Talk:List of books featuring pedophilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to pedophilia. For guidelines see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.


Contents

[edit] Why does this page exist? Is it a "fork"? It duplicates content long found elsewhere on Wikipedia

Would the principal editor explain the purpose of this page? SocJan (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Still learning about Wikipedia guidelines and standards, I was directed to the discussion on "forks" by one editor's comment that this page seems to be a fork. Here is what I found; I would be very interested in other editors' takes on the concept of "fork" as applied to this page.
== What forking is == Wikipedia:Content forking
POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion.
Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy — regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance — or that the person making it has mistakenly claimed a kind of "ownership" over it.
The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article (in some cases people have even converted existing redirects into content forks.) However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article title. If one has tried to get one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight has never occurred inserted into existing aviation articles and other editors have rejected it as absurd, the answer is not to create an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" where this theory is expounded.
In line with Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith, the creator of the new article is probably sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.
In the continuing absence of any explanation for the existence of this page, I have become increasingly convinced that the proper Wikipedia solution to the content duplication is to merge it back into the article from which it came.
I guess one could say that we have consensus to do this, since I seem to be talking only to myself here and, after continuing research and study, I agree with me on this.  :)
Still, I will not attempt a merge until March 10, to give any and all other interested editors time to chime in. SocJan (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with this page

1. Pedophilia is not "featured" in the works of Guy Davenport. Accordingly, I have removed works of his previously listed here.

2. This article significantly duplicates disputed material on another Wikipedia page: List_of_works_portraying_adult_attraction_to_young_males

To read the discussion there, which very much applies here, use this link:

Talk:List_of_works_portraying_adult_attraction_to_young_males

3. This article is not registered at the WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch page.

4. Anime seems not to fit on a list of "books".

5. The Wikipedia dictionary definition of "feature", used as a verb or verbal:

"To ascribe the greatest importance to something within a certain context."

How many of the works on this list can be said, from a neutral point of view, to "ascribe the greatest importance" to whatever manifestation of "pedophilia" they may contain? SocJan (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Good things about this page

"Books" is a good, simple, word that is better than "literature" or "fiction and non fiction".

The layout, dividing each alphabetical section between books in which the young person is male and those in which she is female, seems like a good way to manage a list of this sort. SocJan (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Proposed merge of this page/Note: Please continue this discussion only at Talk:List of works portraying adult attraction to young males#New merger proposal

Much of the content of this page duplicates work done earlier on the page "List of works portraying adult attraction to young males". I propose to merge this page with that one, changing the name of the merged page to "List of works portraying adult attraction to young males and females".

Merging would solve several problems, including that when this page was created no history of its content was brought forward, in conflict with Wikipedia rules:

  • Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.) If you come across a cut-and-paste move that should be fixed by merging the page histories, please follow the instructions here to have an administrator repair it. --- from Help:Merging_and_moving_pages

This page, however, has features of considerably merit. It has admirably dealt with the old problem of how to handle works portraying attractions to young females. I propose that the new format Tony has implemented here (listing male and then female under each alphabetical heading) be retained, along with any content here that is not found on the original page.

The merge would thus advance this particular part of Wikipedia in several ways: by reducing redundancy; by centralizing the main subject: adult physical attractions to young people, including all possible variations of gender of adult/gender of young person; and by re-establishing the history of the project all in one place and removing an irregularity with respect to Wikipedia rules.

I realize that after the proposed merge the thorny question of how to entitle this subject will remain. There have been strong feelings for and against inclusion of the word "pedophilia" in the title. But it makes little sense to have two articles, one with and one without that word, that significantly overlap each other.

Better to work harder to reach consensus on the title than to have redundant articles. In the spirit of consensus, I support restoration of "pedophila" to the title, in a way that makes clear that "pedophilia", as the term will be understood by most users of Wikipedia, does not appear indisputably in each and every work listed. Indeed, not long ago I moved the original article to a name that did just that.

But the eventual title of the merged article is a separate issue from whether there ought to be a merge. I am confident that we can deal with the article's name by consensus once the content is merged. SocJan (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

These pages look like content forks to me, but because they have separate histories, I cannot history merge them&madash;that would shuffle both sets of edits together senselessly.
However, I strongly encourage you to redirect one to the other. This is pointless. Cool Hand Luke 07:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: In order to avoid WP:MULTI problems, please discuss this at Talk:List of works portraying adult attraction to young males#New merger proposal. Cool Hand Luke 07:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)