Talk:Curley v. NAMBLA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to pedophilia. For guidelines see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

I removed the link to User:Adam_Carr/Documents1 because it is the same as one of the PDF's pointed to. -- Fplay 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I put it back and put a selfref around it. Still not the best solution. -- Fplay 18:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The full text of these documents can be seen here.

Moved self-ref here from article body. --DanielCD 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Review article

That National Review article is highly biased and is not a good reference. I'm not saying I disagree with it, I really don't care. But opinion pieces are not proper references. I'm going to ask for a third opinion though. It might be ok if there is some trustworthy info. --DanielCD 03:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"External links" are not the same as references. National Review is a notable source, albeit one with a POV. -Will Beback 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think you are right. It does have a bias, but the info being used seems sound. Thanks for being so astute. --DanielCD 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I also did some cleaning up. Some of the facts need further verification, as the two men seem to have had different parts, though both are quite guilty. However the article made it seem like both were equal in all parts. One aided, and the other did the sexual stuff.

I also removed the long list of names and such, as I thought that was a little bit of an overkill. If someone wants them replaced, it might be done in a way that it doesn't dominate the article and fuzz the focus. The names are relevant, and they are mentioned. But it seemed like information overkill. Anyway, comments on my edits are always welcome. --DanielCD 04:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

From a deleted section of the article: "In the application, Bejin is listed as the 'President/Vice President' of Zymurgy" Zymurgy? Are these guys in the beer-brewing business too?? --DanielCD 04:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Notable

This article replicates material in the NAMBLA article, and lawsuits are hardly notable in their own right, nor worthy of their own separate articles. Someone needs to propose this for AfD.

Politically motivated lawsuits get filed every day. People claim that video games or sex education or looking at Playboy or NAMBLA's website or eating twinkies drove them to commit some dispicable act. We do not need to fill up Wikipedia with a page for each one. Hermitian 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a significant event. I agree, Wikipedia does not need to fill up a page for each and every claim that someone makes as to not being guilty because some groups literature drove them to commit an act. However cases which garner significant media attention do justify a nice reference, so people can quickly read up on the background of a case and know it's context - rather then having to sift through much more biased sources over an extensive google search. 130.71.96.19 01:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This case need update

It's still 2005 information, what is going on now? Is it on Supreme Court yet? Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally I was just trying to find news on this case. Apparently the last decision was handed down March 2003, and that was just on a procedural issue. I know civil cases take time but this is odd. I can't find any trace of it being settled or dismissed. -Will Beback · † · 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)