resembled their own racial group". Of course, such things will always garner criticism but the intent to represent all races was there. Kutaisi73 (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

It's a man with straight hair, caucasian eyes, and small lips. It's literally impossible for it to be a representation of a black or asian person. Let's be honest with ourselves. Plumeater2 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

A pakistani ~2026-54651-58 (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Thea likes Sfera Ebbasta (talk to me, ooooh!) 09:42, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

The hair is wavy, there is no indication of "caucasian eyes" since there is no eye color and the shape is ambiguous. The lips are simplistic not "small", if anything they're quite wide. It's meant to be a mix of races and ambiguous, that's the whole point of it. If you smell any hint of caucasian features, that isn't indication of failure, since it's meant to be a mix. Kutaisi73 (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I get that the intent was to be panracial / racially ambiguous, but the execution wasn't well done. Thea likes Sfera Ebbasta (talk to me, ooooh!) 06:59, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Kutaisi73 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

The Pioneer Plaque was made with the specific intent of not portraying any race, and again, both sides of this debate seem racist considering we are suggesting that we shouldn't add it because it could be portrayed as some kind of white man, which is exactly why I propose we add it because it can pass as a man of any racial group; additionally, Vitruvian Man is a study of mathematical proportions based on the works of Vitruvius, not a specific race, if anything I believe Vitruvian Man is the most racially ambiguous looking sketch of a man I've ever seen. JustBweh (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I personally hold the belief that while the image is fine, its edits to it in Photoshop make it look less real. If the image was changed to have unedited (raw?) colours, it would look way nicer than the current over-glamorised picture.

An alternative solution, i do like the idea of having a grid of people to represent the human race from all kinds of backgrounds (african, asian, south american, etc), it could include historical figures, etc. But then the Woman article would have to be changed too to maintain consistency. Thatsmemira (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, or a single group photo of men from multiple racial/ethnic backgrounds would be another great alternative. JustBweh (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Thatsmemira @JustBweh this solution of a collage has generally been disparaged per MOS:ETHNICGALLERIES and historical consensuses on eg. Talk:Man/sandbox, for various reasons (namely the controversial aspect of actually choosing which people should be in the collages for the best representation as well as concerns over original research to choose the images in the first place). Just something to consider. ✦Inzessin✦ ^(talk) 17:22, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Fair, then i'll fall back on my first statement; The image is glamorised unlike the woman article's photo. Thatsmemira (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2026 (UTC)