This template is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.
I would like to have "Pedophobia" removed from the sidebar. As I have pedophobia, I find its categorisation herein as grossly insulting and discriminatory toward myself and others who suffer from a debilitating social disorder. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I see no good reason to remove "Pedophobia" from the template given the content of the article, which seems relevant to the topic of discrimination. I recommend that you discuss this issue at Talk:Fear of children first, and try to gain consensus for a complete rewrite of the article, which is what would seem to be necessary to make the article irrelevant to this template. Biogeographist (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page of that particular page, you'll see that the point of the article being poorly written (especially the sections on discrimination) has already been raised by another user in 2010 with no response whatsoever. This is an exceptional case which should really not require a rewrite consensus. It more appropriate to remove the offending material until such time that a version can be written with a more neutral point of view that discusses the opinion of pedophobia being discriminatory, as opposed to pedophobia being axiomatically discriminatory. In short, an opinion should not be presented as factual, no matter how popular. Especially if the opinion is offensive. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTCENSORED, the fact that something is objectionable or offensive to someone is not sufficient ground for the removal of content. Inclusion of "Pedophobia" in this template seems justified based on the current state of that article. When the article changes substantially so that it is no longer relevant to this template, then it should be removed from the template and vice versa. Biogeographist (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
And per WP:SIDEBAR, "If a disagreement should arise, please centralize discussion at the article talk page, not that of the template"—so this should be discussed at Talk:Fear of children anyway, as I said above. Biogeographist (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
C' monUser:Biogeographist that's a wayyyy overstretch to use NOTCENSORED a protection for material which is poorly written so on. Sheesh. Not all material which might offend somebody must automatically be included here for that reason, and NOTCENSORED doesn't say that. Anyway, guy has a point, so let's start with that article, then we can return to the question of the list here. Herostratus (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I never said anything that defended the current content of that article or that implied that the article could not be improved; indeed, my use of the phrase "When the article changes substantially" implies that the article will be improved. My reference to WP:NOTCENSORED relates to the complainant's attempt to justify removing the link because the complainant considered the link "grossly insulting" and "offending", which is exactly the kind of justification that WP:NOTCENSORED addresses. If discussion at Talk:Fear of children concludes that the link should not be included in this template, then remove the link; there's no need to return here to discuss it. Biogeographist (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
That is not at all how I justified removal. I was pointing out the failure of the article in its current form, to draw distinction between the two cases; implying that if I or anyone else for that matter has an irrational fear of children, then they must also by extension have a discriminatory hatred for children, which is patently untrue. It is that implication which is offensive. In addition, I have yet to find respectable source that supports the discriminatory/hate definition of pedophobia as being factual as opposed to a popular missappropriation by social politicians. Hence, I don't believe that it is appropriate to include it in the sidebar. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, that's a different argument. The solution I proposed at Talk:Fear of children is to split the article; then the relevant article can be linked here instead of the irrelevant one. If you look back at your original comment here, your argument was very different: I would like to have "Pedophobia" removed from the sidebar. As I have pedophobia, I find its categorisation herein as grossly insulting and discriminatory toward myself and others who suffer from a debilitating social disorder. Regarding definitions of "pedophobia", they seem to be scarce and quite diverse in the literature; here's a reliable source that associates the word with "policies and practices that are not respectful of children or childhood": Dudley-Marling, Curt; Jackson, Janice; Stevens, Lisa Patel (June 2006). "Disrespecting childhood". Phi Delta Kappan. 87 (10): 748–755. doi:10.1177/003172170608701009. JSTOR20442151. Biogeographist (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I should correct my previous post - I did not know that there were two cases before now, because of the lack of distinction. I was in fact pointing out the implication as stated above.
In any case, that seems like a good source, but it would be better to have a secondary source. Despite journal articles being peer reviewed, there is still a lot that they can get away with when it comes to creative interpretation. Afterall, sociology is not an exact science like chemistry is.
That sounds like a good solution (to have the relevant article linked to the sidebar). 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Despite journal articles being peer reviewed, there is still a lot that they can get away with: I think I am going to frame this sentence and hang it on my wall. Biogeographist (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Not all pages linked in this template have the template on the page