Talk:Masculine (disambiguation)

References for word usage

"Having the appropriate excellences of the male sex; manly, virile; vigorous, powerful. Rarely of persons; usually of attributes, actions, or productions."

• 1629: In answer to ... two masculine Champions for the Synagogue of Rome. — Henry Burton, Bable no Bethel
• 1639: Masculine spirits very easily resist this tyrannic. — Jacques du Bosque, The Compleat VVoman (trans. N.N.)
• 1647: The argumentation of Manoah's wife ... might very well have become the more masculine understanding. — Edward Hyde, Contemplations on the Psalms
• 1678: He proved a stout and masculine Prince. — Nathaniel Wanley, The Wonders of the Little World, or A General History of Man
• c. 1704: His heat was masculine and always pointed against vice. — Tom Brown, English Satirical Works
• 1712: Adam's Speech abounds with Thoughts ... of a more masculine and elevated Turn. — Joseph Addison, The Spectator 363 (1712): 10.
• 1756–81: The forcible and masculine images with which the ancients strengthened their compositions. — Joseph Warton, Essay on the Genius and Writings of Pope
• 1829: I grew more gentle, and he more masculine. — Edward Bulwer-Lytton, Devereux 1:4
• 1850: Aeschylus ... was famous ... for the fearless, masculine licence with which he handled the most flexible of all languages. — John Stuart Blackie, Æschylus
• 1856: I find ... the whole writing of the time charged with a masculine force and freedom. — Ralph Waldo Emerson, English Traits

Oxford English Dictionary, 1st edition (1908): p. 198.

Reverted changes

I don't think masculine is particularly associated with positive qualities of men. Also, I see no reason for removing the link to feminine, male or masculinity. I've reverted it. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely regarding link to masculinity, probably an oversight on my part, thanks for picking it up. Re others see below. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Normally masculine is used of men, not of animals, hence is not a synonym for male.

• Adam is masculine.
• My dog is masculine. (Not used.)
• My dog is male.

Normally masculine is a comparative adjective, comparing positively.

• Adam is more masculine than Bob.
• Charles is the most masculine.
• Most violent criminals are very masculine. (Not used.)
• Most violent criminals are male.

When used grammatically masculine does not compare.

• The pronoun he is more masculine than she. (Not used.)
• The pronoun he is masculine, she is feminine.

Reference to men is primary, reference grammatically is derivative usage.

• Men are described as masculine because they are refered to with masculine pronouns. (Unlikely)
• Some pronouns are called masculine because they can be used to refer to men.

Alastair Haines (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So, we have three points:

1. Feminine is the antonym of masculine. This seems pretty uncontroversial to me - do you object to its reinstatement?
2. The 'male' issue. Picking a few dictionaries, the OED says "Of sex: male. Of a person or animal: belonging to the male sex; male."; Webster's says "Of the male sex"; the American Heritage says "Of or relating to men or boys; male." The OED says "largely superseded by 'male'"; the others don't indicate it's not current useage. What do you think of something like "A less common synonym for 'male'"? I certain feel it deserves mention, though.
3. Whether masculine is used specifically for positive aspects of maleness. None of the dictionaries I checked said that it was, and my experience certainly suggests that it isn't. Can you suggest a source to support it?

Olaf Davis | Talk 23:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot the link to masculinity, too. To me it seems like masculinity is the most obvious place to link (I assume it's the positive aspect you refer to, and the use in "Adam is more masculine than Bob" above) - do you disagree? Olaf Davis | Talk 23:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Antonym is not really the right description, men and women are not opposites like "weak" and "strong", they are complements like "day" and "night". However, if you insist on providing an antonym (which is not required on a disambig page) I won't bother reverting that. Effeminate could be classed as an antonym of masculine, but really there is no antonym of masculine.

Regarding positive qualities however, I'm not aware of unmodified usage of masculine in any negative sense. You claim you are, so cite the sources and prove me wrong.

Regarding male used more often than masculine, I think the OED is spot on. It is unfashionable to assume positive reference to men, and NPOV terms are officially more common. One thing is for sure though, masculine is not used for male and so a DAB link is inappropriate. Your cites establish this fine by me, masculine is not used for male biological sex, it is used to refer to qualities associated with human referents of male sex, i.e. men and boys. Additionally masculine as an adjective for sex was already rare in the 19th century. I'll check OED1, it may be described as obsolete usage even in early 20th century.

Baby boys and toddlers are not described as masculine either. Masculine has a synonym, manly. It refers not simply only to male sex, it refers to human males specifically, not only that it refers to "fully formed" human males. Where it is attributed to boys, it is older boys and is hyperbolic, a compliment. It is precisely the positive reference that has made it unfashionable in recent years, and this is discussed in a wide literature of social commentary. The OED is impressively up to date in this, or it is simply noting that with animals and babies, male is common usage, but masculine is not. Again I'd ask, please find me usage of masculine baby, masculine tiger or masculine murderer. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Checked the first edition of OED, masculine to refer to sex is described as rare even back then. The most recent use it cites is.

• "God Almighty, as we hope and pray, will grant You an Heir Masculine of your Body." London Gazette 2348/1 (1688).

OED also triggered my memory the antonym of masculine -- it is emasculated. I'll add this stuff at masculinity eventually. Thanks for keeping me honest though. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had time to look at the OED a little more closely. It provides 6 definitions of the adjective, and 3 of substantive use. The substantives seem to always have been rare, few attestations are given and they do feel odd to a modern reader like me. The most recent example is worth quoting, because I'd be pretty sure it's no longer found in any variety of English. The example is clearly current modern English, with the exception of the strange substantive use of masculine.

• "She flounced out of the room and left the masculines to themselves." — Frederick William Robinson, A Very Strange Family (1890), p. 63.

Alastair Haines (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm responding to Olaf's request from WT:GS. I would have to say that the word "positive" in the current listing for masculine is a bit odd. I mean all the definitions I can find for maleness are along the lines of the Collins dictionary-def: "possessing qualities or characteristics considered typical of or appropriate to a man, manly" or (rather brutally) paraphrasing Foucault: 'the terms Man and masculine have different meanings in different cultures but that in these cultures being masculine is embodying male characteristics' (from The History of Sexuality). I'd suggest that the listing should just say

Masculine refers to the qualities associated with men or maleness in a given culture.

Just looking through the rest of the convo, I'd have to say that feminine is the binary opposite of masculine but "unmanly" seems to actually be a word and an antonym of masculine - I've never used it myself but I have heard the term "unmanned" (meaning having been made efeminite). Hope that helps--Cailil ^talk 15:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you here Cailil.

I appreciate the Foucault suggestion, and he's certainly right about a lot of specifics related to masculinity. I'm not sure you're serious, but I'd suggest Foucault is a theorist trying to define the concept of masculinity rather than the usage of the word in English. In some ways that would be preferable at an encyclopedia, which is about concepts rather than words (though, of course, the distinction becomes blurred in places). But this is a disambiguation page and sends people to masculinity which should cover theorists like Foucault and others (and will, in time).

Regarding Collins, the text seems to cover everything Collins says, so we're not missing anything there. That a dictionary doesn't mention a meaning doesn't mean something should be removed, of course. But if your intuition and your source don't support the positive part of the definition, I've gone to the trouble of reproducing the relevant Oxford English Dictionary definition, with all its supporting usages. It's all in the References section.

The OED actually uses excellences from memory, which matches my intuition (or goes beyond it actually). It's rare to call an eight-year-old masculine (unless as an oversight for male). See also most recent use of masculine for male in OED above, a quaintly expressed sexist prayer from the 17th century I think. Manly probably works the same way as masculine. 8yos cannot be manly, nor can tigers, nor burglers, but they can all be male. But irrespective of my ad hoc descriptions of my intuition of usage in this, it is actually based on a reliable source -- OED. We need a source that says that masculine is no longer a term that suggests positive reference, or even easier, examples of ordinary language where masculine is used in a negative sense. Masculinity is often described negatively in theoretical literature, but we're talking about ordinary usage of the adjective, not the abstract noun.

With regard to antonym. I've provided three antonyms. The first is actually the technical linguistic one -- emasculated. The form of the word is almost the same and it means "having the masculine removed", which is clearly opposite in meaning as well as being similar in form structurally (it is also a term of negative reference, though I've not checked sources). Manly is cited as a synonym or as the definition of masculine in nearly every dictionary I consulted, and the antonym of manly is not womanly but unmanly. If you want to say a man is not much of a man you don't say he's womanly, you say he's unmanly. When I thought about that for a while I realised the same goes for masculine and feminine, feminine is not the opposite meaning to masculine, it's a totally different meaning, that happens to be mutually exclusive in usage (and also a term of positive reference, is feminine ever negative?). However, effeminate is a way of saying a male lacks masculinity, so it is a kind of antonym along gender lines, suggesting the lack of masculinity is "made up for" by an increase in femininity.

In fact, after I put all those pieces together, I realised that English usage views masculinity as a "quantity of male baggage" (in luggage from Harrods no doubt), it is comparative as an adjective so you can be more masculine (have more luggage) or most masculine (the Royal Army's worth of luggage for example). You can be emasculated (having your luggage confiscated by customs), you can be unmanly (being down a bag or two, or even luggage-less), or you can be effeminate (having a grip, purse, handbag in your luggage, or even replacing it all with a trousseau).

Given the "quantity of male baggage" analogy of masculinity, not only do the antonyms stand out clearly against femininity which is a different adjective (and set of baggage) not an antonym, but also, the positive side of masculinity stands out too. Masculinity quantifies, it has character, and in true English style it is the positives that are presumed.

So, there are more books in the world than I can ever read. The Oxford and I are probably wrong, and my baggage thing is probably just silly. But I'm not falling over myself to find the source that will tell me this, because I can't see beyond what I started to understand as I read all the examples in the Oxford and the summaries it provided. It's not my idea, it's just the usage I've heard, and now read and it makes such perfect sense to me.

So I'll defend OED and excellences until someone can show me ordinary people talking about masculine toddlers, tigers and terrorists, where these are not uses of masculine in a grammatical sense.

I'm very happy to be wrong, because it will mean I learn something. I'd be particularly happy if you were the one to teach me Cailil. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PS silly me, I only just realised Collins does imply positive reference -- qualities not liabilities. So you hit on the right answer first go. But with idiots like me around that so easily overlook the positive connotations of qualities, it probably doesn't hurt to spell this out for other preoccupied readers also. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PPS You don't have to reply to this, but just reflecting on all this I'm wondering:

• sex is trivial, gender is profound.
• a society with gender but no sex would be rich and human
• a society with sex but no gender would be trite and dehumanized

Alastair Haines (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You know it has been a while since a post has given me such pause for thought, even among some of the other scholarly wikipedians we know. And I take many of your points Alastair but I would ask these questions.

• Is it not the case that the attributes of maleness are being evaluated as positive in these OED usage examples, rather than "masculine" being defined as positive male characteristics?
• If being masculine is the positive aspects of maleness what is the word for the negative aspects?

I say this because there are gender characteristics (male and female) that are not always positively regarded in a cultural context. Risk taking, aggression and individuality are stereotypical of maleness. In many contexts these are positive characteristics in other situations they are not. I have always understood the words masculine and feminine to be definitions of all male and female characteristics (regardless of their positive or negative connotations).

Now I do take the point about the definition of maleness being affirmative and based upon excellences but the reason I mentioned Foucault earlier is this: masculinity is defined slightly differently in a given social context. Be it, for example, British working class maleness and British middle class maleness, or even Australian and Irish maleness, the qualities of masculinity vary. There is a social (or contextual) characteristic to how masculinity (or what is masculine) is defined.
Let's face it, no matter how masculine I am within my own circle or within a middle class, academic Irish context if I went to a KKK meeting and advocated gender, racial and religious equality I'd be considered a 'sissy' (one suspects stronger language would be used but you know what I mean).

I'm not drawing on my personal opinion here, there is a great book by Richard Dyer, White, some of it is about homosexuality, some of it is about Race but the majority is about representations of white masculinity. In that book he traces how masculinity is slightly differently defined (and represented) in different contexts (ie an African-American gay night club, classic Hollywood films and fascist Italy).

Basically my point would be this: the "positivity" within an embodiment of masculinity depends upon the context. It is not an inherent judgment of the traits of masculinity being positive or negative but rather their being appropriate to the social conditions and expectations for masculinity where, when and to whom it is being performed.

I do accept that this is a DAB page rather than an article but I think we can reflect something of the scholarly approach to masculinity in the definition. I would say also that the word positive creates a logical corollary (ie negative) and although the Collins definition implies positivity with the word "quality" it does not express it. Other definitions such as the Webster, reflect what I'm saying:

having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man

Or the Cambridge University Press dictionary:

the characteristics that are traditionally thought to be typical of or suitable for men

Others are here[1][2]. Just for interest, the Encarta does actually define masculine as including boys.

Now after my very long winded comment how about a compromise: rather than using "positive" what about "appropriate". It reflects the scholarly sources and the Webster, Cambridge UP and OE dictionary definitions? It's also fairly close to the Collins definition. It also retains the "affirmativeness" without having the logical corollary--Cailil ^talk 12:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how just a DAB page got me thinking, I'm not surprised it's got you thinking too. :)

If you look at your first paragraph, you might notice you use the word maleness. Now, to you that might be a synonym of masculine. But yours is a noun and our word is an adjective. Also, you beg the question by making a noun from male. Obviously, the whole point of a word like maleness is to point to male sex and the consequent characteristics. I have to surrender to you and accept both that maleness implies male sex, and also nothing positive in particular. But I never suggested that. (I'm not sure maleness is actually in the OED1.) The point is we're looking at the specific word masculine.

In your following paragraphs you switch to the word masculinity to make your point. And again I agree with you. Masculinity, like maleness are both abstract nouns and allow a great deal of theoretical flexibility (not as much as we might like), but I have not argued that masculinity is fundamentally positive, though I'd be sure femininity is positive. Feminists criticise the positivity of femininity, or sometimes just call it quaint, it's impenetrably positive. If you want to critise a woman or girl, you don't call her feminine, it always has positive reference. You have to criticise her for valuing femininity. Masculinity is nowhere near as robust as a noun. Mind you, it is not masculinity that feminists normally speak of when condemning injustice by men on women, it is patriarchy or androcentricity or maleness. Masculinity does retain sufficient echoes of positivity that it's not usually the best word. It also carries associations of gender essentialism, which patriarchy, androcentricity and maleness don't carry anywhere nearly so closely.

But, after my long digression there, although I think maleness does have femaleness as antonym (it is about biological sex, male gametes have female gametes as opposite and vice versa), it does apply to boys, can be used to refer to sex and isn't positive. I would conceded much, but still less, of these things regarding the abstract noun masculinity, because it moves away from maleness (sex) towards masculine (gender). Of course there are cultural features as we move to gender, even if gender were 100% determined by biology, the focus is still on the relating, the social side, it is gender and we know it from relationships not microscopes. It is precisely this that means it ends up being more variable in what constitutes it, but it doesn't vary in being positive.

Hence, gay masculinities, for example, are a proposed mulitiplicty of observed self-constructions of social identity found among gay men (I am not an expert in this area academically) I've had gay friends who clearly relate differently to others, male, female, gay or straight, in a variety of ways, some of which are probably identifiable "types". I've heard "top" and "bottom" and other kinds of classification, but they're not all sexual classifications. But to say someone was "very toppish" or "very bottomish" would be saying they were very masculine, in this definition of what constitutes masculinity. For various reasons, describing gay masculinities in comparative terms probably doesn't happen much, "very daddy" would be more likely than the others I mentioned, but not "very masculine".

What I mean by the gay example is, irrespective of cultural contours of what constitutes masculinity. When using the adjective "very masculine", it is about embracing those cultural values it is not a neutral term. The very fact that an adjective compares tells us this -- very fast, very big, very tall, very rich. Negative comparison is possible -- very poor, very tired, very sick, very lonely. Neutral comparison doesn't work -- very average becomes negative because the comparison has to mean something. Ordinary is neutral, so very ordinary forces us to work out in what "direction" the very is meant to be understood.

Both your links used quality like Webster and Collins. Webster even goes so far as to add appropriate. I think it is making a concession to essentialism there -- either what is perceived to be appropriate to any man, or what is widely associated with men (in so far as this has been experienced in the speakers' context). There are plenty of essentialists speaking English and they use the word masculine more often than people who think gender is a social slavery.

I guess I've already toned down the OED by saying positive rather than excellences. This is an encyclopedia refering to concepts from the past, not just contemporary usage, perhaps we should allow male as a synonym, it hasn't been used that way for maybe 300 years, but arguably someone could read that ancient prayer and check the word masculine at Wiki and learn it did, long ago, mean male in some contexts. I guess I don't really like that option, because I think it will confuse people, they'll just assume masculine means maleness, which it doesn't.

To be honest, masculine is a fundamentally sexist word, it thinks men have qualities different to women, and it's good that they do. I think a lot of lecturers have taught people that the word is grammatical or sexual, or more accurately expressed the opinion that they believe it ought to be merely sexual or grammatical. I do think the word is much rarer now than in previous times. Maleness or the abstract masculinity are prefered. Perhaps the word will die out, perhaps it will keep losing positive reference until we can't actually say "more masculine" because nouns are never more masculine than one another, and a man will be considered no more masculine than a tom-cat.

Drat, I'm sorry, the usage I'm describing is real, and I don't want to contribute to reducing it's availability by muting it. I need a source that says masculine (adjective) can be used in negative or neutral ways, or examples of such use.

• His misogyny is precisely what made him very masculine. <--- what we wouldn't say

He was a typical male, typically misogynistic. <--- what we could say

• He raped her in a most masculine fashion.

His extreme male insecurity expressed itself in compensating violent rape.

• The main problem with patriarchy is its masculine modus operandi.

Perhaps after all, biology could explain an instinctive insensitivity that induldges patriarchal privelege.

• Despite trying to teach him to respect women, he grew up to be very masculine anyway.

Constructions of masculinities that promote hard headedness seem to defy even the best attempts at retraining and softening.

• He's not strong, he's not weak, he's middling, in other words he's very masculine.
• Neither virtuous, nor anti-social his mediocrity made him quintessentially the most masculine of men.

Linguistically, adjectives are said to have three degrees: positive, comparative and superlative. Masculine is a positive adjective.

Christian masculinity includes enduring persecution without retalitation. It includes sexual faithfulness before as well as during marriage. I'm well aware that what one culture thinks is masculine another will think is bad. I don't find premarital sexual conquests a mark of masculinity. But I don't say masculinity is bad. I just refuse to call such behaviour masculine. If behaviour associated with men is valued people call it masculine. If it is not valued they describe it as unmanly.

I think one homosexual battle has been precisely this issue. When their kind of manhood is considered inappropriate (negative) for men it is called unmanly. Hence the whole literature of gay masculinities includes an attempt to recapture the positive terminology of the masculine.

LOL, how much have I written? Leaving all the technical stuff aside, I think the last couple of paragraphs might explain why I care about retaining some sense of the Oxford definition. Take your time replying, I hope my words are worth reading. Cheers friend. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Rephrase

It's not strictly accurate for masculine, but it is accurate for feminine—I've rephrased positive to be an adverb rather than an adjective—"qualities positively associated." I think this accomodates even the "culturally defined" angle. It does also explain why burglers and murderers if male are described as men or male, not as masculine.

If "positively" still offends those with a POV that gender is a blight on society, so be it, that is only one POV; it is not a hegemonic POV, and even if it were, it would not thereby justify censorship of language critical of its perspective. The usage described here is backed by excellent sources. Perhaps it will change in future, but it will be descriptive, not prescriptive sources that will need to be used to verify that change. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Feminine

I've altered the feminine DAB page to parallel this one. It's not an exact parallel because the sources don't support that; however, I've linked the two DAB pages, which means people who think of masc. and fem. as antonyms can easily find the other. In Hebrew and other two-gender-class languages, as grammatical terms masc. and fem. are antonyms, as male and female are in biology only.

There are many philosophies and theories of gender throughout history that have a diversity of views of the ontology, characteristics and relationship between masc. and fem.; disambiguation, however, requires only sensitivity to English usage so a single search term can be redirected to articles addressing the various possible semantic referents.

If there is any issue here, I think it lies in the fact that discussion of masc., fem. and gender are not really at featured status as yet. But that is a problem with articles, not with these DAB pages. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent source on this issue

The professors were talking past each other.... Their mutual misunderstanding—or refusal to engage their contrary understanding—was embodied by their use of terminology. Mansfield referred to the quality under consideration as "manliness," which is the title of his forthcoming book. Travis ridiculed "manliness" as a quaint 19th-century anachronism and instead preferred "masculinity," the topic discussed in his occasional Dartmouth course "Constructing a Masculine Mystique."

— Scott L. Glabe, 'Mansfield, Manliness, and Masculinity', Dartmouth Review 21 October, 2005.

If, in 2005, professor of English, Travis, who runs a course on "constructing a masculine mystique", considers manliness a matter of 19th century definition, it is certainly OK for Wiki to quote the turn of the century OED definition. His interlocutor would consider the 19th century definition still to be current. What masculine = manliness means now may be a matter of debate, but at least we know what it meant prior to the 20th century (and perhaps to the middle of that century).

It would appear that professors like Travis would prefer to speak of masculinity rather than of manliness; and indeed Wiki does just this. But we also document historical use, since we are an encyclopedia, not a style guide. We do have an entry for ye. ;) When used, a masculine man is a term of positive reference (quaint anachronism in Travis' opinion), which is precisely why it is often avoided. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

References are for articles, not disambig pages

WP:DAB#What not to include Take it outside, boys. --Yamara ✉ 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to strikeout your sexist personal attack above. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea how that's personal, it was addressed to both you and Olaf. I have no interest in the gender of any specific editor whatsoever; the only matronizing I was attempting was to clarify WP:DAB. -Yamara ✉ 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Feminine for discussion of WP:NPOV, piping (WP:DAB#Usage guidelines), WP:DICT, and WP:DAB#What not to include. -Yamara ✉ 19:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See same for systematic feminist bias, POV, and removing sourced information (I don't cover Wikilawyering). ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As the title says, references are for articles; they should certainly be applied and defended there. Guidelines are to aid in discovering a consensus, which is a bulwark against POV. "Normal" and "positive" are your personal word choices, and are, by definition, non-neutral terms, and, by definition, imply bias and certainty, the latter of which your arguments have not instilled in other editors, in this case, as of this writing. -Yamara ✉ 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So you say. Reliable sources trump editorial consensus and ought to shape it. That is a guard against POVs like yours, not my NPOV approach based on RS. Other editors have not considered it worth reverting my text or answering the sources. You however, have chosen to repeatedly ride roughshod over the sources, interpreting them or questioning them according to your own POV. Hence, I shall include the Oxford definition "excellences", which hasn't changed in 100 years, rather than my own "toned down" version. Since that removes even the unreasonable claim that I'm injecting my own opinion. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are needed for articles, but disambiguation pages are not articles, just as category pages are not articles. Disambiguation pages are meant to be nothing but a list of links to wikipedia articles, with brief descriptions to help the reader identify which article he's looking for. In this case, basically, we don't want to distract the reader with a bunch of irrelevant content, which is what references and external links would be on a disambiguation page. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are for everything. Got no argument from me on the rest. I'm the one who started everything off by replacing the whole page with a redirect. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be a redirect to Masculinity. It's not doing much good work as a dab page. The articles listed don't really need this kind of disambiguation. SlackerMom (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree with you, I feel the point of those who restored the page. The Oxford also sides with you, up to a point, since it classifies masculine rhyme with grammatical use. But since it also gives a reasonable number of substantive uses of masculine in the grammatical sense—"the pronoun is in the masculine, agreeing with the antecedent" and that sort of thing—I can imagine someone typing "masculine" and wanting information on the grammatical gender.

As attractive as your proposal is. I think we're doomed to nut out the common-or-garden usage of masculine, lest we throw out the baby with the bathwater. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that it's the only source of inspiration in the world, but I notice the AHD 1979 lists "masculinity" under the heading "masculine" without further elaboration, whereas "feminine" and "femininty" are given separate listings. Is redirect the best solution here, but perhaps not for feminine? --Yamara ✉ 13:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's no particular big deal to me if there's a policy against inline citations or other references. However, I do find it rather counterintuitive. More importantly, though, I can't find the policy. So, eventually, I'll need to return the reference, unless the policy is pointed out to me, I'm sorry. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a valid point: MOS:DAB has in its opening: "This style guideline is intended to make this process more efficient by giving disambiguation pages a consistent look and avoiding distracting information, such as extraneous links (internal or external)." Inline cites would be that, but that's only an interpretation, however commonly its taken. The number of cites that were there at the point I removed them were impeding the usefulness of the DAB, which "are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace." WP:V includes: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Yes, this is irritating wikilawyering, but I suspect that this is the basis for no citations in DAB: Third-party sources are not needed if it's not an article. They would be as distracting and superfluous in a redirect or a DAB. While not forbidden, neither are they mandatory, and DAB clarity is often interpreted to trump citations. -Yamara ✉ 14:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a trivial point. I did a search and there are several DAB pages with inline citations. I didn't check but I think they stand on the page because various policies were used to challenge groupings of links, so the reliable sources for the classifications were added inline. Presumably those involved saw the double-bind of challenging unsourced categorization, then challenging explicit sourcing of the categorization—the reverse of this page. However, it makes sense to me that sourcing can be on the talk page of DAB pages. I wouldn't try arguing it from policy but from common sense, and would propose making it explicit in policy were it more common. It's simply no big deal. Long term, even documenting sources at this page is unnecessary, because I'll simply write them into masculinity eventually. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many thousands of DAB pages which totally violate the manual of style, because in general almost nobody cares enough about disambiguation pages to pay much attention to how they're formatted, and a large percentage of editors are not at all familiar with the manual of style (and thousands of DAB pages predate the manual of style). As for citations, the MOS does say "Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World-Wide Web. To note URLs that might be helpful in the future, include them as comments or on a talk page". This is generally understood to refer to references as well as other external links. The idea is that readers don't need to see references, but they can be posted as comments (or on the talk page) so editors who might want to challenge an entry being on the page can see why it's there. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the interpretation that has developed as you describe it.

I suspect the policy was originally addressed to the issue of good natured editors providing bullets for every conceivable alternate meaning. If these weren't at Wiki, the policy points out, they are disambiguating the web. DAB pages are for redirecting unique search terms that could reasonably apply to multiple Wiki articles, rather than being dictionary definitions which seek to provide a comprehensive list of all possible meaning of words (indirectly thus disambiguating them).

Wiki DAB pages are navigation tools, not content pages. They disambiguate search terms, not words, nor even meanings.

Although interpretation of the policy cited may have been in error, I think the practice of transfering citations to talk pages (not deleting them) reflects nuances of other policies. The principle of non-distraction is a nice one. Which is why I've never reverted it at this page. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Primary topic

From reading the article masculinity I cannot see that it should be the primary topic of this dab page. The article specifically compares "masculinity" (about men)and "masculine" (about nouns). Other views would be appreciated. Abtract (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned here, there is no primary topic in the MOSDAB sense for either masculine or feminine. However, there is also no prohibition against including a brief definition of the common sense of the terms in the opening line. older ≠ wiser 18:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article masculinity does not say what you have just put on the page ... it says "masculine" applies to nouns! ... Abtract (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? older ≠ wiser 18:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Masculinity is manly character (manliness). It specifically describes men; that is, it is personal and human, unlike male which can describe animals, or masculine which can describe noun classes." It's no big deal but I still don't see how it should take prime place. Abtract (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Key word highlighted: "or masculine which can describe noun classes." The text is distinguishing between senses of the words. Masculinity almost always describes personal, human attributes. The related terms male and masculine can have other uses. However, it is not saying that these other uses are the principal senses of those terms. older ≠ wiser 20:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

OK and thanks for coming over to comment. Abtract (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Since I attempted to replace Masculine and Feminine with a redirect a long time ago, I've been working with people to do the best we can if we actually are to have such entries. Finally, an ally shows up in Abtract, and provides exactly what I wanted all along—redirects at Masculine and Feminine. All's well that ends well. We should work together more often, Abtract. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather difficult to see why you reverted the use of those redirects on the dab page then ... Abtract (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Because somewhere in WP space it points out that linking to redirects should be avoided for various technical reasons (it creates double redirect Feminine > Femininity, when direct linking to Femininity is faster and simpler). More importantly, because the actual name of the articles being disambiguated should be plain in the text, there's policy about that too. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by a "double" redirect, Feminine is a simple, straightforward redirect. mos:dab#Piping and redirects specifically allows redirects with this: "Linking to a redirect is also helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and the target article uses an alternative title; for example, linking to cell phone (instead of mobile phone) on the disambiguation page for cell." Abtract (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A double redirect is a redirect that goes through another redirect. For example, imagine User:Y creates Foo Italia as a redirect to Foo Italy. Then sometime later User:Z merges Foo Italy to Foo and turns Foo Italy into a redirect. If that happens then Foo Italia would become a double redirect.
Nevertheless, linking to redirects is fine & Abtract is citing WP:MOS#DAB correctly. There should be no problem with what Abtract is doing so long as they check the "what links here" button in the menu on the left of the screen (you can use this to manually check if you are creating a double redirect and to fix ones that may already exist)--Cailil ^talk 17:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks. Abtract (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cailil. So you're saying that you are happy to break the policy against double redirect here. That's fine, no one's going to come to this page anyway; but if anyone does, he will have got here from precisely the page the first link will double redirect him back to. The advantages of that completely escape me, but it doesn't matter, the main thing is my initial proposal for masc and fem to be redirects stands at last. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the double redirect? Abtract (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. It was the first word. Cailil described it perfectly.

The policy notes:

"These pages are undesirable, since Wikipedia's MediaWiki software will not follow the second redirect, in order to prevent infinite loops (to prevent endless looping, a redirect will not "pass thru" more than one entry; if someone is redirected to a redirect, the chain stops after the first redirect). These situations create slow, unpleasant experiences for the reader, waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing."

But according to Cailil, we don't have to worry about policy. Fine by me, I'm interested in contributing sources to articles, not squabbling about rules, redirects and DAB pages. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, then you will have no objection to me returning it to the preferred version, which contains no double redirect. Abtract (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

← (ec) Alastair, Abtract's edit is not creating a double redirect. Masculine redirects to masculinity (diff is from 08:39, 23 August 2008).
This is a dab page, if this page were a redirect then there would be a problem. But this page is not a redirect. And thus, Abtract's edit is in line with policy on DAB pages and redirects
Alastair, I must also ask you to refactor or redact your remarks about me as they do not reflect my position or site policy. Such ad hominem should be unnecessary--Cailil ^talk 18:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And I must ask you to redact or retract your comment regarding ad hominem, since I never use it, and it is not applicable in this case. I simply described interpretation of words, without even any judgement on the speaker, let alone any argument based on the speaker's character to establish the interpretation, hence there is no ad hominem.

I have checked the double redirect policy and found that it is indeed me that has misread it, indented pages at What links here are only "double redirects" if they are also marked "redirect page". My understanding on that point was wrong. It is also clear on rereading Cailil's post that the example carefully given accurately describes the correct reading of the policy.

"Linking to a redirect" neatly describes what I was objecting to, and it is true that these are not discouraged by the "double redirect" policy. However, I never link to redirects when contributing; and, when copyediting, generally repipe links, currently aimed at redirects, so readers go straight to the target page without needing to go via the redirect. Since I have observed this is common practice, common sense and vaguely recall adopting it because I read it in a style, policy or guideline page, I still stand by my point regarding the current revision here being the preferable one, since pipes are confusing at DAB pages, and precluded by policy regarding them.

So, yes indeed, I quoted the wrong policy with regard to my objection. And, yes indeed, I misread both Cailil and that policy. However, there is nothing unusual about my objection, and there is no ad hominem in anything I've said.

Alastair Haines (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Alastair - I was referring to the remarks: "But according to Cailil, we don't have to worry about policy." and "Thanks Cailil. So you're saying that you are happy to break the policy against double redirect here." Both of these comments are addressed at me and neither reflect my position--Cailil ^talk 15:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And neither is ad hominem, which it is your turn to clarify. ;)

The current revision is still non-ideal. Since editors have decided, in keeping with policy, that the noun Masculinity rather than the adjective is the main namespace, that word ought to appear on this DAB page, not just a link that ends up there. It is odd (and possibly contrary to some policy somewhere) to have a DAB page with the main namespace for the default meaning not mentioned in the text. The word masculinity doesn't appear on our DAB page, yet we have decided that word is the one most suited to receiving text on the subject. That strikes me as something readers could find odd or confusing.

Are there any objections to the word masculinity appearing on the DAB page? Alastair Haines (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair ad hominem means "at the man" - it is not synonymous with incivility. The comments I referred to are personalized and mis-characterizes me. These are comments areabout me and that is ad hominem. They are comments about me & they are comments that do not reflect what I said or the policy I referred to. I am asking a second time for you to redress this--Cailil ^talk 01:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr Haines, this is not about an "objection" to using the word masculinity it is about finding the best format for the page according to mos:dab. If you look at this it is quite clear "Linking to a redirect is also helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and the target article uses an alternative title; for example, linking to cell phone (instead of mobile phone) on the disambiguation page for cell".For another example of this look at HP (disambiguation) where HP is a redirect to Hewlett-Packard. Having said all that, compromise is important so I have inserted masculinity in a way which may be helpful - it certainly won't hurt. Abtract (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Abtract, I've restored a finite verb to the lead sentence, and replaced or with and, since we're refering to the words masculine and masculinity rather than alternative names for the same thing. Technically they should both be in italics, but I'm not too fussed either way. I've also moved the link from the first word of the article (which I don't see often), to the word masculinity, which means readers get a "what you see is what you get" (WYSIWYG) for the link. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If they are not alternatives, masculinity should not be on this page. Abtract (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I can live with your last changes. I don't think they are as clear for a reader, but you can either see that or you can't. I've provided enough documentation for people to alter things down the track if they care to.

Fast and speed are not alternative names for the same thing; however, they both refer to "high rates of change with respect to time." One is an adjective and the other a noun.

Redirects are related to the encyclopedic context; they may include, but are not limited to, synonyms. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, synonymity is not the basis for disambiguation.

I do thank you for restoring both the redirect, which was my first edit related to this namespace, and for eliminating the synonyms and antonyms, which I also eliminated earlier, though they were restored by another editor. These things, imo, are important improvements. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)