Talk:Are All Men Pedophiles?

This article was nominated for deletion. Review prior discussions if considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 16 April 2022, see discussion.
Delete, 9 May 2012, see discussion.
Delete, 27 November 2011, see discussion.

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch articles

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Janwillembreure (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Lolita fashion

Apparently the film has also been heavily criticized within the lolita fashion culture, as well, claiming that the filmmaker has completely misunderstood the movement as some kind of fetishist ageplay, instead of the elaborate fashion moment it is. (The girl on the cover doesn't look at all like a lolita in that sense, for instance.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

While this section is well sourced, at the moment it's out of balance. There is one positive note, the award received by the film, "buried" at the end. This should either be moved to the top of the section or given a section of its own (Awards or Accolades as usually found on similar pages for films). And if it won an award, there must be some positive reviews out there. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Nothing at Rotten Tomatoes. Still, it needed some rebalancing and I think I've done a fair job of that. Never seen the film myself by the way. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Advocacy" and "criticism"

This article seems to have several issues of self-contradiction. The content section pretty much says that the film tries to debunk the myth that all males would be potentially paedophile, where one of its strategies is to explain the difference between paedophilia and ephebophilia or hebephilia. The "critical reception" then cites numerous instances where people tried to "debunk" the film on utterly different issues than those mentioned in the content section, including by attaching different meanings to words than does the film only for the sake of strawmen arguments against the film, or used that tactic to accuse it of either "trying to normalize paedophilia" or "supporting the very prejudices that it tries to debunk".

Other than those many issues of self-contradiction between different sections of the article, what remains of the article is the moral issue of whether a 14-year-old professional model should pose for a film poster where the film is dedicated to debates related to AoC regulations, and, surprisingly, complaints from BuzzFeed that the film doesn't argue against such regulations when BuzzFeed obviously thinks it should, where those complaints in favor of liberal AoC reforms on behalf of BuzzFeed are lumped in, by putting them all in the same "criticism" section, with those where people voiced their views on harmfulness of violation of existing regulations. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"award-winning"?

Does the fact that the movie won ONE award really warrant this being mentioned in the opening line of the article? Especially when said award is otherwise practically invisible on Wikipedia. 2.247.101.129 (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a non-notable award which at best deserves a passing mention. To put "award winning" in the opening line is POV pushing. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Are All Men Pedophiles?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.queenstribune.com/feature/Feature_030112_Film-Festival.html
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/pedophilia-documentarian-eighteen-is-just-a-numb
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017124808/http://www.transatlantyk.org/en/program/events/special-screening-are-all-men-pedophiles to http://www.transatlantyk.org/en/program/events/special-screening-are-all-men-pedophiles
Corrected formatting/usage for http://jezebel.com/5909365/documentarian-tries-but-does-not-quite-succeed-at-justifying-pedophilia

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]