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
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
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.
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. ONR(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?) —
AjaxSmack02:13, 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
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. —
innotata19:14, 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 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.
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