Talk:Pederastic filmography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 March 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.

I removed the film I piso porta from the list. Having seen the film, I can tell it has nothing to do with pederasty.

I have never seen "Les amitiés particulières" and "La ville dont le prince est un enfant", so I wonder if they really belong in this list. I removed "Der Unhold", since I had the impression that Malkovich's character is a pedophile, but not realy "also a pederast". Fulcher 19:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen the movies in question, but from my readings Peyrefitte belongs here because the relationship is analogous - there IS an age difference, and it is the relationship that set the tone for his life-long pederasty. Bewteen young boys even small differences loom large.

As for Der Unhold, I have no info about the age of the youths involved but I would suggest reading this review here [1] since it suggests that it may indeed be appropriate - if not complimentary. Why did you delete all those other movies too??? Haiduc 20:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as long as we give the reader a definition of pederasty that involves an adult man and a male youth, descriptions like "A love between an adolescent and a child" must be confusing and the argumentation against using pederasty as a synonym for pedophilia will look hypocrite to some people. I think the people from the french wikipage had a good idea, when they mentioned "Les Amitiés particulières" a bit seperatly from the other movies and explained it why.
Ironically, I even saw "Der Unhold" at its premiere in Munich and asked Schlöndorff a (boring) question. As far as I remember, the main character Abel adores little children, mainly boys. There were also a lot of teenagers in this so called NaPola, but I'm not sure, if he was attracted to them. Okay, you should maybe ask someone, who has seen it more recently.... :-)
Okay, ze ozzer films... I guess director Mel Gibson, known for his homophobia and extrememly conservative views, would fall down from his chair, if we believe that his character really had this erotic feelings for this boy. I heard the original story was quite different from the movie, but we are here to talk about the film and and not about the book. So where is a scene in this movie, where you can get the feeling that this teacher believes his student is "sexy"?
"The Boys of St. Vincent" is a sensationalist, half pornographic movie about a pedophile priest and the boys seem to be very little (I haven't seen it more than once and I would not even have done that, knowing how hypocrite and graphic this TV-film would be). "Happiness" is a similar case, one of these typical wannabe-art-movies of directors like Solondz. Fulcher 23:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not care if Mel Gibson would fall down from his chair by reading this article and I don't know how Mel Gibson's views have anything to do with compiling a list on films regarding pederasty, unless I am missing something. "The man without a face" movie makes it clear that the McLeod character gets in trouble because of allegations of sexual activity with young Chuck. What Gibson thinks of the boy or what Gibson wants us to believe about his movie character is completely irrelevant. Most people who saw the movie saw the relationship between McLeod and Chuck as pederastic, even if chaste. Therefore this movie should be back in the list.

"The boys of St. Vincent" may be sensationalistic but is by no means "half pornographic". I would, however, accept you deleting it since it focuses mostly on pre pubertal boys. I am still missing the reason behind the removal of "Return to innocence", however...Kes77 22:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"The boys of St. Vincent" probably had the most explicit scenes of sexual abuse that were ever shown on TV and really rises the question, whether such movies actually serve as some kind of "indirect childporn" for those, who would never consider themselves as pedophiles. They went way too far with that movie. It's like: "Oh, we really don't want to show this, but well... we have to..." I think the hypocrisy is quite obvious.
Okay, the movie with Mel Gibson.... How do you know that "most people" saw it like that? I didn't. For me it's the typical example for a film, where somebody was "falsely accused". Maybe I missed a scene, where you get the impression that the Gibson-character is attracted to the kid. And of course, it's relvant what the director of a movie, in this case Mel Gibson, wants to show us (even if that is very different from the original story). Fulcher 02:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Not having seen any of the movies you mention, I will recuse myself, but I will say that where there is doubt we should be as inclusive as possible, simply because different people will see different things in these movies. Haiduc 23:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Real films?

Several of the films in this list have no entry in IMDB, or any other reference source that I've checked. Neither do the directors. Unless someone can provide evidence of their existence, I suggest their removal. The films in question are:
L'embrassement avec rosée (A Dewy Embrace), dir. Raymond Lightman (France, 1968)
Caltrops!, dir. Quentin Beck (Australia, 1973)
Caltrops Too!, dir. Jerry Whorebach (Australia, 1984)
Murray and Sons, dir. Eric Wolpaw (Cleveland, 1998)
Caltrops Too... Thousand!, dir. Zseni Jeim (Australia, 1999)
Neenoo Loves Nani, dir. Leone Ariggne (France, 2000)

Liquoricerole 00:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I could not find anything either, and some seem to be a joke directed at gamers. I will remove them. Haiduc 00:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria

What exactly are the criteria (and for that matter, the point) for this list? I found this page in the "What links here" for Chuck and Buck, a film about two men in their late 20s, one of whom is emotionally childish, but... that's not within any definition of pederasty I've ever encountered. The intro on ths article is cursory and contains not a single referenced fact; it's a thesis statement for somebody's Original Research. Without a self-evident criterion for what "pederastic filmography" covers, this seems like a really bad topic for a list article. Maybe it'd be possible to put together an article that pulled together scholarly information about the subject, but... this isn't that. - JasonAQuest 22:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No one is vetting the listed movies. Please feel free to delete any that do not involve erotic relationships between adolescent boys and adults or young adults. The scholarly definition of pederasty is pretty straightforward and can be found at the article by that name. Otherwise the choice is strictly commonsensical, much as one might list movies about Antarctica. Haiduc 23:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"No one is vetting the listed movies." My point exactly. It's just "Hey, I think this is an example of pederastic filmography." The determination is highly subjective (unlike the question of whether a movie is set in Antarctica), and the fact that someone thinks Chuck and Buck is a good example of pederasty indicates that it's not all that "commonsensical". Wikipedia policy clearly states that inclusion in a list should be based on what published references determine about the items, not by what Wikipedia editors think. And this still fails to explain the point of this list, or address the other fundamental problems with this as a Wikipedia article. It's a great subject for a personal or collaborative web site, where the standards for NPOV and original research are different, but not for Wikipedia. - JasonAQuest 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Jason, no one vets any Wikipedia articles. And pederasty is quite a clearcut matter, according to those who claim to know, namely historians, anthropologists and sexologists. Unfortunately, because the article deals with a topic on which some people have strong opinions, it also draws a certain amount of vandalism. I just cleaned some up a while ago, when someone pointed it out. As for commonsensical editorial decisions, we all make them all the time. If you see an entry here you disagree with, please contest it and those who keep an eye on this article will address it, like any other article here.
As for the point of list-type articles in the Wikipedia, for the moment they are allowed. I don´t see why this article should have any more or less point than any other list. This is a list about erotic relationships between men and youths. The point is to inform. I really do not see why you have a problem with this unless perhaps because you are unfamiliar with the topic and find it hard to believe that 1. the topic exists and 2. that anyone could or would be interested in such a thing. Haiduc 15:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised by neither the existence of this topic, nor that people are interested in it; spare me the implication of naivete, please. However, I am surprised by the existence on Wikipedia of an unverified collection of original research on the topic. In fact, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be vetted: by supplying references, which can be independently verified. This article has none, which robs it of any authority or credibility, thereby depriving it of having any point. The fact that the topic involves strong opinions and attracts vandalism makes strict independent verifiability critical. I've removed the troublesome material; please adhere to Wikipedia policy in adding material (back) to it. Might I suggest that you start by defining the subject, so editors and readers will have some idea (aside from "common sense") what films it might refer to? - JasonAQuest (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
When I suggested that you remove material that you thought did not belong I did not imagine that you would remove everything. You have not made your case about the movies removed being un-related to the topic of pederasty, and generalized bigotry and homophobia is no excuse for not documenting a topic. A number of different editors have contributed to this collection, it is one that exists in other language versions of Wikipedia, the only extraordinary thing here is not its presence but your opposition to it. I have no interest in getting into a revert war with you, but I consider your behavior off the mark and I will put the deleted material back, but I would like to give you a chance to do so first. Haiduc (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that the article be removed because of prejudice against it, rather that the prejudice against it is why it needs to be handled by the book, according to Wikipedia policy. I've worked on some articles that make debates about pederasty look like a (platonic) group hug; so I know of what I speak. :) Those policies state very clearly that the burden of proof is on editors to justify the materials they add, not the other way around. I'm not going to add material back to this list without citation as you ask, because that would be original research that lacks verifiability. Please read (at least) the "This page in a nutshell" boxes on each of those two links and explain to me why those rules don't apply to this subject before adding the material back yourself. - JasonAQuest (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I have looked at the links you provided and have given the matter some thought. It seems to me that the verifiability issue can be resolved by going to official sources for the definition of pederastic relationships. As for original research, I fail to see the originality of it. It is one thing to present hypothesies of one´s own and draw creative conclusions, and another thing to exercise the documentary function that we are obligated to carry out when we contribute here. What may be tripping us up is the fact that that line is perhaps not always as clear and crisp as we would like it to be. But that battle needs to be fought at the level of each entry, not on a category-wide basis.
For example, a while ago a movie based on Peyrefitte´s "Special Friendships" was removed when a user pointed out that both lovers were boys, even though it was a pederastic-type relationship between an older and a younger boy. Keeping that entry would have been a case of OR, as it would have extended the boundaries of such relationships beyond what scholarship recognizes at present. But listing a movie such as "Ernesto", a love affair between a man and a teenage boy, is simply the automatic result of following the rule set down by the formal definition of the relationship. To use another analogy, a list of movies featuring dogs does not need anything more than the presence of the dog in the movie, which does not need to be confirmed by scholarly studies. The only role of those studies is to define what a dog is.
I think we need to be careful not to apply a reductio ad absurdum approach to the rules of Wikipedia editing, lest we end up stifling the very process that we are charged to carry out. Haiduc (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Gohatto Poster.jpg

Image:Gohatto Poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced Entries

I have placed the unreferenced entries which were removed from the article on this talk page so that the editors who wish to can find reliable, verifiable references for them and then place them back in the article. If you find a reference for an entry and place back in the article, please delete it from here.Mysteryquest (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Un enfant dans la foule (A Child In The Crowd), dir. Gérard Blain (France, 1976).
  • Abuse, dir. Arthur J. Bressan Jr. (USA, 1983).
  • Il Sapore Del Grano (The Flavor of Corn), dir. Gianni da Campo (Italy, 1991).
  • Cracker, episodes "One Day A Lemming Will Fly" and "Best Boys" - Parts 1 & 2 (UK, 1993).
  • Pretty Boy, dir. Carsten Sonder (Denmark, 1993)
    • a fictional treatment of teenage prostitution.
  • Iki Haole: Nico's Hawaiian Adventure, dir. Mike Masterson (USA, 1995)
  • La ville dont le prince est un enfant (The Land Where The King Is A Child]), television film, dir. Christophe Malavoy (France, 1997).
  • Murray and Sons, dir. Eric Wolpaw (Cleveland, 1998)
  • Get Real, dir. Simon Shore (UK, 1998)
    • the main character of this coming-of-age-movie has a short affair with a married man.
  • Queer as Folk (UK TV series)
    • British television series depicting, among others, a relationship between an adult and a fifteen year old boy.
  • Queer as Folk (USA, 2000)
    • an American television series remake of the British series
  • Eban & Charley, dir. James Bolton (USA, 2000).
  • Fremragende Timer (Precious Moments), dir. Lars Daniel Krutzkoff Jacobsen (Norway, 2003).
  • Whole New Thing, dir. Amnon Buchbinder (Canada, 2005)
    • A 13 year old student has a crush on his English teacher.

[edit] afd

Since we now have a consensus on , I believe this article should be removed. 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.Tony (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Tony

I agree. The only way around endless debates about what does or does not qualify as "pederasty" is to go back a step to what will be easier to agree on: if any sort of adult sexual attraction to child(ren) or adolescent(s) appears in a film, then the film qualifies for inclusion on the page List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents. Any film in this article that meets that criterion and is not in List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents can be moved. Then this article can be deleted as redundant and inherently NPOV given the definitional debates that are inevitable if it continues. SocJan (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. As I said at the AfD page, this is a wrongheaded approach to the compilation of an encyclopedia, in that it blurs distinctions instead of respecting them, and reduces information instead of augmenting it.
There are no "endless debates", pederasty is clearly understood by those who study it. You want to debate individual movies, go ahead, that is how this project works. You want to "go back a step"?! A lot of people have worked very hard to go forward a step, and then another. That is how this encyclopedia got written, by going forward, not backward.
The arguments against the intro are spurious, as it is NOT essential to the article. I will remove the obsolete sections sowe do not have to revisit this, but anybody could have done that anytime - when we have a problem in an article we address the problem, we do not delete the article. Haiduc (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm clearly in over my head, here, so I've sticken my previous comment. My experience was with the "pedophilia in books" struggle, which truly did come down to a poorly defined term. I am not familiar enough with what has gone on here to have commented. My apologies! SocJan (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)