Talk:Male

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 teh present coutn 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)[reply]