Does anybody gain a negative impression from the "boy" article on WP? Or is it just me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=184876082

What about the article on "girl"? It's got this interesting item:



I wouldn't suggest calling a female child a "gay girl" in modern times, though.

I note that three paragraphs can't transpire without the centuries-old "gender roles" of boys being questioned.

Notice all the pictures featuring boy nudity or states of exposed-boy body parts that don't typically show up in yearbook portraits. Oh, if there were only a "Category:Lolita" counterpart for boys. Those wonderful-to-look-at boys.

But, wait! There's also the obligatory BDSM section in the "boy" article. Wouldn't be Wikipedia without a BDSM paragraph.

Thank you, Wikipedia, for making this all possible.

Joe Lieberman would be proud.

Greg

And don't forget the link to pedestry!

If "boy" gets a link to pederasty, shouldn't the articles about "poodle", "horse", "sheep", and "alpaca" all get links to zoophilia? I'm confused. I thought that Wikipedia must be NPOV?!

Denying these animals of their proper links to the appropriate sexual fetishism page reveals a systemic humanist bias.

For shame, Wikipedia!

Greg

That might be 'Adonis'.

I was a boy once. I do not recall ass branding (see the the pic in the article) to be a traditional element of boyhood in my day, nor a normal "rite of passage" in those societies where slavery is no longer legal. What the hell??

OMG thank you for that one. Very strange indeed. And perhaps it's a coincidend, but your post appears last night (Sunday) and this morning (Monday) Krimpet appears

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=185819845

and removes BDSM, and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=184876082

the frat boy branding "rm non-sequitur image". Thank you WR.

After some research. It turns out that Cutefuzziebear added the pictures of the Palestine boy, and the Nicaraguan farming boy. His edit history suggests merely that he likes pictures of children, and that he is probably a teacher. Angr made the most edits, but has no particular editing patterns, and is moreover a v prolific editor.

The only other significant editor of the article in its present form was Fastifex, who added the Indian boys pictures "Indian boys skinny dipping for all to see", caption later changed to "Boys skinny dipping on a public place in India." Fastifex is a Latin name (good) who has written lots of articles on medieval scholars (good), articles on v. Catholic subjects such as Sisters of Notre Dame of Perpetual Help (v good). That is all good. Not so good, and possibly rather puts the first set of articles in a different light, is work on articles concerned with

* torture, cat o nine tails, torture rack, crucifixion, flaying, body cavity search
* 'English vice' articles such as caning, birching, use of paddles for spanking, fagging (English public school term), switches &c
* beachware, boxer shorts, swimwear, streaking, nudity, nudity in children
* The 'buttocks' article. He contributed a picture of some nice hairy buttocks – (since sadly deleted), other pictures of buttocks, briefs, undershorts, article 'asshole', loincloth. Also much on an article called 'sagging' which I had never heard of before but refers to the teenage boy fashion wearing pants below the waist to expose one's boxer shorts.
* stuff on choirboys

Words fail.

But wait. There is another editor, Arcarius. This is latin for 'treasurer'. Arcarius' interests also involve medieval and Catholic theology, but he has a greater interest in spanking than Fastifex, and in leather equipment of all sorts, e.g. 'knout', a heavy scourge-like multiple whip, 'usually made of a bunch of rawhide thongs attached to a long handle, sometimes with metal wire or hooks incorporated'. Rawhide, jockstrap, men's swimsuit, human branding (!!), swimming shorts. Also uploaded a nice picture of a spanking bench in someone's living room, which appears to be still there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_%28furniture%29

Which is bizarre, I mean, you look up an article with pictures of garden benches and stuff your elderly parents would buy from a garden centre, and there is this horrid black contraption at the bottom (!!) of the article, with leather straps and other unidentifiable things attached.

He writes:


Also 'stinger'



Much work on the 'spanking' article. Same daily edit pattern as Fastifex, i.e. sleep 12 to 6 am, rocket-powered editing until 4 o'clock, slightly less until bedtime. Where does he find time for the spanking?

So there are two editors with similar interests, living in a similar way?

So not to change the subject, but after reading Krimpet's history, he should be added to the Dque of the year poll.

Always like to change the subject. But sorry, what is Dque?

Really changing the subject, your link took me to Krimpet's block of Fartlekstink. Fartlekstink's only contribution to Wikipedia was to redirect the 'Whore' article to 'Paris Hilton'. Bongwarrior then blocks him. Unblock request I'll tell your wife you've been having an affair if you don't unblock me.".



And who is BongWarrior?



And these people are running the world's greatest encylopedia.

They are participating in the Internet's most notorious experiment in unplanned social networking and lunatic social drama.

It's French for "DICK of Distinction"

Surely must be.

Ah, AnonMoos is someone who actually knows about BDSM and stuff. He's an admin on Wipipedia and went ballistic over accusations that he tried to stack the AfDs on the Wipipedia articles. He stupidly fell for Michaelas10's trolling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...9#User:AnonMoos

Somebody should tell JzG that his "boy" Krimpet is PROXY editing for banned users from a BADSITE.

Furthermore, could someone find me a reputable dictionary that contains the word "spankee"?

Greg

Seems to be a term of art.

http://www.spankeefinder.org/

I don't get it. Why do we need so many pictures to illustrate what a boy is?

The post and the preceding one by you in this thread make up an extraordinary, and disconcerting, analysis.

Which is sourced to Reader's Digest, which I would not really call reliable. They reprint urban legends on a semi-regular basis.

Why isn't there a militant editor by the name of Corporal Punishment in this fray?

And with many of those pictures with naked/semi-naked boys?

Oh, I found a good reason not to release a picture of yourself or anyone into the GFDL. That picture of the Boy Scouts on the boy articles has now ended up on a Wikia "spanking art" site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ScoutFun.png

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:ScoutFun.png

Those poor kids!

There are plenty of better, less controversial pictures of boys on Commons.

Like this one that is heart-breaking to me.

Or even this one, if WP is desperate.

Anyway, thanks Krimpet for getting rid some of the controversial aspects of that article. I would have used my account to do so, but I had this fear that there were "owners" of that page wanting to keep things in the status quo for... um... "nefarious" reasons.

I fear the boy article may be coming under siege again. Krimpet and others trimmed it of most of the stuff I was concerned about a while back, but it seems some are determined to keep the pedestry and "Boi (gender)" links in the article. I just don't see a reason why. Does Britannica or any other encyclopedia discuss pederasty in their boy articles?

I sense some villainy afoot.

Hate to... oh my... triple post, but this guy, Arcarius, and this guy, Icarus3 are the ones who have reverted much of the article back to its "disturbing" version.

Icarus3: some grammar mistakes here and there, first edit is on a talk page using an edit summary about NPOV, also psychology articles (Freudian oral, anal, genitasl stages, anger and rage, disorders, etc), added to some hHarry Potter mish-mash and the Emo article. However, aside from that, Icarus' edits are mostly to birth-related, sexual (masturbation, condom, etc), and (surprise!) BDSM-related topics and the spanking article.

My concerns are not so much Icarus or even Arcarius, but the fact that the boy article has remained in a pro-pedophilia state for as long as it has and that "consensus" is defending it. Krimpet tried to fix it and that was fine until others came along and undid her work.

I wish morals and ethics would trump Wikipedia policy one day.

I'm pleased to see that no one has reverted Arcarius' idiosyncratic contribution to the garden furniture article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_%28furniture%29

(See my analysis above of Arcarius' disturbing work).