Talk:Self-made man

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 6 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-made man → Self-made person – "Self-made man" sounds so sexist. Let's use a gender-neutral language. Frankie _talk 20:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Self-made person" sounds like invented PC nonsense. Let's use common English. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the above IP. The common term is "self-made man" and we should use it instead of resorting to an uncommon yet gender-neutral term. O N R (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. MOS:GNL (use gender-neutral language) is a guideline, but it should not trump WP:UCN (use common names) which is policy. My problem with this "article" is that it is a dictionary definition that should probably be migrated to Wiktionary per WP:NOTDICT. (Now, is that enough WP:LAWYERING?) — AjaxSmack 02:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support although with sympathy with the arguments above. The listing as provided by search engines could read:

Self-made person - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-made_person

A "self-made man" or "self-made woman" is a person who was born poor or otherwise

disadvantaged, but who achieved great economic or moral success ...

I think that this type of entry would be encyclopedic while avoided WP:Systemic Bias

Otherwise suggest Self-made man/Self-made woman

Greg Kaye 09:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is about the phrase or stock character, which is currently most often "man". Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the most frequently used or most familiar title. If this ever changes, we can move the article. The "woman" version should be mentioned as an alternative in the lead. Sandstein 10:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for that improvement. There's nothing wrong with the (less-common) phrase "self-made woman"; it's "self-made person" that's objectionable. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this article is about a cultural concept, not about entrepreneurship itself. Said concept is mostly of men specifically, and nearly always referred to by the present title. The present stub is pretty careful to use gender-neutral language in the text, and self-made woman is mentioned prominently in the first sentence. —innotata 19:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. an historical idiom. It may sound sexist, not gender-neutral, but that is the fact of the matter. It is an idiom primarily from a sexist past. The archetype, a cultural ideal, a myth, or a cult, still has echos, and current reference to the echo might be best done in gender neutral language, but the concept is not really a modern one, few self-made persons would fail to use the abundance of help so readily available in the modern era. It is an historical concept and should be described with historical accuracy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Self-made man

While I was in the process of editing the article, User talk:Sandstein deleted some content that I concurrently restored without knowledge of the deletion. I avoid edit conflicts as a principal and would not want this to appear as a revert conflict. I have asked user:Sandstein for some indulgence to complete some of these edits.

I sent this to User talk:Sandstein's talkpage:

I have been expanding the article self-made man for which I have found a plethora of reliable sources. I am in the process of adding some of these. I did not intend to add content you had just deleted. My edits and your deletions were concurrent. I will add this to the article's talk page. Before deleting and more of the related content I ask for your indulgence to show why this content is crucial to this article. Kind regards. Oceanflynn (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of Self-made man

There will be temporary imbalances in the overall article when it is an expansion phase. This is part of the organic growth of Wikipedia articles. This imbalance is corrected as the article grows and further content is added.

Section on examples of self-made men

The addition of Frederick Douglass, P. T. Barnum, Booker T. Washington, and Andrew Carnegie, for example, and other significant historical figures who self-define or are described by others as self-made men. Benjamin Franklin's life story is the original, exemplary life of the self-made man. I would like to add content that reflects that. The term self-made man originates in descriptions of his life story.

Definition===

The definition requires reliable, preferably academic sources, informed with critical thinking.

Eytomology of the expression

A thorough history of it origins using academic sources as well as other reliable resources.

Critical review of the term

How the concept has been re-evaluated over time.

Popular culture

Thank you for your indulgence as this content is added. I will add this under construction and in use templates to avoid edit conflicts.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A PhD thesis & its writer cited as an expert

Charles Dixon is being cited by name and given the voice of an expert in the paragraph that starts with "According to Charles R. Dixon,..." and is then quoted extensively in that paragraph. But is Mr. Dixon a known authority?...I don't know. Shearonink (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Shearonink. I removed his name but left the quote. I added this to the summary: (Removed name/PhD dissertation re:talk page. This comment from the PhD is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. neither controversial or original, just well-written, concise, & combines the work of both authors.) Does that work. If not I can just remove the whole paragraph.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category content

In this discussion, consensus was that Category:Self-made man should be deleted. The content of the category at the time of closure of the discussion is listed below, for the sake of possible expansion of Self-made man#List of self-made men. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]