Talk:Boy

{{edit semi-protected}} A nipper originally was a boy send out by an adult (often his own father) as pickpocket, later a boy assistant to various professions such as a carter, still later (recorded since 1859) a boys' age term roughly equal to toddler The "nipper" word link to the page Nipper, which is "the dog model for the painting His Late Master's Voice". That is completely irrelevant to the word mention in the sentence. Please remove the reference link. 222.252.103.22 (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Done  Chzz  ►  03:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "vagina" to "vulva" in the first paragraph. The vagina is a tube connecting the labia minora and the cervix. The vulva encompasses the entire external female reproductive organ.

Another context where "boy" can be used regardless of age, which as of yet I don't see in the Article, is to denote the geographic origin of a male. For example, I myself am now 23 (a good 5 years past legal adulthood at 18) and on some occasions I refer to myself as a "Pennsylvania Boy." This has absolutely nothing to do with my age, but it does refer to my sex and the fact that I'm from Pennsylvania.

For a more famous example, the Beatles are often called "the Boys from Liverpool" or more rarely "the Liverpool Boys," again reflecting nothing to do with age but only the fact that all 4 are male and all 4 grew up in Liverpool, England. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because...

Only the picture is to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattrap (talk • contribs) 09:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The picture File:Indian_school_boy.jpg has to be removed , since it points towards a particular person and his/her location is pin-pointed in the caption of the picture.So the picture seems to be of personal use; and is useless considering this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indian_school_boy.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattrap (talk • contribs) 09:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the earlier image. I haven't taken the time to figure out when the change was made. If you desire, you can continue nominating the boy on the stairs for deletion on commons. Ryan Vesey 03:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This article includes a large number of assertions that seem like common sense but that lack citations. This topic is pretty well documented, so we should be able to find expert opinion about what boys are. The article also doesn't spend much time describing boys. Instead, it spends a lot of time discussing the various ways that the term "boy" is used. The disambiguation statement says that this article is about young male humans, and I agree that that's what it should be about. Maybe we need a secondary page for "Boy (word)," as we have for "Man." On a related note, the article has an "overview" section, which is contrary to style guidelines. The lead should be the overview (see WP:LEAD). Leadwind (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't frankly see the point of the lede image, which could be either of a boy or a girl and which is not an especially striking image in any case. An image of a nude infant boy in which the penis is visible might have some encyclopaedic value in the context. Perhaps the Wikipedia administrator @Drmies:, whose new born baby boy is apparently pictured (discussed here) may provide one? C1cada (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's clearly defined what does and doesn't pass for an image of a boy here. The image currently in the lead is clearly a baby picture (birth–23 months) and not that of a boy (2–12 years). Also there is a policy (somewhere) about using images of identifiable people. SlightSmile 16:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The policy is here Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. The relevant guidance here is that in the case of children, the parent's or guardian's consent must be given, which plainly must be the case here. A more relevant Commons issue is Not educationally useful. My real beef about this is that it's not an especially fine image (I absolutely don't mean that in any spiteful way) and we lose an opportunity to display one that is. I think that's such a pity. c1cada (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change [[Boi (gender)]] to [[Boi (slang)]] per page move. Thanks. 82.132.234.79 (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

edit to the above

41.138.195.43 (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The uploader resides in Bangalore, India, so it only makes sense that he took this photo in that or near that location. Also, you have not provided any sources to provide this photo was taken in Africa. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would have agreed with k6ka (I was the editor originally to link this fine image into the article - it's curious how few fine images there are of boys on Commons). However the original uploader has now clarified. c1cada (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This is from the 2nd paragraph: "The latter most commonly applies to adult men, either considered in some way immature or inferior, in a position associated with aspects of boyhood, or even without such boyish connotation as age-indiscriminate synonym."

This sentence doesn't make ANY sense...especially that last part

CONCLUSION: the TLDR (read ANALYSIS first if you have the time*)

My translation of the sentence: "One of the primary uses of the word 'boy' is to indicate that a person is defined by the gender role 'boy', and it is used most commonly to classify immature or inferior adult males as 'boys'. It can also be used to distinguish an adult male as a 'boy' even if he doesn't have any 'boyish' qualities (such as being immature or associated with 'boyish' things)."

If that is what the sentence means then it needs to be re-written because the original sentence is confusing to the point of being unintelligible. Also, if that is what the sentence means, I disagree! The most common use of 'boy' is when referring to actual boys, not when insulting or being sarcastic about men....

Lastly, I think that the sentence should just be deleted. Why does the intro section of the "Boy" Wikipedia page need to talk about the frequency of the phenomenon of calling a grown man a boy? Just say: "Boy" is used to indicate sex and/or cultural gender roles, and depending on the circumstances the term can be applied to people who are not typically classified as "boys" to call attention to certain hobbies, lifestyle choices, or characteristics they posses which may be considered abnormal.

• ANALYSIS: I broke the sentence down and tried to figure out what it is supposed to mean. Read this before CONCLUSION if you have the time.

1) "The latter most commonly applies to adult men,"

= this refers to the assertion that "The term boy is...used to indicate...cultural gender role distinctions..." from the previous sentence. So basically what this part of the sentence means is: when a person refers to someone else as a "boy", they are usually using the word to indicate that an adult man (who has certain qualities that are brought up in the next part of the sentence) should be considered to have the identity of "boy" (again, because of certain qualities that he has).

2) "either considered in some way immature or inferior, in a position associated with aspects of boyhood,"

= these are some of the qualities that the adult man who is being called a boy has, which I mentioned (in bold) in the analysis of 1). So basically what this part of the sentence mans is: the reason that the adult man is called a boy is because he is viewed as immature or inferior, or because he is associated with something that only boys are normally associated with.

3) "or even without such boyish connotation" 4) "as age-indiscriminate synonym."

= When something of this general form is written after a list, it usually means that the situation is applicable even if the conditions of the list aren't met. I'm finding it hard to explain, so here's an example of what I mean (with the equivalent parts of the sentence numbered):

"1) All children are wonderful, 2) either with smiling or laughing faces, curious minds full of wonder, 3) or even without such endearing characteristics 4) as precociousness and innocence."

So what that means is that children are great because they smile and are curious, and also that children are great even if they don't have any endearing characteristics. I have no idea what "or even without such boyish connotation as age-indiscriminate synonym" is supposed to mean, but I can attempt to decipher it...assuming if it follows the same general format as my example about children. In essence what it would mean is that a man can be classified as a boy even if he isn't seen as immature or inferior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:C7C9:CD00:39C7:4753:9E00:2546 (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is unclear and poorly written. I have removed it. While the use of the word boy to describe adults should be discussed in this article (and is treated extensively further down), it does not need to be in the intro. --Acjelen (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2017‎ (UTC)

This edit request to monster beast has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Bjburke (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

still missing 84.158.125.98 (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 04:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060501135951/http://www.boyhoodstudies.com/ to http://www.boyhoodstudies.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

boys learn better in co-ed schools while girls learn better in girls only schools. 144.132.99.46 (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Question: Do you have a reliable source to support your statement? DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 22:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

In the US, "small fry" and "half-pint" are not inherently insulting, nor specific to boys. In fact, when used by a parent they are terms of endearment. (In literature, see Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House series, in which "Pa" refers to Laura as "Half-Pint" frequently.) Older siblings might use these as terms of endearment as well, though they can also be used antagonistically. Most of these terms can be used in a diminutive sense, but that depends on the speaker and the context. "Small fry" and "half-pint" belong in this list, but they should not be described as "rather insulting." Like all other epithets, context is everything. Dcs002 (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The most apparent difference between a typical boy and a typical girl is the brain, not genitalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:11AF:457:FD00:54A3:FD9C:2CC:884B (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I have tagged the article for multiple issues. First, the article is missing a ton of major categories of information, including information on boys' physical, mental, and social characteristics and development. (There is much more information that could be added, including boys in sports, literature, film, etc.) The article gives an inordinate amount of attention to the various ways the word "boy" is used, while offering remarkably little information about boys themselves. This makes the article unbalanced, as does the uncritical inclusion of highly debatable and controversial information on transgender issues. The article has been tagged since 2009 for containing references, but very few inline citations; nevertheless, many entire sections of the article remain completely unsourced (I have added a tag about that, too). Some of the content may be original research; it's impossible to tell, because almost nothing is sourced. SunCrow (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added a tag requesting expert attention. SunCrow (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with most of this, the article definitely needs a lot of work. But regarding the "debatable and controversial information on transgender issues", it is important to follow mainstream sources and not to present a sense of false balance (WP:FALSEBALANCE.) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Added another tag regarding the lede's self-contradictory definition of "boy." SunCrow (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

How is it self-contradictory, exactly? WanderingWanda (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In any case, note that the Template:Multiple_issues page says: if an article has many problems, please consider listing only the most important. A lengthy list is often less helpful than a shorter one. Remember that this tag is not intended as a badge of shame. I'm going to go ahead and prune it a bit. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem regarding self-contradiction. SunCrow (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with your shortened lead, however, I disagree with your reasoning. I still don't see any contradiction. I'm guessing you thought that this sentence:

The most apparent difference between a typical boy and a typical girl is the genitalia

contradicts this sentence:

However, some intersex children with ambiguous genitals, and transgender children who were assigned female at birth, may also be classified or self-identify as a boy.

But it's not a contradiction to say that typically boys are one way, however there are certain exceptions where they are another way. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have added a tag stating that the article needs a rewrite. I have removed tags regarding sources and POV that are obsolete. SunCrow (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please cite the first paragraph in the "Etymology" section as coming from the etymology source that is listed at the bottom of the article because that is where the information comes from. Wiki.funness (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Wiki.funness (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)