Talk:90-60-90, diario secreto de una adolescente

Not "pedophilic"

Improper deletion of factual correction to 90-60-90, diario secreto de una adolescente page[edit] I don't know how to link a source to the references section of wiki pages, however, here is a link which gives the clinical and official definition of pedophilia, which the show in question does not feature in any form: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19327034/ That definition is from the offical US gov medical publications web page. Please link it as a reference. That said, even the linked word "pedophillic" in the article, if highlighted, immediately notes that pedophillic refers to a sexual preference for prepubescent children, so the correction I made is both accurate and necessary for the accuracy of the page and the prevention of spreading disinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 2601:150:4100:95b0:3c35:e1bf:25eb:b7eb (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: Since this is a very "young" article (not even 6 months old) and you were the creator of and are the prime contributor to it, inviting you to review the IP's objection to the use of the term pedophilic in the lead sentence. Though the IP went about this in entirely the wrong way (posting disclamatory statements [1][2] within the article itself, which is never appropriate, and then adopting a combative attitude with @Cassiopeia and other editors when those edits were reverted), the IP's fundamental objection is that the term pedophilic has a very specific meaning that does not apply to the scenario depicted in this fictional work (given that the adolescent character Mel, with whom Bruno engages in a sexual relationship, is not prepubescent, as is clinically a requirement for a pedophilic relationship, and is apparently of legal age for sexual activity in the setting where the story takes place, making the implication of legal deviancy inappropriate).

What are your thoughts concerning another word or other words that will accurately convey the nature of the relationship between Bruno and Mel in the lead without misusing the term? For more background on this from the IP, please see User talk:Cassiopeia/Archive 77#Improper deletion of factual correction to 90-60-90, diario secreto de una adolescente page. General Ization ^Talk 20:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe also that the IP's objection calls into question the categorization of this article in Category:Works about pedophilia. General Ization ^Talk 20:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You may also want to take a look at the Spanish-language Wikipedia's article on this topic, which does not include language that implies sexual deviancy in its lead or its plot summary (and also contains information not yet presented here). General Ization ^Talk 21:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Another editor has simply removed the contested adjective from the second sentence of the lead, and inserted the ages of the characters, leaving the reader to evaluate for themselves the propriety of the relationship. I imagine that is an acceptable solution to the dispute. General Ization ^Talk 23:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I want to thank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:General_Ization ( putting aside the superfluous personal critiques of me ) for giving proper attention to the issues raised and for helping to adequately address them. As I'd earlier noted, the problem was that the Wikipedia article describing the show opened by saying that the show is about a pedophillic relationship, which is blatantly false. It is/was ( was, as your editors have adequately amended the problem ) misinformation, and if kept in when already known to be misinformation, becomes/became disinformation, both about the show itself and about what is and is not pedophilia. Because the word pedophillic is/was used in the article as a descriptor, the disclaimer should be present ( no longer requisite, as the improper term has evidently been appropriately removed by a site editor and/or moderator ). The fact that the original source for the article was some pop-culture magazine that itself incorrectly used the Spanish language variant of pedophillic ( pop-culture mag. writers are often not experts in medical, scientific or related fields, and often make mistakes and, deliberately or not, spread misinformation ) is/was no excuse for leaving that erroneous misinformation unto disinformation in a Wikipedia article, especially when the stated goal of Wikipedia is to be as factual and accurate as is possible for an internationally utilized and predominant online encyclopedia. Letting the error stand without caveat is/was as irresponsible and misinforming as if a Wikipedia article about the movie "Free Willy" were to use, as its source, a pop-culture magazine derived synopsis wherein the writer described the movie as being "a story about a boy who befriends a captive great white shark...": it is virtually unimaginable that the Wikipedia moderators would not, in such a situation, at least place the correctional note in the article that Willy, the featured marine animal in the movie, is in point of fact not a great white shark at all, but is instead a mammal, specifically a whale. The exact same principle applies here, but in some ways more so, because the difference between great white sharks and killer whales is generally not a socially incendiary topic, but pedophilia definitely is. The 2020 presidential election is not the only subject matter plagued by big lies and disinformation, and big lies and disinformation should be fact checked wherever they arise, no matter how socially appealing the lie may be, no matter how subjectively "tawdry" the subject being lied about or having disinformation spread about it. It is especially important, from both a truth and morality perspective, to not ascribe the very serious term of pedophilia to things which, in point of fact, have nothing to do with actual pedophilia, exactly because conflation with pedophilia is ( irresponsibly when unintentional, nefariously when deliberate ) dangerous and can be so prone to stirring up hysteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:General_Ization , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asqueladd I add that you were correct to note that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Works_about_pedophilia shouldn't list the show, and it is also important to note ( having a look at it after you made the reference ) that there are at least several other works listed in that categorization which should NOT be. Particularly there is absolutely no depiction of pedophilia in the movie "American Beauty". There are likely a number of pages on the Wikipedia site that merit reviewing in relation to these topics. Thank you both for all of your time, consideration, and efforts in rectifying the situation. God Bless. 2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

IP, now that you've seen an approach that works within our conventions here, and hopefully better understand our policies, please feel free to start a conversation on the Talk pages of other articles where you think this issue should be considered, understanding that your opinion may or may not be shared by other editors. Also note that we do not, as a matter of policy, add or include "disclaimers" in articles using the voice of the encyclopedia. I encourage you to start from a position of inviting collaboration instead of combat. (I already removed the category from this article, as you can see for yourself in its edit history.) General Ization ^Talk 00:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again. Cheers to accuracy!! God Bless. 2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)