Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pederastic filmography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pederastic filmography

Pederastic_filmography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Since we now have a consensus on List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents, I believe this article should be removed. I do not think that 'rederastic filmography' is a genre and there have been no citations given in response to the various 'citations needed' comments.Tony (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Tony

  • Comment: Without jumping to conclusions either way I would say that this motion is premature. What is the harm of subdividing the sexual attraction to children list into a separate list such as this, that focuses on relationships between men and male adolescents?
    The foundational category, pederasty, is clearly an important category historically, culturally and psychologically. Why should readers interested in this particular topic have to wade through mounds of irrelevant information, to cull out what they are looking for? And where do we stop? Having merged the movies, do we now move on to the books and the poetry? And how about all the other articles on pederasty? I have not counted them but there must be quite a few by now. Do we delete those also, since we will have (if we do not already) parallel articles on “Sexual attraction between adults and kids in XYZ”?
    As for the outstanding citations, they can be resolved by deleting text that is unsupported, and deleting citations which are spurious (there are quite a few of those as well, the whole snowstorm of those citations struck me as a bit of a polemic in itself, as such things can be at times). Haiduc (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I originated the article 'pedophilia in films', but am now happy eith the new title List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents. All the other editors who contributed to the debate wanted the words 'or adolescents' included. That implies, doesn't it, that pederasty (attraction to adolescents) is included. The other issue is that the article pederastic filmography is a much less comprehensive article. As I mention above, I do not think that 'pederastic filmography' is a genre and there have been no citations given in response to the various 'citations needed' comments. The intro appears very POV. Let's see what others think. Tony (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Tony
The intro is no longer POV (if ever it was) and you have not adressed the fundamental issues I raised above. Haiduc (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. --  SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

comment pederastic pornography- redirect to child pornography- just a euphemism for child porn. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you mean films such as Lolita they are more complex than just being'pederastic', and have their own articles. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

oh I see now, it's a list of films. Well strong redirect/merge to the already existing list. IMHO, some people just like to see Category:pederasty very large. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete This is absurd. There is no such genre of film called "pederastic filmography." It's completely made up --and an extremely biased fabrication to boot. It's a sadly pretentious way of saying films that might interest people who are interested in child pornography. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Request This comment be removed as inappropriate and as a homophobic slur. There is nothing inherently abusive or illegal about pederastic relationships as long as they involve individuals above the age of consent, in which case they are protected as legitimate homosexual behavior. Haiduc (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Haiduc has made a set of very peculiar statements here, none of which are germane to this discussion. It shoudl be pointed out that pederasty cannot be between couples over the age of consent, almost by definition(!), even in nations like Japan where the age of consent is extremely low. And his phrase legitimate homosexual behavior can be read as more than a little offensive to those who are homosexual, since it appears to align homosexuality and pederasty. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Pederastic films are simply another aspect of homosexual culture and people interested in LGBT culture and the expression of same-sex attraction between individuals of different ages should not be forced to wade through lists of movies having nothing to do with the topic they are researching. Furthermore, pederasty is a clearly defined subtopic of LGBT culture and history and needs to be documented as such. Almost all the works treating the subject treat it as a separate topic, not as just another aspect of "adult attraction to children and adolescents." Haiduc (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It seems to be splitting hairs to subdivide a list of pedophelic-themed movies into sub-groups; the existing article isn't overly long, so why split it? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Regarding the "request" above--are you nuts? Where does it say in the "pederastic filmography" article that people who are interested in child porn are gay? And: this is an encyclopedia, not an on-demand child porn directory. -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • If you are unfamiliar with pederasty as a scholarly topic involving history, anthropology and sexology, then that explains your homophobic remarks. It does not excuse them, since ignorance is never an excuse. Haiduc (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment I would say *you* are the one slurring gay people--I bet the majority do not appreciate your idiosyncratic definition of child porn as a gay issue. NAMBLA etc is the extreme fringe minority. Most gay people are *not* child molestors, and don't want to have anything to do with them. Also, it's completely ridiculous to makeup a pretentious new phrase that no one else uses or has ever used, slap it on a list of films that looks alot like a wank list for pedophiles, and then claim that anyone who points out that you made up the term and the list is bogus anyway object not because you made up the term and there's no justification for the list, but because they are homophobes! Perhaps someone should claim that Pokemon is a gay issue, so that when they start cranking out bogus trivia pages they can accuse people of being homophobic when the pages are nominated for deletion?-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete because this is simply not a recognised genre of film classification. The list is interesting in its way, but "interest" is not a reason for continuation of an article. In so many ways this becomes Original Research because the inclusion in the list becomes a matter of opinion, not a mater of encyclopaedic fact. While it may be obvious that a movie deals in some manner with pederasty, that is insufficient reason (because it is uncited) to include a film in such a list, and citations as such are, generally, unavailable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment It does not have to be a recognized genre to be a film, and there is no research involved in the commonsensical identification of movies about a relationship between a man and a youth. It is not the "genre" that is of the essence here, it is the topic and that topic is well recognized and documented. There is no recognized genre for the list into which some people are trying to squeeze these movies either, but that article exists very nicely - it just is not as specialized as it should be. Haiduc (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment The very act of compiling a list of things which fall into no citable category is, of itself, original research. Please be careful not to confuse "what is obvious" with "what is citable". Many things are obvious, but, without citations that meet WP:RS, such things are original research. At the point where you can deliver citations which show that it is valid to have such an article at all, the discussion changes from "keep/delete" into one about whether an item referred to inside the article meets the criteria for inclusion. At present we are discussing the deletion of the article. I do not find your arguments for keeing it persuasive. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        • This list is just as objective, and is just as legitimate, as the list into which some people are trying to include it. If you can have an article listing movies featuring adult desire for children and adolescents, you can just as well have an article listing movies featuring men's desire for adolescents - a topic with much more history and culture behind it than the former. Haiduc (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
          • We do not argue "this article should be kept because that article is being kept." Nor do we argue the case for deletion in that manner. Each article is considered on its merits alone. Please do not use this type of comparative as an argument either to keep or to delete an article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Your argument fails since you base it on the absence of a recognized genre of pederastic film. That argument would be, at most, a reason for deleting the category link at the bottom of the article, which I will do. That leaves "pederasty" as a citable category. If you wish to debate the citability of "pederasty" I will be happy to do so. Haiduc (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
              • No, his argument does not fail simply because you claim it has. You haven't made any case for this list except comparison to List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents. Note that that list is also proposed for deletion. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                • I do not need you to speak for me or to misrepresent my arguments. If you want to debate any of my points you are welcome to do so on their substance. Haiduc (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • You haven't made any point to debate except that this list should be kept because the other list (which has been nominated for deletion) exists--you made a comparison argument, which Fiddle Faddle pointed out is not a sufficient argument. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Citations for content should be in the relevant articles, not the list. The list is just a list, coalescing information just like any other list. Beyond that, nominator hasn't given any reason for deletion, so keep due to lack of valid reasons for deletion. Celarnor Talk to me 16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I fear you misunderstand the use of citations. In this article the citation, should the article survive, is to prove from a source meeting WP:RS that the item belongs in or adds value to this article. Thus a citation within an article hyperlinked from this article, while interesting, is irrelevant. But the problem is that this article requires citations in order to prove that it is, itself, a valid article. That is an entirely different discussion from a discussion about the nitty gritty of the content. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand citation policy perfectly; I'm afraid that you're the one who doesn't. People are giving about the lack of citations in a list as a reason for deletion. The only time citations belong in lists is when the citation can not be placed in the main article. The main reason that this is done is to keep as much information as possible in the article and prevent content forking; it's much more convenient and maintainable to use lists as lists of articles which adhere to some categorization, and use articles as articles, rather than confuse the two by mixing and matching elements. This way, as much sources and information get kept in the article as possible. Imagine an article with that was a member of a hundred lists; would you rather have references in each list, or have everything that the subject of the article is inside the article? In order to keep content where it belongs in the article and lists as simply lists, this is how it works. Celarnor Talk to me 11:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the other point (i.e, "You need a source to for the list itself"), I'm not really following why that's necessary. It's pretty common sense if you ask me. Celarnor Talk to me 11:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Those citations are in the articles for the movies, not in the list. Citations do not go in lists. Celarnor Talk to me 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Citations go in any article which requires them. And citations are most assuredly required for this article, list or erudite text. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you point to this new guideline? It seems to be in conflict with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) and WP:LISTS. Celarnor Talk to me 09:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I will second that request. Fiddle Faddle is also presuming to make us believe that, even were that absurd contention to be true, the remedy for articles lacking sufficient citations is deletion. His arguments are incredible on their face. Haiduc (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment So as not to waste any more time debating the merit of the insistence on citations in a list, or of deletion as a remedy for dearth of citations, I have gathered a handful of citations for some of the entries in that list. It is an elementary task, proving that what was a commonsensical task for the Wikipedia editors was just as commonsensical for a number of outside commentators. Haiduc (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The point is all the content in it is already in another, more comprehensive list- and we don't need more promotion of paedo-ism on wiki (not saying you are- but it's some other editor's agenda). special, random, Merkinsmum 02:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The point of an encyclopedia is not to generate ever more generalized lists but ever more specific ones. This is not the Columbia Desk edition. Furthermore, I do not know who the "we" is, but while I condemn abusive behavior I also condemn the hounding of scapegoats - it is the activity of people looking to boost their own self-image at the cost of someone weaker and more vulnerable than them, in other words typical bully behavior. Haiduc (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
"People looking to boost their own self image at the cost of someone weaker and more vulnerable than them" is exactly what pedophiles are. AfD voting doesn't really compare. Further, portraying yourself as some kind of victim because your pedo article has been AfD'd is as ridiculous as claiming that anyone who criticizes your article is homophobic. What's your next lame ad hominem argument going to be? -PetraSchelm (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Your unchecked anti-pedophile campaign is making a laughing stock out of you, and out of Wikipedia. Let's see what we can do about that. And don't take my generic description of bullying activity and try to twist it to your agenda. I am not the one interested in pedophilia, you are. Haiduc (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I have just looked at Haiduc's user page, which declares that he has "an agenda." It specifically says, "Agenda: To promote accurate and comprehensive treatment of LGBT history, in particular of pederastic homosexuality, in its sexualized as well as chaste manifestations." First of all, one isn't supposed to come here with an agenda. Second, Haiduc's sole interest *is* in fact, pedophilia. Third, his views of pedophilia are not the mainstream views of pedophilia. Last but not least, he is the author of the article being discussed here. So, he has an agenda; he writes an article from a fringe POV to further his agenda; which is not unsurprisingly AfD'd. Then he comes to the AfD and posts constantly without identifying himself as the author of the article, and makes a bunch of lame ad hominem arguments/personal attacks. Seriously, wtf ?!. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
We all have an agenda, and so does Wikipedia. The agenda of Wkipedia is to create a compendium of knowledge freely accessible to all. If we come in with a similar agenda, such as mine, which is to be accurate and comprehensive, then we are in synch with the purpose of this project. If we come in with some other agenda, like pedophile hunting, then we are helped to understand the error of our ways, and if we do not get the message we are politely shown the door. I am sorry that I have not been able to help you with your problem, but I fear it is too deeply rooted and either you simply do not get it, or you are being deliberately provocative, as is suggested by your probable identity as a sock. If so, please feel free to agitate at will, you are not MY problem. As for my not being mainstream, if you cover issues in sexology accurately and are able to avoid conformist POV (which is difficult but possible) then you are likely to irritate everybody, gays, straights and pedos alike. So as long as I get flak from all three quarters I know I am doing my job. I will not speculate on which group YOU belong to, on one hand it is sadly obvious, on the other it is irrelevant. Haiduc (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me see if I can keep all of your ad hominem arguments straight: anyone who criticizes your article or thinks it should be deleted does so not for the reasons they state, but because they are 1) homophobic 2) bullies 3) pedophile hunters 4) sockpuppets 5) have deeply rooted problems. You, on the other hand, are a completely objective neutral party, who merely happens to advertise a pro-pedophile agenda on his userpage, only merely happens to have written this article, and only makes ad hominem arguments at this AfD in order to "help" the other participants.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If it can be documented it is notable. And for many items in this list the references are extensive. Thus the discussion reduces not to whether or not to delete but to an entry by entry analysis of individual validity. Haiduc (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- the specificity here is helpful. The other arguments for deletion are frivolous. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research - fails WP:NOR. Fails WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Srong Keep: Bad faith nom. Valid encyclopedic subject. The arguments for deletion are frivolous. Article needs referencing and rewrting, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I find the arguments, Haiduc has presented here, very convincing. Especially, since pederasty is indeed an important part of homosexual history (and present). If ignorant users as Petra would really know these films, than she couldn't say it's "child pornography". Fulcher (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Haiduc nailed it for me. Pederasty is historically and culturally distinct from paedophilia involving children or adolescents due to the nature of the relationship. A pederastic relationship would typically involve one or more of the following: mentoring, sponsorship, introduction into society, or friendship and not always sex. It is not synonymous with paedophilia, and as such should be eligible for a filmography subsection of it's own. The reference requirements are, of course, valid but also rudimentary and as such are not of themselves sufficient to justify deletion at this stage. Morganautt (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Comment I started the debate and there has been very valuable input from many editors. Since then the article List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents, a more comprehensive article, has been nominated for deletion. Editors contributing to this debate may wish to post their views there too. My original opinion was that the pederasty article was superfluous, but I am am now happy that both should stay.Tony (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Tony


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.