Talk:The Boys (2019 TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sexual assault?[edit]

Isn't rape a more accurate description of what Deep did? -- (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The show title card warns that it contains scenes of rape. The episode I watched implied oral rape or worse, but only the blackmail before the act was shown thankfully. Some readers may have different opinions but I think downplaying the behavior as anything other than rape is inappropriate and also inconsistent with the intention considering the source material. Instead of your opinion or my opinion is probably better to either use the title card as a source or to use reviews of the episode as source, that way we're being objective. -- (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
What you both said. It's 2019 people. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Respectfully, you are both synthesizing the information, and we don't get to do that. Find a source that calls it that, and we're in business. Until then, its oral sex. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The show is a self-documenting source, correct? Literally the first thing you see when you start playback after the Amazon logo is a content card. The content card reads as follows:
The following program is intended for mature audiences and contains Adult Content, Graphic Language, Graphic Violence, Nudity, Strong Sexual Content and Rape.  Viewer discretion is advised.
There are no other scenes it could possibly be talking about. The cards are changed from episode to episode, so this is not referring to events that are shown much later. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree with Sebastian and I don't think it is appropriate to downplay the rape of Starlight, but in theory it might refer to the series as a whole and other episodes such as attempted rape Starlight prevents or the implied the rape of Becca Butcher. I'm surprised reviewers haven't given them more flak for using rape a plot device, but it was implied not shown, and they did tone it down from a gang rape in the source material. We've a local consensus of 3 saying it's rape, those who disagree need to add to this discussion. -- (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Sexual Violence in THE BOYS: An Analysis and Discussion". ComicsVerse. 23 July 2019. rape by coercion is absolutely, 1000%, rape. The Deep is a rapist. Annie is a survivor of sexual violence.

I said above it would be better to have a source, to be completely objective, because there are always some who disagree, not because I believe we need a source. -- (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Tl:dr - Allow me to be clear: we aren't alloowed to Sherlock our way through an article. As others have pointed out, opinions will disagree (even amongst editors, if you can imagine such a thing), which is why the litmus for inclusion is not Truth, but Verification. every opinion or view in the article must be supported by an external source speaking explicitly about the issue. Contributor: did what an editor did not: they supplied a source. This protects the article from destabilization and the regular flame-y stuff that occurs without a source.
All we needed was a source. We have that now. Source the statement, and we're good. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

May it please the court, it wasn't [1] - Immigrant laborer (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Lol, fair enough. Let the record reflect the correct attribution of the editor adding the link. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
IL beat me to it by minutes and updated the article with the same link coincidentally. -- (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Point out that Butcher murders Stillwell's baby?[edit]

The show just kind of zips past that. Yay? Nay? - Immigrant laborer (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

We don’t know if Stillwell's baby is still alive or not because it wasn't confirmed on season finale episode. I don't think the baby should be presumed dead until it is confirmed next season or the series developer confirmed in an interview. — YoungForever(talk) 23:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

In-universe plot development vs cast list[edit]

Myself and another editor have been reverting the character list back to something more neutral and less in-universe. The explanations (via edit summary) have been as follows:

But it pretty much started here, with no explanation.
The article is an overview of the subject - in this case, the tv series. We tend to avoid in-universe points of view,(esp. in cast sections), favoring instead the actors who give life to those characterizations. There are several GA and FA exemplars of how this is done. We do not Sherlock or Hardy Boy our way into interpreting the primary data of the character actions. If a reviewer points out a choice that an actor made in the portrayal of that character (like this, for example), then we can include that characterization. Not before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to be quite as strict as you (Sebastian) are being but I appreciate a certain level of vigilance, and think descriptions should introduce a character rather than describe plot that is better left to the episode summaries.
Earlier edits by User:JonMor93 added a lot of bloat to the Cast section and were not good in my opinion. Although not ideal I thought the edits by Bluerules were better written and far less verbose. Perhaps with some discussion we can decide what details we think are most important and make sure they are included, but I'm definitely of the opinion that less is more and that Plot and Episode Summaries don't belong in the Cast section. -- (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the article is to give an overview of the subject. That is what my edits have done. We need a full and accurate overview and that's not present in the current version of the article, especially for the Deep's description. The article currently only focuses on the negative attributes of his character - "Quick to assert himself towards those he feels are beneath him, the Deep sexually harasses Starlight and is implied to have a history of sexual misconduct." The edit I made adds that the character "is also insecure and believes that he is not respected by the other members of the Seven." - a full and accurate overview.
The explanation for the revision was "leave the character development to the plot summaries". Of the most recent edits I made, the only thing that could be interpreted as "character development" is that Hughie is "Initially meek and passive, he becomes more confident as he learns to fight back against the corrupt heroes." The other edits are not interpretations of the primary data of the character actions. A-Train being "addicted to Compound-V" is a neutral observation that gives a full overview of the character. The Female being "forced to join a terrorist organization, she was kidnapped by Vought International and injected with Compound-V, leaving her in a violent and unstable state." is a neutral observation that gives a full overview of her character. And I also removed the "He later forms a bond with The Female." information from Frenchie's section, which would be more fitting in the plot summaries.
The original point of contention was that the descriptions were too long, which I agree with and I have working on keeping them as trimmed as possible while ensuring that they provide an accurate overview of the characters. In my last edits, the character descriptions are shorter from where you claim "it pretty much started here, with no explanation." (and that edit was also fixing grammatical errors and removing unnecessary information.) The only point of contention here seems to be the information about Hughie starting off meek and passive before becoming more confident, which again, I understand how that is being perceived as "character development". So I do not have an issue with omitting that from my future edits while restoring the rest of the changes I have made because the other information provides a full overview of the subject. Bluerules (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate you coming by to talk about this, Bluerules. Respectfully, I disagree. You will note that the section is called 'Cast' and not 'Characters'. There is a reason for that. If you think the characters are described too anemically, create an article on Homelander, on Hughie, on Butcher, etc. Create episode articles to delve into the personal growth of the characters as portrayed by the actors (with plenty of references, of course). It isn't needed here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand the issue about plot development, which is why I am not opposed to removing the information about Hughie's personality. My other edits, however, are not about the personal growth of the characters. My edits to the Deep, A-Train, and the Female are to give a full overview of their characters and my edit to Frenchie is actually removing in-character development in respect to his bond with the Female. Yes, the section is called "cast", but it still contains descriptions of the characters. If it's acceptable to include the negative qualities of the Deep in this section, then it should also be acceptable to include his redeeming qualities. Otherwise, the information becomes negatively-slanted. I am also not opposed to potentially removing more from the character descriptions so long as a full overview is maintained and if the issue in regards to the Deep is simply the mention of his personality, I have no issue with removing (or at least trimming) the negative aspects as well. Bluerules (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Press release[edit]

Most watched show apparently. Trying to find the original press release ideally but haven't found it yet. -- (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Used 2 of the sources and added to the article under a section "Audience Viewership" (since that's what Netflix streaming shows seem to list instead of Ratings). If anyone can find a copy of the original press release or actual ratings please do add to the article. -- (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


There are lots of articles about the show already and each seems to contain small details about the Production and design and the rules the writers have set themselves. So far I've only found small nuggets in each article.

  • Entertainment Weekly interview with Erik Kripke where he explains how he wants to keep the show grounded in reality: "No gods from mythology, no aliens from other planets," Kripke says. "It’s only humans who suddenly found themselves with these extraordinary abilities."
  • Reddit AMA with Erik Kripke

There are a few other interesting points but to start a Production/Development section we need at least few more. I will try to come back to this post and add more sources later and start a Production/Development section when I've got what I think is enough sources, but if anyone wants to do it first, go for it. -- (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source. — YoungForever(talk) 01:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Typically they aren't, and I am not sure of our stances on A2A sessions. So, if the Reddit lists its sources, follow them, verify that the sources are accurately represented and then cite the actual source, not Reddit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind. I don't see how using a Reddit AMA is any worse than using Twitter but I try to avoid both anyway. Kripke does seem to repeat some of the same kinds of answers he gave in the AMA in the EW interview, and I hope I'll be able to find most things repeated elsewhere. I'm not in any rush. -- (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
If a Twitter account is verified with a blue verified badge, then it is a reliable source. It is not a reliable source, if a Twitter account is not verified with a blue verified badge. — YoungForever(talk) 04:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@YoungForever:Could you link a location within Wikipedia where we have made that determination of source reliability, please? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: Template:Twitter & WP:TWITTERYoungForever(talk) 04:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Ahh, I thought that was what you were referring to. You should make every effort for the rest of your Wikipedia-editing career to avoid ever using self-published sources. And social media sources - not matter whether they are blue-badged or tattooed across the forehead - can be deleted. How many people in the spotlight who have royally screwed the pooch via tweet then deleted it? Please, for the love of Sweet Chubby Jesus, find another source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────── @Jack Sebastian: WP:Twitter-EL. Clearly, you did not read this which covers WP:VER as it is considered a primary source as it is considered a primary source. — YoungForever(talk) 06:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I did, though I am now growing a little concerned that you are overlooking the massive caveats they put in place about using it. They would prefer if you didn't, but if you absolutely must, it has meet some pretty hefty criteria. Find another source, please.
And here's another point: if it was so critical to an understanding of the series, why is no other reviewer mentioning it. We don't manufacture importance here; it is formed by those who we cite (reviewers and the like). If it isn't important for more than one source to observe, there is every chance that it is trivial or unimportant view. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: If a tweet from a verified Twitter account got deleted, then we can't use it, duh. Creators, writers, and directors of TV series with verified Twitter accounts sometimes tweet they will be directing and/or writing a certain episodes and/or tweet episode titles of the following season. However, when there is more reliable source available, the certain tweet will be get replaced with the more reliable source. — YoungForever(talk) 06:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Tbh, I am not sure if you are just not understanding what I am saying, or willfully ignoring what I am saying. In either case, allow me to be perfectly clear.
I will hold any Twitter-fed source to an astonishingly high bar for inclusion, primarily to protect the article from the inevitable back and forth that comes from adding social media rambling, but also because of an apparent willingness on your part to seek out an actually reliable source that addresses the tweet in question. Fun fact: in a choice between a blue-badged tweet and a reliable source that speaks of the tweet, we will use the second as a more stable source. Every. Single. Time.
TL;dr: articles aren't built like filling a stuffed animal with whatever is readily available. We use good quality material to help the article remain stable. Shite sources - or sources that are whimsically deleted - create snags upon which edit-wars and overblown, overlong talk page are created.
Find a source that will stand the test of time, please. Also consider that, if a more durable source has not reported about the tweet in question, they don't consider it important. And neither should we. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: I know what you are saying. You are saying that tweets from verified accounts or not are never to be used under every circumstances. I got it loud and clear. — YoungForever(talk) 06:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@YoungForever: Dude, so not what I said.
Look, let's try this another way. Imagine you are in a building that is on fire. Regular sources are like taking the approved fire exits to get out of the building and to safety. Less reliable sources, like self-published autobiographies are like jumping out of the third-story window; maybe the source will be sturdy enough and you land without incident, but you're just as likely to bust a leg or two.
And frankly, I can't think of a connecting metaphor for twitter nonsense that is so trivial that a normal reliable source won't write about it. Because it is trivial.
Look, the news is constantly littered with Twitter tweets either getting deleted along with their accounts over this or that. Why not avoid that crapbag of annoyance and try to avoid less-reliable sources? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: Look, we going around in circles with this. I will not be responding to this discussion with you anymore. — YoungForever(talk) 15:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Um, fine. If you were going around in circles, that could be because you were going the wrong way and simply got dizzy when I kept trying to turn you the right way. Good day to you, madam. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Shaun Benson as Ezekiel[edit]

Consensus had been reached, removed Ezekiel's sexuality. — YoungForever(talk) 01:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I want to point out the "homosexual" is considered to be derogatory and offensive nowadays according to GLAAD [2]. The term "gay man" is the preferred term to use. In other words, it is not appropriate to use "homosexual". An editor and various ip addresses keep on adding "homosexual". Should we use the term "homosexual" or "gay man" or neither (if neither, please state another term that is more appropriate)? — YoungForever(talk) 14:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Both are correct, given GLAAD's position I guess 'gay man' is as good as any. Reading the prose in the article, the description doesn't feel unnatural or anything (sometimes the wording can feel forced). I like it like it is and we can keep an eye out for people who try and change it anonymously. 87Fan (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind GLAAD, doesn't Wikipedia have a policy on this somewhere? The guideline WP:GAY? seems to apply, although it says when describing living people.
Does the character description even need to highlight this? As he is a fictional character how can we even be sure? It feels forced and it would be better to leave it out entirely. He's a scumbag drug trafficker too but we don't mention that detail. It is not a defining characteristic, his fake religiosity and his ability to stretch are the only relevant details that need to be mentioned. Neither Delete it. -- (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It's relevant as he is pretending to be straight in the public eye. — YoungForever(talk) 17:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
As I am the one who replaced 'gay' with 'homosexual,' I wanted to weigh in.
I was wrong. After looking at the source that YoungForever provided as well as checking both the sources of WP:GAY and limitied online research, gay is a more appropriate term to use than homosexual in practically every instance. Mea culpa.
That said, I think that Ezekiel's sexuality isn't really explored in the series and since he seems so far in the closet as to practically be in Narnia, I think probably that MSM is probably a more on-target term. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
In terms of writing style it is not an improvement to leave readers with an unexplained acronym that they may need to click through to understand what it means. His sexuality is not a relevant as character description.
It is only relevant in the episode summary and because Hughie uses it against him, but in that case the words extort and outing already provide the necessary meaning.
With real life people it usually makes sense to be considerate and accept how they wish to describe themselves. This is a fictional bad guy, it is better to address the story and his actions, not his fictional sexuality. -- (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth the term homosexual was was added by User_talk:Cloaked_gecko with the not particularly helpful edit summary that claimed "Fixed typo". The previous wording merely described him as "closeted". The text seems to have been first added by User_talk:JonMor93 one his many verbose additions to the Cast section, and the wording he used was "Shaun Benson as Ezekiel, an elastic superhuman, who leads a "Capes for Christ" campaign and is really a homosexual." Again I reiterate my earlier recommendation of brevity. -- (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Also the episode summaries are all a little bloated. Template:Episode_list says ShortSummary "A short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode." and episode 5 is currently 211 words. -- (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
That seems a fair middle ground. We just say Hughie extorts Ezekial to get whatatever and leave it be. Plot summaries aren't supposed to be over-detailed anyway. Good suggestion, 109. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────── Uhm... this is kinda crazy. It's not implied that he has sex with men—it's literally shown. And it's what Hughie uses, again explicitly, to extort him, which is nearly all we know about the character, so it's entirely central to what we know about him and shouldn't remotely be skirted around. Maybe (and I'm not entirely convinced on this front) referring to him as "gay" is problematic but certainly the removal of the notions of outing and him being closeted is inappropriate because those are his primary motivations in his most major interaction in the series. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

In this modern world we live in his sexuality is not the issue, people can be gay and religious too. Hypocrisy is the problem and that leaves him open to extortion. By asserting that the character is gay based on very limited information (the club scene) you are also excluding the possibility the fictional character is bisexual, but as I said before this fictional character is a bad guy (the comic character he's based on is even worse) and we aren't winning anything by being politically correct about what his sexuality might be. -- (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Problem solved (1, 2). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Reverted a good faith edit that added IMDB user scores to the article. IMDB user voted scores are user generated content. User voted web polls are not a reliable source either.

There are some exceptions where we cover these scores, such as when there is a discrepancy between critics and audiences and there is significant coverage ... but there isn't. There was a source but WP:FORBES contributors are not generally considered reliable enough, we would need better sources and more of them. Also since the show got significant other positive reviews and Amazon have claimed great rating for the show there isn't a discrepancy and IMDB scores don't show anything particularly interesting. -- (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Editors might not always know about MOS:TVRECEPTION but they should probably know WP:UGC but they should definitely know WP:RS Reliable Sources.
I don't expect editors to know WP:FORBES and an editor acting in good faith might have thought it was a good enough source to make an exception and include IMDB but one source isn't really substantial coverage. Hopefully this talk page note might discourage others from adding it again, but it's good to have local agreement on the matter too. -- (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, WP:FORBES is generally reliable. However, a contributor as in not a staff writer and the content as in the IMDb ratings are not reliable. Regardless of MOS:TVRECEPTION, WP:USERGENERATED, and WP:RS, some editors are definitely going to pull "they are just guidelines, not policies" card and keep on insisting to include user ratings. — YoungForever(talk) 03:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, IMDB votes still not allowed. -- (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Why is the "recurring" section limited to 4+ appearances?[edit]

I'm a bit confused as to how Translucent doesn't technically make the cut as a recurring character, despite being pretty central early on. Where did this "4+ appearances" come from, exactly? Sock (tock talk) 05:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a general rule of thumb that's used by editors in WP:TV. The relevant section of WP:TVCAST states:

A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a "recurring" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status.

From my own standpoint, three episodes generally indicates "guest role" and is not enough to be considered "recurring" in most situations. Four episodes is where it becomes debatable... As an aside, the real issue at this article, in my opinion is actually that the 'Guest' section is too "inclusive" and needs to be trimmed back. --IJBall (contribstalk) 12:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:TV and MOS:TV Talk archives, general agreement. — YoungForever(talk) 14:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Would WP:OSE have any effect on this 'rule of thumb'? A rule of thumb, be definition, is an approximation, and not a precise measure. Of course, we want to avoid abuse. But for those characters which have significant dialogue or impact on the plot (like Translucent), I think they should be in there. Also, as Pegg is notable for having been the visual model for (Wee) Hughie in the source material, he should be in there as well.
Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI, Simon Pegg is already Recurring as he appeared in 4 episodes. He isn't part of the main cast though. Do we really want to clutter the Recurring section with cast and characters who only appeared in 1-3 episodes? I don't think so because the list is going to be incredibly long. Translucent can be the only exception as he is a member of the Seven. — YoungForever(talk) 04:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


This article from the Economist might be reading too much into the show but they call it a [critique against Facism.] -- (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe the IP is talking about this review: “The Boys” is a superhero series for the Trump era, even though the link they provided seems malformed.
I think this might be nice to add to the Critical Response section. What do others think of this idea? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Critical response would do in the short term but I think it would fit better in a Themes section if there were other sources trying to interpret the show in general, more than tv critics reviewing it. -- (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)