Talk:Peg boy

Accuracy
As suggested in the VfD discussion for this article the assertions should be verified and sourced. -EDM 19:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The VFD debate cited above ended with a "no consensus" keep, but only barely. Verifiable sources are needed. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sodomy was made a capital offense by King Henry VIII in 1534. The law was briefly appealed by Edward VI, and later on, Mary, but it was put back on permanently by Elizabeth. A search on Google for "Greek Navy" yielded no results. Therefore, I think we may conclude that this article is unadultered balderdash.
 * Or poppycock. -EDM 04:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Care to put it to a vote? 66.73.198.167 04:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is truth subject to majority rules? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * When it comes to pejoratives, call me a relativist. Whether we ultimately call this "poppycock" or "balderdash" matters little to me, just so long as we come to some kind of agreement on the matter. 66.73.198.167 02:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

After googling the subject I've actually come to the conclusion it is true! A few pages I found had a general understanding of it being an old "Official Position" in the British Navy. He was, as the Wikipedia article suggests, a dedicated male prostitute, available for the men due to a lack of available women. --Matt0401 04:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that settles it, then. Because, when a handful of unspecified internet experts agree... 66.73.198.167 04:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it's tough to cover a subject as taboo as an underaged male prostitute... The unspecified internet experts are the only sources we can find, and so we'll just have to trust them as knowing best, especially when their websites are all about a similar topic (British Navy) and agree on this specific subject. --Matt0401 17:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you missed my the point.


 * Namely: would you care to actually specify these expert sites that suggest this was an "official position (!!!)"? As of right now, I don't notice any citations at all (either here or in the article itself). I mean, you've got your browser open anyways, right? If you Googled it, cough up some specifics, Matty, and help us all out.


 * Cause, all I'm seeing right now, guy, are hit after hit on a Savage Love column from 2001 featuring a letter from a reader who recalls finding the term in a slang dictionary once when he was in high school. Open and shut, eh? 66.73.198.167 02:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I googled it again and found that column... I think that the slang dictionary in an official government-funded American public highschool is a worthy source. --Matt0401 18:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't doubt that, up in the socialized dream land of Canada, the official, state-sanctioned slang dictionaries are marvels of historiographic rigor indeed. When it comes to the tomes down here in the States, however, I tend to be a bit more wary. We're still fighting to keep Jesus out of our science texts for Christ's sake. Which, unfortunately, also means that the painstaking and reliable slang lexicons (and the facts they might bring to bear on the history of sexploitation in Her Majesty's Royal Navy) have to wait in line behind these more pressing pedagogical concerns.


 * There's no need to go about insulting my nationality just because I make a suggestion that you may not particularily like. Now I'm all for the abolition of religion from the political and scientific communities, but in the case we're faced with here, the term is an old, archaic one that isn't even used anymore. Therefore it would probably be sufficient to trust the slang dictionary, cite it, and then write in the article that the term isn't used anymore in our time period. --Matt0401 12:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't mean to insult; I really meant that "socialized dream land" bit—break me off a piece of that national health care. Some of my best friends are Canucks, too, (not really) and I rooted Edmonton all the way in the Stanley Cup Final. My point is, though, that a citation in a slang dictionary (especially when said citation is relayed second- or third-hand) is not quite the level of proof we need to establish this as "true!" (The same book would probably have an entry for "snuff film", but that wouldn't change the fact that such things don't exist.) All a slang dictionary would be able to establish is that the term "peg boy" exists. But that is hardly in doubt. The questions are a) whether it is apocryphal or not; and b) if it is, whether this is still encyclopedic. 66.73.194.45 03:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine. I agree that the only thing we can say that is true in the article is that the term exists. Perhaps the article should be re-worded to state that this is an old term, and that it is "popular belief" that blablabla... etc. according to the Official American Slang Dictionary --Matt0401 18:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But what else you got? 66.73.194.45 03:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest rewording this to acknowledge its probably apocryphal origin and merging it into the article on the Chicago punk rock supergroup Pegboy as an explanation of their name. 66.73.198.167 03:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done Spartaz 08:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)