Talk:Boy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Inconsistency

This article says that "a boy is a young man" with a link to the man article, but then in the man article it says that a man is an adult male human. This is inconsistent. Any suggestions?? Georgia guy 00:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Recently, the link changed to Man (disambiguation), which avoids the general rule that links inside articles should not point to dis-ambiguation pages. Georgia guy 20:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonhuman boys?

The definition ends with "or a young male of another animal or 'male' object." What animals' young males are called "boys"? Is the definition trying to include things like "Is your dog a boy or a girl?"? If so, "young" can be left out; that question would be asked without regard to the age of the dog. As for "male" objects, the only thing I can think of is the gender of connectors and fasteners, but I've certainly never heard "boy" and "girl" used in that connection. Angr (t • c) 11:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the word "boy" is commonly used in phrases such as "In the book, Chicken Little is a girl, but in the Disney film, Chicken Little is a boy." Georgia guy 20:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • And it occurs in compounds; just google for say "boy goat" (3590 hits, albeit including accidental juxtapositions in sentences) and you'll get hundreds of valid occurrences, including this article on buying goats (they should know!) [[1]], even an educational site which literally states "A billy goat is a male or boy goat" [[2]] so it's common enough to be told to and understood by preschool kids Fastifex 06:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knave

Knave should not redirect here!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.203.7.66 (talk • contribs) 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It would be better if someone were to write a page on knave (not just a stub) but till then the reader is better off with what he finds here (at least it gets defined) then literally nothing. Fastifex 06:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] grammar

I was just wondering,is the plural word for boy :boyz or boys?

Boys is the standard spelling; boyz is sometimes encountered for artistic effect, as in Boyz II Men or Boyz N the Hood. Angr (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm just wondering...

Why there's a huge gallery of girl pictures in the girl article but not one of boys in this article. --pile0nadestalk | contribs 12:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Because you haven't made one yet! Angr (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, that's what you get when you don't put in your five cents but leave the bulk of an article to be written by a bone-dry allophone historian Fastifex 06:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh. --pile0nadestalk | contribs 22:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We have one now. Talk:Boy/Gallery 69.95.31.171 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

...and now it's nominated for deletion.Vid the Kid (t/c) Does this font make me look fat? 08:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black people as "Boy"

In older American movies, blacks are often adressed as "boy", even in Casablanca Rick adresses the piano player as "Boy". Also Virgil Tibbs in "The heat of the night" is called so. What's about this?Droben 12:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the last paragraph of the section "Scope". User:Angr 12:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of "Indian boys skinny dipping" (in)appropriate?

I think this picture ([3]) is inappropriate for this article and should be removed. If there were pictures of girls naked and in the same poses in the girl article, I think most people would immediately think it's inappropriate. You can even see part of the boy's penis. Imagine kids looking up the article "boy" and seeing that. Do you think they would show that kind of image in the article “boy” in other encyclopedias? I'm sure there are many parents and other people that would find the image inappropriate for this article. Find another picture of boys. [UNSIGNED]

Wikipedia is not censored, nor is there anything wrong with this image, which is neither erotic nor pornographic. User:Angr 07:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the picture illustrates a playfull scene of childish innocence, socially acceptable -otherwise they wouldn't use such a public place- as in many cultures (for context, see skinny dipping and nudity) - for girls tolerance is often less; a scene of boys frolicking, stripping off and even releaving themselves in the Nile in full view of a cruise steamer's rich tourists -only one of which is shocked, the others rather amused- is part of the well-known Agatha Christie Poirot-story Death on the Nile (the star-cast 1978 British movie is still aired very widely) Fastifex 11:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this image should be removed. While it may not be against Wikipedia rules, a picture of nude boys simply isn't necessary. There are better representations of boys that many would not find offensive or inappropriate. Just because the material isn't a violation of Wikipedia rules doesn't mean that it has to be in the article. I certainly would not want my daughter reading this article's description of a boy. I think we should try and keep this article suitable for all ages and not include nude pictures. 202.85.15.53 04:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

When did nude children become inappropriate for any age? Children should be protected from prudes, not photography. Tomyumgoong 22:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary to me for the article to contain a photo of naked boys. Especially given that these are minors, this should be removed from the page right away. [anonymously posted by 68.34.11.192]

  • See above about this non-problem 13:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep it. It's not inappropriate or pornographic in any way, and it's an entirely accurate representation of a normal boyhood activity in some cultures. To remove it because certain other cultures are so neurotic as to automatically interpret nudity as inherently sexual, regardless of context, would be ridiculous. --Icarus (Hi!) 00:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The latter-day self-loathing puritan sour-pusses should examine their own anxieties (honi soit, as the man said, qui mal y pense). This is a beutiful picture, and should by all means be kept. Shame on those who impugn it.

That particular picture is not at all incorrect. keep it by all means. But the one with a bunch of dickheads showing their asses is very disgusting and tasteless. I think it shold be removed201.253.158.139 18:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes that picture should be removed. 72.72.238.160 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove it. To the person who said "When did nude children become inappropriate for any age? Children should be protected from prudes, not photography." DOT DOT DOT... No, children should be protected from online perverts who search for pictures such as these for personal "enjoyment". Would you like it if nude photos of your children were posted online without your permission? Would you even give permission for something such as that? Unfortunately, there are people out there who are not looking at such things for educational purposes. <.< This image is linked to multiple times on Wikipedia and should be removed altogether. Icarus, yeah, it's normal where they live--but do you think perverts from around the word can go sit around their little pool and watch them whenever they want? No, but now that it's all over a free, public website they can. :) --Somnilocus 11:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree the picture needs removed, though only for context. Why? There's no real reason for it to be here. Nudity, swimming, et cetera, in which the picture is also placed upon, it is absolutely appropriate. Here? Not so much. As for removing the picture because of the potential of vile pedophiles scouring Wikipedia instead of Peer-to-Peer networks (note the sarcasm), that's about as, to put it as politely as I can possibly do so, retarded. The same logic can be applied to shoes for people with a foot-fetish, or pictures of whips for sadists. Keep the picture, just not on this article. Darkahn 06:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue that the skinnydipping image was necessary for this article, but I will say that it's just as good a picture to illustrate the article as any other. First, the reasons why it should be included; they aren't compelling reasons, but they are reasons just the same. The image illustrates the subject of the article, not posed, but "in nature"—in an activity common and natural to the subject, at least in a significant few parts of the world (see skinnydipping). The image is of good quality, and under free license. The image does not depict or promote any illegal activities. Now, the reason why not to include the picture, and why that reasons don't convince me. The boys are naked, and at least one boy's penis is partially visible. I understand people's concern about pedophiles "enjoying" the image for the wrong reasons, but that's not the big reason why child pornography is wrong. If some pervert masturbates while thinking of this picture, does it hurt the boys in the picture? No. And we can't start calling images inappropriate just because some small segment of the population might find it erotic, because that would include a lot of images. The main reason child porn is a bad thing is that the children are traumatized in the production of the pornography. That did not happen here. The other reason people cite against child pornography is it encourages pedophiles to perform sexual acts with minors. I don't know if that's really true or not, but that shouldn't be a worry with this image either, considering no such acts are depicted, and the boys are not in any kind of erotic pose. And finally, what's wrong with a penis or two being shown? Would you deny that boys have penises? In fact, the penis is the most prominent characteristic of boys that easily and universally distinguishes them from girls in every society and culture, so that's almost a good enough reason to use the image, if for no other reason at all. 69.95.31.171 05:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Palestinian' Boys

Is it necessary to mention that the four boys in the first picture are Palestinian? I know it doesn't change the meaning of the picture but I don't think it is necessary either. This article is about all human boys and the fact that they're from Palestine does not change anything and instead gives the impression they are different somehow because of their nationality. If you disagree please let me know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bernalj90 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think most people looking at the picture would like to know where it's from. It's also the only information that isn't blindingly obvious -- imagine how dumb the caption would look if it just said "Four boys" (yes thanks, we can see there are four of them and we can see they're boys). I'd expect the same if the picture was of boys in Peru, Portugal, or Papua New Guinea. User:Angr 12:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
When it still was the only picture, Bernalj90 would have had a point, but now there are boys from different races and continents (e.g. Indian); so either you challenge all captions, or none Fastifex 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the best pic anyone can come up with for the term "boy" really 4 boys holding slingshots in a pic with "occupation" in its title?? I think this is a subtle way to inject partisan politics into an otherwise innocuous article. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I'm going to change the title of the pic and/or replace it.Sh76us 01:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So long as the caption doesn't say anything about occupation, the picture itself is thoroughly apolitical. User:Angr 09:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
No single word including the root oocup- occurs on this page; and a slinge shot is rather welcome, since the notion of 'mischievous' does repeatedly Fastifex 12:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Look at the title of the picture when you click on it. I defy anyone to tell me that the title "Image:Palestine occupation54.jpg" when all the picture shows is 4 boys with slingshots does not have political overtones. Sh76us 20:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
But you don't see the title unless you click on it. The picture itself has no political overtones. User:Angr 20:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Then the title to the picture should be changed. If I posted the same picture and named it "Palestinians are terroists," I'm sure many people would (justifiably) complain. I think Wikipedia's NPOV policy should extent to the titles of the pictures, don't you? Sh76us 18:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Fastifex does have a point, why do we need to mention the race of every boy in every picture. Although it doesn't sound like a big change it would be enough to just say four boys in Palestine/Middle East or boys bathing in India. I understand people may wonder where a picture is from but I do not consider it necessary to point out they boy's ethnic background or nationality. However, I think the caption of the Nicaraguan boy picture should be kept as it is given the fact that his nationality affects the meaning of the picture (Why the boy needs to work). On the other hand, I think the fact that the boy scouts are in America is completely irrevelant and hence I have decided to take out the word "American" from the caption. User:Bernalj90 10:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The Nicaraguan boy picture will probably be deleted as a copyvio pretty soon. Giving the locations of the boys rather than their ethnicities is probably okay, but then we should say the Palestinian boys are in the West Bank rather than the Middle East, because that is a very vague term. And the boy scouts should be identified as being in the U.S. User:Angr 19:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

According to new etymological dictionary "Suomen sanojen alkuperä" Finnic word for boy (like poika in modern Finnish) has been loant to some Germanic, Baltic and Slavic languages. So Swedish pojke (meaning boy), Latvian puika(meaning boy), Russian pojga (meaning child) are ancient loans from Finnic languages. Doesn't Scandinavian Pojke seems to be the etymology of English boy? So originally boy would be loan from Finnic. I have read it is, but i cant find the source right now. 193.65.112.51 01:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] semiprotected yet anons edit?

Hey, how come this page is semiprotected and anons are editing it? JohnCub 00:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Because time's up: see edit history when semi-protection was added "23:05, 9 March 2007 ... Protected Boy: ongoing vandalism from varying sources ... (expires 23:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)))" Bencherlite 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge ?

this article should be merged with male. -Mrsanitazier March 29,2007 3:46 PM Eastern Time.

See my comments at Talk:Man#Merge. —Angr 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, it shuld NOT Arcarius 23:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I dont not think that it sould be merged because it is a period in a males life thus desevering is own explainion

  • Definitely NOT!
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/y/Talk%7EBoy_11ff.html"