" 

 ==reasonable woman== 
 regarding sexual harassment and the vulnerability of women: 
 either provide a citation to support the text in the article, or kindly remove the text. as this is presumably a matter that has received non-trivial attention in the last 2 decades in the US, a citation ought not be difficult to find, if in fact the information given is correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 I back this. This concept seems very, very controversial, and I've personally never encountered it. It needs to either be cited, and properly contextualised as outré, or removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 ==legal fiction== 
 Concerning ""a legal fiction""; were I the original author, I might choose to open the article with a tone less aggressive and more informative to the layperson. ""Legal fiction"" is a term of art.  I don't believe it should be the ""definitional headline."" It is; however, accurate.  Restatement (Second) of Torts §283 comment c (1965) (""The reasonable man is a fictitious person, who is never negligent, and whose conduct is always up to standard."")  In Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 132 ER 490 the ""legal fiction"" is implied. First, when the jury was instructed that the defendant was required to have acted as a ""prudent man"" would have acted under those circumstances.  And then under review, the directive was deemed too vague.  Further, it was determined that a defendant acting honstly and bona fide to the best of his own judgement would afford no rule at all and leave open infinitely variable individual judgement. Nuance aside, the foundation for the ""legal fiction"" for the basis of comparison exists. The ""reasonable person"" is a fact assumed or created by courts.    

 To eliminate the ""citation needed"" might I suggest: 
 * Bedder v Director of Public Prosecutions [1954] 1 WLR 1119 (where ""reasonable man"" is deemed a wholly impersonal fiction to which no special characteristic of the accused should be attributed) 
 * Camplin [1978] A.C. 705 (a reasonable man ""means an ordinary person of either sex, not exceptionally excitable or pugnacious, but possessed of such powers of self control as everyone is entitled to expect that his fellow citizens will exercise in society as it is today"") 
 * R v Smith (2000) 4 AER 289 (citing Champlin and Bedder: a preasonable man ""is a person having the power of self-control to be expected of an ordinary person of the sex and age of the accused, but in other respects sharing such of the accused's characteristics as they think would affect the gravity of the provocation to him; and that the question is not merely whether such a person would in like circumstances be provoked to lose his self-control but also whether he would react to the provocation as the accused did"") 
 That said, I maintain that a citation is of modest benefit if not entirely unnecessary. From conceptual inception, the question has never been ""is the 'reasonable person' fictional?"" I submit the question has always been, 'Is a reasonable person defined in accordance with a particular normative ethical commitment or in accordance with an empirically observed practice or perception?' I posit that a reasonable person, possessed of minimal education, should have little difficulty exploring the nature of ""legal fiction"" (given the link) were they so inclined.    

 :WP:BOLD    "