Jump to content

Category talk:Films about hebephilia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removing films that are not about hebephilia

[edit]

As promised at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 30#Category:Films about hebephilia, just about all of the films will be removed from the category. None of the films except for Are All Men Pedophiles? are actually about hebephilia. I will let the Lolita films stay for now because of an argument that an editor made in the aforementioned "Categories for discussion." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave L.I.E. in the category as well since, according to the first source currently in that article (the one in the lead), the man actively seeks out teenage boys. Seems he has a sexual preference for them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The L.I.E. categorization is a mess. If he's really set on teenage boys, the ephebophile category makes more sense. But this man is apparently all over the place. While sexual attraction to age 11 can fall in the hebephile category, it can fall in the pedophile category as well. 11-year-old boys look prepubescent far more often than they look pubescent. I'll leave the hebephilia category for this film for now, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving Trust (2010 film) in for now as well; one source calls the man a pedophile, but if the man's sexual focus is girls around age 14, he's not technically a pedophile. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed application of this category to film articles

[edit]

I reverted Dereck Camacho here and here because those films are not about hebephilia. A woman being sexual with a 12-year-old in a film does not make the film about hebephilia and it certainly does not make the woman a hebephile. I've already told Dereck Camacho that hebephilia is specifically about a sexual preference for pubescents; it does not mean any and every case of statutory rape. If I continue to see misuse of this category, I will be starting a WP:RfC on this matter, which alerts the relevant WikiProjects to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dereck Camacho has reverted again. I will go ahead and ask WP:Film to weigh in first. It is apparent that Dereck Camacho never had any intention of using this category appropriately. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to argue which films I do think go there, which I agree do not and which I have no idea. But I havn't have any time. I know this is very important for you apparently, but take it easy. Before retiring films from a category a consensus should be reached not the other way around. Besides you say it yourself that if things dont go your way you will ask for WP:Dispute resolution, so be my guest. In any case as I said I will be argumenting here my reasons, if I can take more than two seconds. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what films you think should be placed in the category, we should not be violating the WP:Original research policy, and you are violating it. Not only are you doing that, you are misrepresenting what hebephilia is. You reverted me on this, for example. Mary Kay Letourneau is not a hebephile. She doesn't have a sexual preference for pubescent children or any other type of child whatsoever. Those who have studied her case (like I have) know this. And All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story is not about hebephilia. I don't think you understand pedophilia, hebephilia or any other chronophilia, despite your claims to the contrary. All you are doing is wasting time with your policy violations. If you "take it easy," you wouldn't have challenged me twice on deleting this useless category and you would not have reverted me. It is not true that "Before retiring films from a category a consensus should be reached." If a category doesn't belong, it should be removed. The same applies to an editor making any other addition to an article that should not be there. I didn't state that "if things dont go [my] way [I] will ask for WP:Dispute resolution." I stated that if I saw you or others misusing this category, dispute resolution would be the next step. That is what I am doing now. An RfC will be next. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if I see you inappropriately WP:Canvass this time, I will be reporting it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ready, here my rationale Flyer22 Reborn:
  • Articles that clearly belong to the category
    • The War Zone; is about a father having sexual relationships with his 14 year-old teenage daughter for a long period of time and a clear sexual preference about it (I saw the film)
    • Towelhead; same, just change father for teacher.
    • That’s My Boy; the film starts with a sexual relationship between a teacher and a 12 year-old boy which is an important part of the plot and the teacher express herself her preference over teenage boys that age.
    • All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story, similar case; teacher-14 year-old student, the teacher also shows a constant sexual interest for boys that age.
  • Unsure
    • L.I.E., boy is 15 so over the gap.
    • For a Lost Soldier, boy is 12, but is not established if is a tendency from the adult character or just an exception.
    • The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane, at the end one of the characters wants sexual favours from a teenage girl but is never shown to be a tendency.
    • The Damned, boy's age never specified
    • Under Suspicion, not the main topic of the film, but does shows a character interested in a 13 year-old, so I guess it depends on the definition of “film about”, whether it has to be the central topic or not.
  • No
    • State and Main, is mentioned that one of the character prefers underage girls, never specified the girl’s age, might well be just 17.
    • Felicity, girl’s age is clearly over 14.
    • Persona, to abstract movie, but the subject doesn’t seem to be related. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
About the rest, look I know you are hurt because your hated category was not erased as you wanted, but don’t blame it to me, I wasn’t the only one who voted against eliminating the category, simply, no consensus was reach. Deal with it.
And yes, consensus has to be reach before making important changes to an article, including removing categories. You seem to be very sure that the category that you hate so much shouldn’t be in some of those articles, well I disagree and as an editor then I use my criteria to revert your editing, as anyone can do. Just because you say that a film doesn’t belong to a category doesn’t mean is true or that we all have to agree with you. Greetings. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PD: About the unsure ones, I am going to investigate further in order to make a decision about it. But I hear arguments of course. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not hurt. I am annoyed by your asinine actions, and I've made that abundantly clear. You stated "consensus have to be reached before making important changes to an article, including removing categories." You are wrong. Do read WP:Bold. Consensus only becomes a factor for disputed cases. This is one such disputed case, which is why I will now be seeking more opinions.
Your comment about The War Zone with regard to "a clear sexual preference about it" is your opinion. His sexual interest in his 14 year-old teenage daughter does not make him a hebephile.
Your comment about That's My Boy is your opinion. Where does "the teacher express herself her preference over teenage boys that age"?
Your comment about All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story is false as far as "the teacher also shows a constant sexual interest for boys that age". No, she doesn't. Mary Kay Letourneau only showed a sexual interest for one boy that age, and experts (psychologists, psychiatrists and sexologists) who have studied her case are clear that she had adult ideals about the boy and related to him more so on an emotional level. She was never specifically into 12-year-old boys (which is how old her student initially was when the relationship began) or other young boys, which is why she is still with that person now that he is an adult. I will go ahead and start the RfC now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The category was not eliminated (as you wanted) and as such it exists and even when you threaten that if things didn’t go your way you’ll get the category empty, the category exists still and it can be use in articles, even when you don’t wanted. But I applaud the search for more opinions, that’s great. And I also applaud your willingness to discuss. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
About the other, I'm going to investigate further, in the case of That's My Boy would look for the script for quotes as I remember the line. I do want to notice that it doesn'r really matter what real-life Mary Kay Letourneau felt or thought as we are talking about the movie (that you can see on Youtube by the way) which may differ with the real life persona and facts. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The category not being deleted does not mean that it can be used willy-nilly and violate the WP:OR policy. I never stated that I would remove all of the films from the category; I stated that I would remove all of the films that don't belong. I clearly left in Lolita additions after discussion with you, but even that is a WP:OR violation. Below is the RfC for others to weigh in.
As for All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story, where is your proof that the film portrays Letourneau as someone with a sexual preference for young boys? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to comment at this discussion more fully tomorrow, but this caught my eye so I will comment on it now since I believe it makes my point:
"Articles that clearly belong to the category ... The War Zone; is about a father having sexual relationships with his 14 year-old teenage daughter for a long period of time and a clear sexual preference about it (I saw the film)"
I saw the film just this summer gone as I commented at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_61#Category:Films_about_hebephilia. I don't think the girl's age is ever actually given in the The War Zone but she was at least college age (so therefore at least 16). The girl's father also lets her drive the car too, so unless he is encouraging her to joyride she would have to be 17 in the UK to have her licence. There is also the inference in the film that she had suffered sexual abuse from infancy so that would possibly make the father a pedophile that just continued the abuse into adolescence, so I don't agree that The War Zone "clearly belongs in the category". This is only one example but I think this cuts to the heart of Flyer's concerns: while categorization based on an editor's own evaluation of the plot may in some cases seem very straightforward we can see at other times it leads to incongruous conclusions. WP:CATDEF makes it clear that categorization must be supported by verifiably sourced information within the article, and an editor's interpretation of the plot is not sufficient to make evaluative claims about the themes of a film without a supporting source. Betty Logan (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Betty Logan, thanks for weighing in. I've started a RfC below. I was busy typing it while you were typing your response. Feel free to comment in the RfC without needing to repeat all of what you stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, some feedback and argumentation base on objective data from someone who doesn't seem to be personally involved with the issue. Under that argument I'll agree to exclude that film from the list. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally involved? You are the one who claimed you are a psychologist, when it's abundantly obvious that you are not. Do spare me the condescending posts. Those who actually know what whey are talking about should be weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 Reborn, again, it seems obvious that this is a very important and personal issue for you. If you want my credentials as a Psychologist I'll be glad to give it to you, I have a PhD from Costa Rica's National University and I'll be glad to send you a picture of my diploma to any email you provide. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do stop WP:Pinging me. There is no need since I have the page watchlisted. As for credentials, the way a person comments on psychological matters usually tells me all that I need to know about their knowledge on the topic(s). That stated, a number of psychologists are not well informed on pedophilia, etc.; so whatever. You think it "seems obvious that this is a very important and personal issue for [me]", and I think the same about you. Enough said. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, now do argue about the films and also try to apply Wikipedia:Etiquette for once. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem accepting when there's a consensus (i do have a problem with unilateral decisions made by individual who can't accept a voting didn't go the way they wanted), besides I do thing Flyer22 Reborn needs some closure. I will investigate in the future about some of this movie to see is there's any reference that link them to the subject matter, but when I have the time (unlike others, this topic is not the center of my life). At least most of this movies are no longer under the "Films about pedophilia" category that they were before. Good luck to the poor soul that would have to protect them from been put there for the rest of his natural life (thankfully that someone won't be me). --Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will unilaterally revert anything when the reverts are based on our policies or guidelines. I was right to revert you, and the commentary from others below shows that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong Flyer22 Reborn, the comments below only show what I said, consensus was necesary, you did wrong in doing it unilaterally. And yes you can revert all you want that is not base on policies and guidelines, BUT, referenced material is one of those, so as I said I reserve my right to investigate further and see if some of those movies do have reference that said their touch the subject materr as was the consensus reached in the survey and if you revert that then you are opposing the consensus reached of the survey that you yourself started.
And if you want to take thins to WP:ANI be my guest, I have a lot of things to say about your personal attacks to me, will se what they say about you saying stuffs like " I am annoyed by your asinine actions, and I've made that abundantly clear.", " You are the one who claimed you are a psychologist, when it's abundantly obvious that you are not." "As for credentials, the way a person comments on psychological matters usually tells me all that I need to know about their knowledge on the topic(s). That stated, a number of psychologists are not well informed on pedophilia, etc.; so whatever. You think it "seems obvious that this is a very important and personal issue for [me]", and I think the same about you." I'm pretty sure in those three examples you broke much more policies than me. So go ahead.
And dont let me messages in the edition resume of the articles, I have a talk page. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you still needlessly pinging me? The comments below show that you were wrong; I stated that you were wrong from the beginning. You didn't listen. You needlessly reverted and acted like a consensus was needed in support of me in order for me to rightly adhere to the WP:Original research policy. You were wrong. Accept it. You made this personal from the beginning with your silly talk as though I am obsessed with the category. Knowing that the category shouldn't exist and seeking its deletion and/or at least proper use is not obsession. It is easy to argue that you are obsessed with it, considering your desperate attempts to save it and illogical rationales for using it to miscategorize films. The comments below show that I was right about you wasting my and others' time with your asinine (yes, asinine) reverts. If you knew how to follow the WP:Original research policy (a policy, not just a guideline), this discussion and the RfC below would not have happened. Taking you to WP:ANI for something like this would also be a waste of time (except for the warning you would get for inappropriately using an edit summary), but you are highly mistaken if believe that I would be severely reprimanded. Now move on. This category will be used appropriately from now...until the day that it is deleted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So that's it? You want to "win", to say your were right and I was wrong? come on, you really should try to be more mature. This isnt a contest you know. And again, sorry, the one who was wrong was you. You say the category shouldnt exist, fine, is your opinion and clearly not the opinion of the majority as two times the consensus was not reached and most votes were for keep. You really should just let it go. And is interesting how you blame me for "your desperate attempts to save it", all I did was vote keep in both times, as other users vote the same. And I cant care less if you get reprimanded, you are the one making bogus treats about taling things to WP:ANI, I'm just saying if you do, well then I'll inform of your actions too, though I do agree probably nothing would happen. Now, really, you should let go. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's great—you had the last word, and managed to get in a few digs. Now please drop the matter. If an editor wants to show they are more mature than someone else, they should stop prolonging the argument, particularly on a talk page showing the silliness of this category. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want you to learn from this incident. You clearly haven't. Learning from this incident would be you acknowledging that you were wrong to violate the original research policy. Since you haven't learned, you will violate it in the future and revert people to defend the violations. As for the majority, an RfC usually gets a lot more traction than a category deletion discussion. If it had been an RfC matter, that category would have been deleted. As seen in the first discussion, the delete votes were solidly based on common sense and the rules. And in the second discussion, when you saw that the category was most certainly going to be deleted, you inappropriately canvassed. Despite your efforts, it's clear that this category is unlikely to last long since it will house only one film (Are All Men Pedophiles?). And as for moving on, I did. You came back here with your "06:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)" post to get the last word, and you've continued to seek it. My "20:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)" response wasn't but two sentences long, and you responded with "Wrong" and a diatribe because I challenged you on mischaracterizing me in edit summaries. I'm not interested in your drama, which is the main reason I started the RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice Johnuniq's above comment until now. I think I was typing up a response at the time that he posted. In any case, I'm taking his advice. You can have the last word if you want it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike others that apparently need to "teach" behavior (lol) I don't need to have the last word because I am, you know, and adult and all. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should films be removed if not based on reliable sources or not fitting the hebephilia definition?

[edit]
Clear consensus is to Remove entries not clearly supported by reliable sources; per WP:V and WP:CATDEF, which also requires that the characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Consensus is also clear that inclusion based on Wikipedia editors own thoughts or opinions is original research. (non-admin closure) - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

An editor has argued that films are being placed in the hebephilia category when they are not about hebephilia and/or the characters are not hebephiles (which are people with a sexual preference for young pubescents, and not merely the case of people committing statutory rape) and that the additions are therefore WP:Original research violations. Another another editor has argued that some of the films should be included, that the additions aid navigation and that it's better that these films are placed in the hebephilia category instead of being wrongly placed Category:Films about pedophilia. The editor is, however, unsure about whether some films should be placed in the category. If we look at the L.I.E. article, for example, we see that it was categorized as a film about hebephilia, while the lead once categorized the character in question as an ephebophile and the reception section calls him a pedophile. So should we allow editors to categorize these films based on their own judgment? Or should the films be removed if there are no reliable sources identifying the films as being about hebephilia? Should films only be included if they fit the hebephilia definition (which is the sexual preference for young pubescents, rather than an act of statutory rape)?

If viewing this from the RfC page or an automated message on your talk page, see Category talk:Films about hebephilia#Disputed application of this category to film articles for the main discussion. For past discussions (deletion discussions), see here and here. I will alert WP:Film and Wikipedia talk:No original research to the new discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Remove entries not supported by sources. WP:CATDEF clearly states that categories must be supported by a source, and an editor's evalation of the plot clearly falls into the realms of WP:OR. Fair enough, there may be films that seem like obvious candidates for this category (such as Lolita) but this is a dangerous route to go down because inevitably you end up with films that audiences form different interpretations of (see my discussion of The War Zone above). There is a good reason Wikipedia requires evaluative claims to be sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Films_about_hebephilia&oldid=1078394328"