Talk:Boy/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

boys, just like an "s" is always added to pluralize any word.. boyz is slang just like carz or peepz, etc.

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. --pile0nades^{talk | 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. --pile0nades^{talk | 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)

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)

Appropriateness of "Indian boys skinny dipping" picture

I think this picture 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)

Remove (If this discussion is still active!) - My personal opinion on the presence of this picture is that there is nothing inherently wrong with it. However, I cannot see any reason why it should exist on an article entitled 'Boy'. It does not add to the article in any way. (in my view) --Christopher 21:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If we're talking about penises: this picture pretty much shows the difference between a boy and a girl. Isn't that reason enough? I think the difference between a boy and a girl pretty much relates with the article defining what a boy is. At all, it's what separates the boys from the girls. 89.220.71.214 21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If that were true, then we would need a naked girl picture in Girl, now who wants to do that (I don't)? 76.183.208.186 07:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see that image removed because it does not improve the article one bit. It's useless. --98.17.57.110 (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing about the Nicaraguan, Palestinian, or Japanese pictures that is inherently useful or radically improves the article on an individual photo-by-photo basis. But they are all useful in illustrating a range of boys from around the world, engaging in activities that are normal in their respective cultures. If we are to project one culture's customs onto another culture's photos, then we must also scour Wikipedia for any images showing the soles of feet to avoid offending Arabic readers! There is no reason why this photo should be removed any more than any of the others if individual "usefulness" is the concern. If nudity is the concern, then some of the classical art images in the gallery at the bottom expose far more. The social context is what determines propriety, and none of the images currently in the article are inappropriate in the least. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 20:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

India is, for the most part, a third world country. In most third world countries it is perfectly socially acceptable for boys to be naked, espically while swimming. Even in the US bathing suits wern't really common until the mid to late 1800's. You see it on pictures coming out africa, the phillipines, some areas of china, and central/south american countries all the time. The reason they are naked is they most likely can't afford bathing suits and don't want to get their clothes wet. Personally I see the image no different than a picture of a nude baby. In most western cultures baby nudity is alot more widly accepted than nudity in mid to late childhood. It seems all too often in Western Culture people relate nudity with sex, when the two are totally different and separate things. Nudity is not in and of itself sexual. --Nn123645 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

'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)

I know this is a year old, but I would just like to add for the sake of wikipedia that all images should be as discriptive as possible and photos should tell you the race of the boys, where the photo was taken and when it was taken. The article is about boys world over, so we need to know where the boys are, what race the boys are and at what point in history did that photo represent boys JayKeaton 12:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Can cognates of this Finnish word poika be found in eastern Finno-Ugrian languages in northern Russia or western Siberia where there is less risk that the word was taken from Scandinavian into Finnic? Anthony Appleyard 12:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the word is widespread in Finno-Ugric languages. (By the way, Finno-Ugric languages are not spoken in western Siberia. Finno-Ugric languages belong to a larger group of so called "Uralic" languages. Some Uralic languages are spoken in western Siberia.) 193.65.112.51 (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Merge?

This article should be merged with male. -Mrsanitazier March 29,2007 15:46 EST.

See my comments at Talk:Man#Merge. —Angr 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it should NOT Arcarius 23:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't not think that it should be merged because it is a period in a males life thus desevering its own explanation. -Unsigned

Definitely NOT! -Unsigned

Too many pics?

As compared to the amount of pics in the 'girl' article. Just sayin. It seems very imbalanced that's all.71.232.62.13 05:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing's stopping the editors of Girl to add more pics there. —Angr 06:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

True; anyway girls is the last subject relevant to boys; removing pics of boys from boy to 'balance' with girl is like mildering the North-South income-gap by halving all wages in the OECD countries, helps nobody. Arcarius 11:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Mildering"? You wouldn't happen to be German, would you? ;-) —Angr 13:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually that comment kinda sorta is the thing that helped nobody. sayin. oh and 'mildering' hm, yes, i believe that's from the language called Pretensish. or something? dunno.71.232.62.13 21:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are there virtually no Europeans on this page

Not that its a problem, but Ive noticed the only caucasian photo of boys on this page are of boy scouts. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.252.72.109 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 June 2007.

There's only one picture of Palistinian boys, one picture of a Central American boy, one of a Black boy... Actually, there are two of Americans, the boy scouts and the "frat boys". And most of the images in the gallary at the bottom are white, come to think of it. I honestly don't see what the problem is, or why it matters if there is only one picture of any particular race. And if you agree that it isn't a problem, then I honestly don't see why you felt the need to mention it and ask about it. Seriously, I'm completely perplexed. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

was that really intentional?/ i don't see the implication or insinuation here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msavidge (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fraternity image

I propose that this image be removed. The other images are all somewhat representative of boys (or the concept of boyhood) in general, or of boys in a specific culture, or in a few cases, a specific, notable boy. This image, however, represents something an anomaly. An general image of fraternity brothers could be representative of a specific, notable type of boys, but the focus of this image is clearly not so much the boys in particular but their brands (something that, while certainly not unheard of in fraternities, is nevertheless far, far from typical). Furthermore, their very status as boys is somewhat dubious, as "young man" would be more appropriate for college students above the age of majority. Compared to all of the other images of much younger people, this image really strikes me as being out of place. For these reasons, I think that the image should be removed. It's been there for a while, though, so out of respect for the other editors who have worked on this article I'd like to receive some input before moving forward. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• On the contrary, the image illustrates at least two important points. The article goes to some length to elaborate on the use of the term boy precisely to this age group, and precisely students (the recruiting group for fraternities) are commonly (in fact even the alumni) referred to as college boys, actual members as frat boys. Furthermore doing 'abnormal' things (what exactly is far less relevant, but this image is visual, in one shot) is precisely commonly decribed as 'boyish' behavior, and in various languages described by words specifically referring to students, such as in Dutch 'studentikoos'. Arcarius 05:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You raise a good point about how the article does, in fact, cover college-age students being referred to as boys in some contexts. Perhaps another, more representative image of male college students would be beneficial to the article. Perhaps even some kind of image showing some form of unusual, 'boyish' behavior could also be added, though the idea of abnormal behavior being 'boyish' would have to be explained in the article. I still think that this particular image should be removed, though. Especially for an image that is the sole representation of this age group, and this social milieu, such a highly unrepresentative image provides an inaccurate portrayal. It also perpetuates post-Animal House stereotype, which is as unbelievably common as it is erroneous, of fraternity members frequently and blithely engaging in hazardous activities. I definitely think that your points are valid, and can be used to improve the scope of this article's images, I just disagree that this particular image is the right one to use toward that goal. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 08:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Is there any evidence this practice is internationally commonplace and useful to a reader's understanding of what a "boy" is or does? Image could be useful (it's used in hazing), but doesn't appear relevant enough to warrant crowding an already crowded page with yet another image, IMHO. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've taken it out again. I read the comment above, but this image has -nothing- to do with "boys". It might have a place in an article about "boyish behaviour of fraternities" or something like that, but not here. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Today the image was added yet again by Arcarius (talk · contribs) and removed by someone else [3]. Clearly there is no consensus to include it here. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced section removed

I'm removing the section "Social position of boys" as it has been tagged as requiring sources for eight months now. If anyone wants to re-add it, please find sources to cite first. —Angr 14:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"My Boy"

HankG 13:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC) "My Boy" This term is used in many ways but primarily:

1. As a term of endearment or mild affection when addressing a son or employee or associate
2. A mildly condescending term used to address a friend, most often in jest

It is not used in any racial manner or meant to insult. -Unsigned

Interwiki

Please add ru:Мальчик —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.20.222 (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Human.jpg

User Icarus ^(Hi!) has removed the picture Image:Human.jpg because he thought it was a good picture, but wanted everybody else to vote on it . Patrice58 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, discuss, not vote. In the past there have been problems with too many people adding pictures of themselves, their kids, etc., to this and similar articles, especially as the first image replacing what was previously there as this one was, so I reverted that edit and suggested bringing it here to get a consensus first. I think this image is good quality, and the article doesn't have any good face close-ups like this. I wouldn't mind adding it to the gallery at the end, or somewhere higher up if there's an appropriate place for it. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this picture as well. Good image. It would/will be a great addition to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well there has been no body saying no to the picture being not added and why not put it where it was before you removed it?Patrice58 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

New Renamed Pic

The pic Human.jpg has been changed to Browneyedboy.jpg everything else about the pic stays the same here is the link Image:Browneyedboy.jpg --Patrice58 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Palestinian photo?

Four Palestinian boys on the West Bank.

This image was recently re-added as the first image in the article. Visually, as the people in it are relatively small and indistinct, I do not feel that it is a good image to be at the top of the article. The top couple of sections of the article already have more or less the maximum number of photos for it to still look good and not overly crowded with images. The later sections are, in my opinion, too short and on too specific topics for general photos like this to fit in. The image itself is not particularly interesting. They are not dressed in any culturally significant way like the Japanese boys or the boy scouts, they aren't doing anything interesting like swimming or doing farmwork, and their slingshots are barely noticeable at thumbnail resolution. So since we already have plenty of images that are higher quality, I see no reason to shoe-horn it in somewhere just because it used to be in the article back before better images were added. But since there's been a bit of back-and-forth over its inclusion, I don't want to just remove it without explanation and continue that cycle. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

naked photos

compared to the girl section that has none of this naked photos i can imagine what kind of people are editing wikipedia....

Yeah, that's a significant omission. These "kind of people" are pretty bad at finding photographs that accurately depict female anatomy. I apologise on their behalf. --128.243.253.114 (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually there was a photo in the girl article that included a nude girl from a culture in which it was considered acceptable in the given circumstances. I for one support the inclusion of one or two such photos, as removing them for the simple fact of the nudity is to impose arbitrary foreign standards onto those cultures, but it was removed before I got a chance to weigh in on the matter on that article's talk page and I personally don't feel comfortable getting involved in an article I don't have a pre-existing history with for that one reason alone. So no, it's not about any specific "kind of person" in the slanderous sense you're implying. It's about the "kind of person" who wants to accurately portray a variety of different cultures without arbitrary censorship being imposed by another "kind of person" who insists on sexualizing even the most innocent images. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 17:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Gallery

Ewwwww. Cupid is not a boy, he's a God. And even if he was a boy, do we need two of them? Let's keep the one with the hairless genitals, OK? That will best instruct our readers that "classic art is not porn", as Icarus3 was kind enough to enlighten me on. I had been laboring under the misapprehension that context makes porn, at least to some extent, and so had thought that many photographs together of naked boys in an article called "Boy" (and not "Naked boy") was too much. I had also thought that it would be best to err on the side of not looking like a bunch of leering child molesters, but I suppose the public need to be shocked into a healthy awareness of Icarus3's infallible point of view, given their current ignorant bias against sex with children. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I implore you to remain civil, and not make unfounded and abhorrent assumptions about other's views on the matter. I, and I'm sure many others, would be perfectly happy to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of having a gallery section, and what should and should not be included, but your opinion will not be considered very credible if you refuse to express it in a civil manner.

On to my actual position on the subject, per the guidelines for gallery use at WP:IG, it is acceptable to have a gallery when multiple images improve it in a way that mere words cannot. It seems to me that it would be very difficult to describe boys in art without at least a few representative examples. The section is short enough that it could not support more than one or two in-line images, so I think an gallery is the best way to go. As for which images should be included, ideally we would have examples from different time periods and cultures, as possible, and their captions should include that information so it's clear that the samples were chosen for that purpose. I am not a scholar of art or nudity in art or anything along those lines, so the best I can say is that the number of examples that involve nudity should be representative of the general presence of nudity in such art overall. My layman's understanding is that it's relatively common in artwork from certain cultures and eras, so an example from there would likely include nudity, and not common at all in artwork from other cultures and eras, so examples from there would not involve nudity. The focus should not be to intentionally censor or include nudity, but rather to present a reasonable sample of young male subjects in art. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I find comments such as "classic art is not porn" to be uncivil. Where I come from, superciliousness is met with forthright derision, if not action, so from my point of view my ironical comments here rise above the tone set and constitute good-natured badinage. In keeping with civility of the kind exhibited in your summary, then, let me ask whether you've read "The Emperor's New Clothes". I feel no need to guess what anyone else's slant is about the gallery as it stands, but to the mind of this clear-eyed heterosexual who engages in perverted sex exclusively with grown female humans, the gallery is plainly pedophilically prurient (as is the picture of the Japanese kids, but I have to give that one the benefit of the doubt). I'm not here to debate anything or to seek consensus. As a matter of fact, I'm not here at all. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

nude gallery removed

To show the physical appearance of boys, one picture should do, I don't see the added value to a encyclopedia of showing endless amounts of nude boys strolling around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.92.64.4 (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

REMOVE NUDE GALLERY

It add's no value to the article. Please give me the consensus to remove it. keeping it there is has no point to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarsfieldusmc (talk • contribs) 00:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Kids skinny dipping in India.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Nudity of minors.The genitals are visible.Requesting deletion.

An image used in this article, File:Kids skinny dipping in India.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Kids skinny dipping in India.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)