Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

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 delete. NW (Talk) 00:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is simply original research and a synthesis of a number of facets of moves. By accident or design it tends to portray paedophilia as a manistream subject. (American Beauty is on thie list). References are dire and the list is either a coatrack, fork or otherwise unsuitable.

It appears to have been deleted by a previous afd. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring pedophilia. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, people might want to see the rest of the set:

--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Procedure - Are you nominating all four articles for deletion? Or just the one? There's probably a case both ways, but it's worth spelling out here as well. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apparently we have Category:Films with a pedophile theme and Category:Pederastic films. it is not clear how this list would be different in scope. If the idea is that each item in the list would be annotated, what sort of secondary sources would be available for the annotations? (Notice that many of the annotations do not have citations in the current list.) I am not an expert in this area, but I can see all sorts of red flags and quality control problems. Racepacket (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be surprising if no books from major publishers or articles in reliable sources have listed films depicting sexual abuse of minors or pedophilia. See "The porning of America: the rise of porn culture, what it means, and where" Beacon Press, 2008, which discusses "Pretty Baby," "Lolita," and "Blame it in Rio." Would it be objectionable to have a list if the entries were well sourced, or is the objection just one of not thinking such a list should appear in an encyclopedia, because it promotes such films or acts as a shoppers guide for pedophiles? If reviews of some film published in the mainstream press state that a minor was the victim of sexual abuse, such as a New York Times review of "'Pretty Baby" which states the film had 12 year old Brook Shields playing a child prostitute whose virginity was auctioned off, would that satisfy the objection to original research, or does the community feel it is still O.R. that the depiction was "sexual abuse?" It should be easy to find newspaper or magazines with reviews of "Taxi Driver" stating that Jodie Foster played a child prostitute, or reviews of other films stating that they depict a child who gets raped or is a victim of incest while a minor. The nomination smacks of "IDONTLIKEIT!" I tend to object to lists where Wikipedia editors make some determination based on their personal value system (fat people, silly movies, ugly buildings, military blunders) but to allow lists with reliable sources stating that each list member qualifies. Edison (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think an article discussing child sexuality in film, using sources that discuss that topic (if they do) would be fine. A list, however, of "Hey I saw this movie and it had a kid in it and ...." is original research and a synth. Sure, you might find a source which says this depicts abuse, but that's just an opinion of a source. The topic is too broad and too open to interpretation. Does American Beauty portray paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors? That's open to interpretation. Further, what does "portraying" mean? Does it mean referencing or focusing on? What isthe value of putting Lolita on the same list as Platoon (on the basis that the later referenced a child-rape among several thousand other atrocities? (Please AGF, and don't hit me with IDON'TLIKEIT. Accusations contribute nothing to the debate.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If no reliable sources list "American Beauty" as qualifying for some list, then editing is the correct response, rather than deletion of a list with reliable sources for other members. A list could be tightened to mainstream films depicting rape of minors, child prostitution, incest of adults and minors, or sexual relationships between adults and minors. Those themes have been major ones in many well known films, explaining why some characters are motivated to run around doing whatever they do in the film. It would appear pretty easy to reference the qualification for such a list of many of the entries on the list, based on film reviews by well regarded critics, or books about modern film making. Unreferenced user entries can be deleted. As for IDONTLIKEIT, what remains if a list is well defined and entries are referenced? I raised the question of whether we as a community, simply do not want such a list because of it possibly serving as a shopper's guide for something we judge to be harmful, sexual interest in children.Edison (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You'll find one source discussing or labelling just about anything as anything - that will not indicate that the film is generally regarded as being about this, or even that anyone other than that one source would agree. You raised the "shopper's guide" not me, see
    strawman.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The nomination states that it was previously deleted by an AFD. Apparently, it was only a technical deletion as a duplication. Was the actual content and both articles deleted by the AFD, or was an article and a redirect left? And I do not agree with the broad claim that one can find a reliable source "labelling just about anything as anything." That claim rejects the applicability of
WP:V. Edison (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No it doesn't. Because with most article we can say "according to commentator x, however, y states" and we can record the opinion given in the sources. However, lists have the problem of being binary. Either something gets on it, or doesn't. So we are deciding that film x is about subject y, on the basis that some reviewer discussed the two things. As I say, this would be much better handeled as an article on the subject which can record a veriety of analysis and sources, not a list we synthesise from subjective opinions of wikipedians or the odd source. I bet I can find a source that speaks of sexual abuse in Harry Potter. If I can, can I include it?--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, find a reliable "source y" which clearly states that "Taxi Driver" does not depict Jodie Foster as a child prostitute, or that "Lolita" does not depict a grown man having a sexual relationship with a teenage girl, or that "Pretty Baby" does not depict a child's defloweration being auctioned off. Edison (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's silly. Of course I can't find that. Proving negatives is not going to happen. But tell me, if I found a source that gave the opinion that some mainstream film depicted sexual abuse of minors, and NO OTHER of the multiple sources avalable even raised the question, can it go on the list? If not, where would you find a source refuting mine? Ultimately much of this will be utterly subjective (read POV).--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list you apparently are nominating List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors references them to Library of Congress subject headings such as "Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child sexual abuse by clergy-Fiction." Is LC also too slippery in "labelling just about anything as anything?" Maybe you should AFD these various articles separately. Edison (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggested we might want to discuss that. I didn't nominate it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)KeepList of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors and List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors as lists which might need better sourcing, but which are encylopedic and sourceable to reliable sources such as articles about the movies and books, reviews of the articles and books, and Library of Congress subject headings for the books.They can be moved to new titles removing "pedophilia," if you wish. Placing the word so prominently may tend to make it look more mainstream than it is, or to make it look like it is not "sexual abuse of children" when it involves a grown up and a minor. Normal editing can remove "American Beauty" from the list of films if it does not belong. Delete List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors as more subjective and difficult to reference, having millions of possible members of varying degrees of notability, and due to the general vagueness of song lyrics. ~~Undecided~~Delete on List of works for the theatre portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors, since it is poorly sourced and only contains a tiny fraction of likely members. Also, the universe of mainstream motion pictures is much smaller and more likely to have reliably sourced reviews than the universe of plays. Anyone can write a play and get it put on by some amateur group somewhere. Edison (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If "some reviewer" says that "Peter Pan is about runaway children being buggered by pirates," do you suppose the normal editing process, and
WP:UNDUE could keep that statement out of Peter Pan, since its inclusion would place undue weight on the opinion of a nutjob who somehow got published somewhere? Mightn't we also question whether it was published in a reliable source? Edison (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete original research. Policy is clear on this, to the effect that when the criteria for inlcusion of a list is controversial or unclear, reliable sources should be used to both construct the list criterian and also to determine whether each individual entry does or does not belong.
talk) 18:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep all. Lists are obviously encyclopedic and of navigational value. Criteria for inclusion is very simple:
RS that clearly states the film/song/book/whatever, and there are no sources for the contrary, then include the film/song/book/whatever. If there are pro and against sources, it can be included as "disputed" in a separate section. Else, don't include. I don't see the problem. Scott MacDoc asks: So we are deciding that film x is about subject y, on the basis that some reviewer discussed the two things.. My answer is: yes. (A more articulate answer would take into account the issue of academic consensus, but it's clear anyway). --Cyclopia ^talk 18:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

If one reliable source quixotically states that a film contains child abuse (and none other discusses it, because it never occurs to them it does - and why would they think it does)? What you then have is "list of thinks one reviewer might once have related to child abuse".--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all of WP is (very roughly speaking) made this way: we report what RS say. I'd say also that for most cases, like Lolita, it is quite straightforward. If there are legitimately disputable cases, we can have the allegation explicitly linked to the source, like "Movie X according to Review Y...(ref)", or we can see what is the consensus on the dispute, if any. In most cases should be straightforward (do we have any doubt about what Death in Venice or Lolita talk about?), the fact that a few cases could be debatable are to be discussed and edited, but make no case for deletion. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSee previous comment. If only "one reviewer" claims "

WP:UNDUE and the film excluded from the list. No such dispute would occur for "Taxi Driver," "Lolita," "Chinatown," Hounddog (film) [1] or "Pretty Baby," or several other mainstream films from the 1980's and after. Sexual abuse of a child, in one form or another, was a major plot element in these. Edison (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: The previous AfD the nom is referring was deleted only for being a fork of what looks like the progenitor to this article. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all. Full of SYNTH and OR, and completely irreparable. It's disturbing to see people actual defending the existence of this junk.
UnitAnode 22:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

CommentHey, I don't

neutral point of view. Edison (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Bali Ultimate and Scott MacDonald. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom & per Bali Ultimate; it's original research and there's no clear criteria for inclusion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 4 per nominator. Thanks,
talk contribs 12:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
ping 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per Bali and Scott. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article nominated. The author admitted it's his original research. I did not look at the other three articles.
ping 21:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Quite obviously, per other deletes.
~~Think of the children (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Oddly user appears to be a sock

talk) 14:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Yep. Sock of well-known user banned for his advocacy in this area; His advocacy was for the complete opposite POV of the guy that created this list, who has also been banned now.

ping 16:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - per nom. - Alison ^❤ 00:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Scott.
talk) 01:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete Probably there are enough academic sources to create a general
WP:Categories which are a perfectly good substitute for such lists. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Unnecessary fork. Would be better off in child abuse or something. Aiken ♫ 19:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all four, per Bali & Scott & nominator. If this list was to be kept, it would have to include only films wich portrait sexual abuse of minors (or paedophilia) as main theme of the film, which obviously not is the case now. Besides, encyclopedic interest is, at most, anecdotic. Tazmaniacs (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT: This is not a joint nomination. There are separate AfDs for the other lists.
ping 16:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete pr nom. Guestworker (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE and
WP:SALT. Gawd, this is fucking ridiculous already. This type of original research is not acceptable. JBsupreme (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep far too many I don't like it and per ... delete votes. There is no synthesis at the heart of this list and why on earth does the sexual abuse need to be a main part of the film etc unless that is stated as such in the list inclusion criteria (even if it did that would not be a delete argument but a list cleanup argument). As long as the list does not glorify its subject it is a very valid and easily verifiable navigational aid.
talk) 11:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Also with regards to Bali Ultimate's request for RS (something that many have tagged their delete arguments onto). The list inclusion criteria is not so unclear as to require a deletion of the list. Plenty of sources can easily be found to define "paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors" this is not some wildly made up meaningless inclusion criteria that is in desperate need of sources for people to understand it or agree it can exist.

talk) 15:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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.