Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. To be clear, this means that at this point in time there is no consensus to delete the project. It does not preclude future discussions about this project. It does not preclude debate about the form this project should take. It does not preclude the project being renamed. Please conduct such discussions, at least initially, to the Wikiproject's Talk page. The Land 20:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

[edit] Original nomination and first votes

At best, this is in bad taste. Considering the recent wheel war on the subject, it can be considered WP:POINT, especially since today just so happened to be the day that it "went live". User:Zoe|(talk) 02:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Bad timing after the incident on WP:AN. Not real point to project anyways. — Moe ε 03:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not POINT. Has clearly been in the making for some time. No different from any other Wikiproject. Someone writes some nonsense about how Wikipedia has been taken over by paedophiles and so we queue up to display our intolerance? That's marvellous. Pointless to vote and I'm not going to bother signing in to do so. Just disgusted. -- Grace Note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.77.40 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Whether or not POINT, the timing is quite unfortunate. Mainly though, I think it's much too narrow an area for any realistic Wikiproject to focus on. A Wikiproject on sexuality in general is much more appropriate, if one does not already exist. Deco 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I have changed my vote to No vote, because I don't really get this whole Wikiproject deal anyway. Deco 10:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant with the WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. See also the WikiProject Child safety. --cesarb 03:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, Herostratus convinced me with his highly detailed answer. While I still think this will end up being abandoned like its previous incarnation, keep for now. --cesarb 14:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There has been precisely no evidence presented that the goals of this wikiproject could not be achieved within that one. Moving the pedophilia issue to the older site is likely, if the incoming editors are active, to revive the wikiproject. The best reason to fork a child wikiproject is because the parent wikiproject has too low a signal-to-noise ratio for the participants interested mainly in the narrower subject area. That simply does not apply here. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as cesarB, there are other projects to cover this ground. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am going to guess that WikiProject Sexology and sexuality doesn't want to work on pedophilia or isn't paying attention to it. Do we delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto because it falls under Wikipedia:WikiProject Ontario? It also was clearly not a WP:POINT as the page was in the making long before the recent spat of pedophilia debates. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    I personally think this is well within the scope of Sexology and Sexuality. Have the founders of the Pedophilia project even proposed anything there? Toronto is also a much wider topic than pedophilia; it's a huge city and home to many of our contributors. Deco 05:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Dan | talk 04:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete How can this be a project? --MONGO 04:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The stated aims of the project are encyclopedic. If it's not active, mark it with {{historic}} and put a pointer to the broader project. There's also the real possibility that the extra attention turn this into an active project. The fact that it was used to make a point does not make it's existance WP:POINT. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Why create this? Just to cause everyone further heartache? For God's sake, must we rip the community apart over this crap? Guettarda 05:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Made a mistake with the date of initiation - I thought this was new and in reaction to the other mess. Still, I think a project dedicated to paedophilia is a bad idea (a) because it's awful timing, and (b) because we are receiving far too much bad press from the anti-paedophile vigilantes. At the very least, find a better name - at best, subsume it into a more respectable WikiProject - one less likely to be food for the anti-Wikipedia forces. Guettarda 21:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and tell the Sexuality project to pay more attention to these articles I guess. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic goals. Does not appear to be trolling or bad faith, just spectacularly bad timing in taking the project live. --Carnildo 07:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per cesarb. violet/riga (t) 08:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mikkerpikker ... 10:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Spectacularly bad timing but not otherwise objectionable. If the focus is too narrow—and I don't see why that should be, we have active projects on quite narrow topics—and this becomes inactive then we can delete it or merge it into a broader project. But there's no need to strangle it in the cradle. The project documents look sensible and useful and ensuring high quality in this group of articles is a very worthy goal. - Haukur 13:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herostratus' reply

Now hold on a minute here. This is the initiator of the project speaking. Are you certain that you realize what you are voting on here? Have you read the project documents?

  • First of all, several of you mentioned the timing. You know, we have been working on this for some time, and to be honest as researcher/writer I can't be bothered with the antics of administrators. They're always up to some nonsense. My understanding is that it had something to do with userspace; my concern is with article space. (N.B.: due to a brain freeze on my part, I stupidly copied the contents of the project pages into the existing redirect page in public space, thus voiding the history. I just wasn't thinking. The actual history may be seen at (what is now a redirect page) at User:Herostratus/Pedophilia.)
  • This project was initiated because there are some (IMO) problems with some of the articles relating to pedophila, in particular a lot of POV and polarization, including in some place a bias toward what some might term a "pro-pedophile" point of view (not to say that that's the only problem).
  • And some of these articles come up high on Google. So it's important to make the articles as accurate as possible.
  • Even if you, the nominator and individual delete voters above, are OK with the current state of all the pedophilia-related articles -- which you should not be, given WP:NPOV and WP:NOT a soapbox -- I would ask you to please consider possible negative publicity to the 'pedia as a whole. There has been some. You may shug that off but are you certain that the Foundation will.
  • I'm just... I guess what I'm hearing is No, there can't be any kind of neutral or scholarly approach to this subject. Not only that -- there can't be a project, so there can't be any organized approach to articles on this subject at all.

I'm sure you've all read the project goals, but just to refresh you:

    • Current goals
      • Achieve, to the extent possible, a scholarly, generally agreed-upon, scientifically accurate, culturally accurate, and clear terminology to be used in pedophilia/childlove-related articles.
    • Longer-range goals
      • After, that, maybe: achieve a quality, maintainable, accurate, scholarly state for the article Pedophile activism, if this has not already been done.
      • After, that, maybe: achieve a quality, maintainable, accurate, scholarly state for the other Pedophilia-related articles, if needful, to be selected later.

If this project is deleted -- and it looks like it will be -- I would ask each of you to please take the time to enlighten me, either here or on my talk page, exactly what about these goals you find objectionable? Is it particular terms -- "scientific"? "scholarly"? "accurate"? "maintainable"? Is it the reference to the Pedophile activism article, unhappiness with which, after its recent AfD survival, spurred me to initiate the project? If its that, perhaps some compromise could be reached where that article is not included? Is the consensus that that article is OK and shouldn't be messed with, or what? (It been recently both tagged and protected, which is often a sign of trouble, I think. It is also very long and IMHO gives too much space to back-and-forth about Rind et al. (1998) and related material that doesn't belong in the article.)

If I may address each of the objections individually:

  • Nominator, SlimVirign -- Bad taste is not a deletion criteria. (If it was, this article would not have survived AfD.)
  • Nominator, Moe Epsilon, Deco, Carnildo (who did vote keep) -- "Bad timing"... What, has pedophila been especially in the news lately? Has pedophilia recently been elected Vice-President of Estonia? Has pedophila recently discovered a new subatomic particle? Has pedophilia been photographed with Jennifer Anniston? Oh... you mean bad timing in la-la land. Well believe it or not, not all research and writing activity on Wikipedia revolves around who said what to whom on what IRC channel about what wheel war. The project was reaching completion and ready to go public, and in fact I was moved to go public from a remark by one editor to the effect of "someone told me about this project and I would like to help", which told me that it was time to go public.
    • All I meant was that opening the project at this time set it up for emotional overreaction and unreasonable attack by people involved in the recent wheel war. I did not vote to delete it for this reason. Deco 10:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Deco I don't understand your comment. Obviously (it goes without saying) you read the article before voting, where it clearly states that the parent of the project is Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, which is tagged as inactive. Could you explain your comment more clearly to me, please?
    • On reflection, I don't really know enough about Wikiprojects to have a good concept of how narrow or wide a scope they are intended to cover. I didn't know Wikiprojects could even have "parent projects". I've changed to No Vote because I'm obviously clueless here. Deco 10:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • cesarb, Drini, violet/riga -- as above, plus... I did read the documents on Wikiprojects, it's not clear to me that a project of this scope is disallowed; as you surely saw in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia#Internal links of possible use section, there are quite a few articles related to pedophilia -- there is a Category:Pedophilia as well as many categories with related articles such as Category:Pedophile organizations, Category:Child sexual abuse, categories for child pornography, sexuality and age, and others. So pedophilia alone covers quite a few articles. Are you saying that Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality cannot or should not have subprojects? Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Child safety was deleted in July 2005. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality is inactive
  • Dan -- your entire comment is "Delete". Could you please expand?
  • User:MONGO -- your comment is "How can this be a project"? I find myself somewhat at a loss to respond your comment. I'm not always so smart at understanding stuff, could you aid me by perhaps asking a more specific question?
  • Ryan Delaney -- The last three edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality Were August 13 2005, November 14 2005 (placement of the "inactive" tag), and February 5 2005, when a new person joined, making seven (not counting two who haven't edited since fall 2005). The last talk page entry is August 6 2005. So I'm not sure, given the thousands or articles under their purview, how effective a message to mobilize to this subsection of their area might be. (Notwithstanding the inactivity at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, I acknowledge a serious error in not working through them at least in addition to, the ad-hoc group that collected around individual articles. What can I say? I screwed up.)
  • Guettarda -- I don't know what to say beyond reiterating the project goals.

OK, I'm done. Vote away, and fear no darkness! Herostratus 08:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC) *Keep per above. Herostratus 08:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC) (Changed vote, see below. Herostratus)

  • The particular event was that last Sunday, a user got banned for identifying himself as a pedophile. This resulted in a great deal of uproar over whether or not pedophiles are allowed to edit Wikipedia, with disparaging remarks made over a hypothetical "WikiProject Pedophilia". --Carnildo 09:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. I did not know this. That is bad luck then I guess. Perhaps I should go back to working on my articles on breath mints... A user was banned? Wow. Herostratus
    You can see a quick summary of the dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Evidence#Summary of dispute, written by the Clerks; if you want more detail, look at the rest of that RfAr (since you had, as many commented, awful timing, I'd recommend you read at least that and the proposed decisions). --cesarb 14:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know what to say; I wasn't aware this had gone public. It should have been debated/voted on before that. This is just getting too hot for me; I'm backing out of this, and am ceasing all my work on the related material. All related materials are being removed from my watchlist. I refuse to offer any more or my assistance or expertise regarding this material. Endless bickering is not what I am here for. I'm not offering a vote either. --DanielCD 12:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops. Jeez, I'm really, really sorry (DanielCD has been a yeoman editor at trying to keep some of the pedophila-related articles from being either complete pro-pedophiliia propaganda or ranting anti-pedophile screeds, or being vandalized). Geez, since a half-doxen or so people were editing or getting involved, I thought moving it was not a big deal... once again, showing my lack of wiki-smarts or just smarts in general. Boy am I ashamed of messing up and embarassing DanielCD like that. Like DanielCD I too will be taking these articles off my watchlist and washing my hands of the whole thing. So... go ahead, delete it. Leave it the people who are interested in the subject, the POV pushers. We might want to put this decision into policy: (Wikipedia:Articles relating to pedophilia may only be 1) edited by pedophiles or 2) blanked by self-righteous idiots, in an endless war of the deluded against the ignorant, where the light of knowledge shines not. You know what? This is the last thing I want to be doing anyway. You think I like this? My interest is Napoleonic history for chrissakes. I thought, you know, scholarly project, encyclopedia, problem area, study up, help out with the hard stuff. Guess not... I have lots of other stuff on my to-do list where I don't have to get abused by... by my fellow esteemed colleagues. You delete voters can all give yourselves either the NAMBLA Barnstar or the Campaign For Righeous Indignation Barnstar, whichever suits you. Herostratus 15:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Votes and comments following Herostratus' reply

  • Well, let's see; you copy-and-paste a pedophilia project from your space into Wikipedia space just as a furor is brewing over pedophilia, and expect people to read your mind? People are tense over a lot of different things right now (userboxes, wheel warring, POV-pushing, etc) and your WikiProject got caught in the crossfire, but playing the martyr when you made mistakes as well comes off with a bad taste in my mouth. Washing your hands of it now just means you're abandoning it to the vagaries of general editing. Why did you start this if you didn't expect it to be a tough sell? No vote yet. Persuaded by the arguments below; apology to Herostratus goes here. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep terrible, terrible timing appears to be a bad mistake. Please hold-off on the userbox untill current conflict blows over, ok? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete request by project initiator/creating editor (changed vote) on the grounds that at this point no sane person is going to touch this material anyway. Herostratus 15:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: I originally speedied the page as CSD G7 after this request, but I have agreed to restore it to alllow discussion on the merits of a WikiProject to continue here. Physchim62 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename at very least, preferably delete. I think these topics need to be kept under close observation given the sensitivity of this area, but don't think an open WikiProject is the way to do it. Frankly I think this whole area is a public-relations timebomb and would like the Cabal to have much more involvement in it. The Land 16:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This is a valid Wikiproject with clearly defined goals. Paedophilia is a subject that has very very little NPOV information on it outside of Wikipedia meaning there is a genuine need for such a resource. If the media picks up on the paedophilia row on Wikipedia then we will come out smelling of roses if we can point to a suite of high quality, neutral articles on the subject. The Daily Mail will probably not like the fact that we aren't calling for them all to be hung, drawn and quartered, but beacause on Wikipedia (unlike in the Daily Mail), to quote Jimbo, "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable" we will have the higher standard of prose. Regarding the naming issue, its no big deal to me as long as whatever name it goes under is neutral and accurate, I can't think of one that is more apropriate at the moment (but that doesn't mean there isn't one). Thryduulf 17:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Need to address the issues stated by project originators. Rename or merge with existing projects can be decided later. FloNight 19:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Votes and comments following Deletion, DRV, and restoration

  • Keep. (some parts taken from my comments on DRV: My immediate reaction when finding out about this WikiProject and the related userbox was to delete both. However, after looking through the text & history of the WikiProject, I changed my mind. I'm sympathetic to the fact that this WikiProject and its members knew nothing about the wheel war, and I suspect this WikiProject wouldn't have been involved at all if it wasn't for Dschor signing up for it and creating the userbox template for it. However, the damage is likely already done: the main participants in the project have decided to leave because they don't want to be involved in the fire that's erupted. Even if this is true, this page should be kept as an archive of an inactive WikiProject. --Deathphoenix 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep: our pedophilia articles need work; organizing members of the community from all biases to review and expand these articles is an excellent idea. bad timing is not (in my world) a criterion for deletion. sanity of involved editors is irrelevant. pedophilia and child sexual abuse are complicated, highly-notable topics, and this Wikiproject does not deserve to be assimilated into its parent. // paroxysm (n) 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm glad everyone's heels are cooling a bit. I never expected it to go "online" in exactly the form it had. And frankly, I didn't even know about the second userbox; I only found out about that an hour or so ago. I was alarmed at all the activity, and thought the hostility was aimed at the project. But I've basically been whipped around on the tailwind of these events. I'm a bit miffed about all this, and confused. I never even heard the term "wheel war" before now. But as things things cool down, I hope we can all be more objective. I really appreciate the above comments, as I'm glad some people are seeing it for what it is. Perhaps some good-hearted people will see the need to have a line defined between enabling and demonizing; because it's only with solid definitions, strengthened by a consensus approval, that will make the articles quality pieces that prove to be greased pigs to the critics. --DanielCD 21:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid WikiProject on noteworthy topic; Wikipedia politics ("we just had an edit war related to this topic. so delete") and social taboos ("pedophilia is bad, so working on pedophilia-related articles must be bad too; delete") do not come before the encyclopedia in importance. While such a project is obviously not as broad in scope as, say, the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board or Portal:Sexuality, this WikiProject could prove enormously useful for the same reason Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology has been such a successful endeavor: it helps organize and centralize information on an important, contentious, and controversial topic which will require lots of work to accurately represent on Wikipedia. While our kneejerk reaction might be to just delete and scourge anything and everything related to such a reviled and morally unacceptable subject matter, the only result of such behavior will be the suppression of discussion, research, and cooperation on this topic, with the ultimate result being that less reliable and in-depth information will be available on Wikipedia for people who need this information, which can only result in more ignorance and needless suffering in this world. Besides, who are we to judge what WikiProjects are or aren't appropriate, based on our own moral sensibilities, or to censor what articles can or can't be worked on based on an abstract notion of "offensiveness"? As long as people are interested in improving Wikipedia, who cares what area they want to improve it in? Take a few deep breathes and realize that this is an encyclopedia, not a battleground to wage war against the wicked. -Silence 21:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a very sticky topic but it does need to be covered and it does deserve a WikiProject. How many thousands (millions?) of children are affected annually by pedophiles? Methinks a lot of the "Delete" votes were predicated off some mistaken assumption that this WikiProject was in favor of pedophilia, which it isn't. It should be NPOV. --Cyde Weys 20:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herostratus' apology and following comments and votes

  • Comment. Man, I wish I could retract some of my more incivil remarks above. I know that all votes were made in good faith and after careful consideration. I was mad at myself for violating WP:OWN, actually, and you know how that goes: lash out! Sorry. I'm laughing about the whole thing now -- what a comedy of errors! Anyway, while it's true I'm gonna back off the subject, I'll help anyone who want to pick it up. If not, no prob, it was just a couple-few manhours of work. No hard feelings I hope? GROUP HUG!!! Wiki on. Herostratus 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy back to User:Herostratus/Pedophilia if he still wants it; if not delete. If users want to create a group to watch out for NPOV violations on pedophilia articles, I'm fine by that but I don't see that there is enough work to do to justify an entire WikiProject. The other problem with the current page is that the main participants seem to have pulled back from the idea, so it is unclear what sort of a WikiProject we're supposed to be debating, how many participants it would have etc etc. Let a new team start from scratch, if one gets together. Physchim62 (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I see the logic in this reasoning, and while I would prefer a straightforward keep I would not object to it being reuserfied until the storm is over and those interested can regroup and fix any holes that need fixing. Thryduulf 22:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll agree that userfying is vastly preferable to deletion, but I still think it's a poor and unjustified recourse, and don't agree with your other points. I'll have to write another overlong comment to explain why; sorry.
  • "but I don't see that there is enough work to do to justify an entire WikiProject." - Then don't join the WikiProject. Making a page like this gives people the option of working with others in such an environment on a certain topic, it doesn't force disinterested parties to join in just to edit articles of that topic. Also, one thing I don't understand is how so many people can be so certain that there's not enough work for a WikiProject to do on this topic. We have WikiProjects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio townships, Wikipedia:WikiProject New Hampshire State Highways, Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Drum Corps, yet a WikiProject on pedophilia is apparently so ridiculously obscure that we won't even permit a willing and highly-qualified group of editors to form an organized, active WikiProject on such a topic, won't even give them a day or two to prove that such a WikiProject can do good work before rushing the WikiProject off to MfD (on mistaken and misunderstood charges of WP:POINT, no less!)? Come on. If it doesn't receive much attention, no harm done, it'll become just like every other inactive WikiProject; if it does receive attention, lots of potential good can be done. With few, if any, potential risks and vast potential benefits, I simply don't see the point of not even giving this WikiProject a chance.
  • "The other problem with the current page is that the main participants seem to have pulled back from the idea" - Cyclic logic, considering that every single one of those participants pulled back from the idea as a direct result of this very VfD and the unjustified criticisms and accusations that the Project was subjected to here. If the VfD is the sole cause of the circumstances which are causing you to want to delete or userfy this page, then you're voting to delete the article purely because it was nominated for deletion (and because of the resultant dispersal of editors to escape criticism and vilification for the crime of wanting to improve Wikipedia).
  • "so it is unclear what sort of a WikiProject we're supposed to be debating," - And it is unclear precisely because the Project was nominated for deletion almost immediately following its unveiling. It's amazing that the Project is even as clear on its motivations as it is by now; most WikiProjects take much longer to really focus and to amass interested users, but this one came already ready to get to work on improving Wikipedia articles! But because it chose a controversial topic to work on improving, the WikiProject's being arbitrarily condemned to deletion. Shameful. That a page is "unclear" isn't reason to delete it, it's reason to clarify it.
  • "how many participants it would have etc etc." - Presumably it'll have a lot more if it's not deleted. A second, subtler paradox (in addition to the "delete because people were scared off by the VfD" one) has snuck into your reasoning here: you're voting to delete a WikiProject because it doesn't have enough members, but it'll be lucky to get any members if it's deleted! WikiProjects are a way to organize and create a hub for users interested in improving a certain topic; after a certain Project is created, advertising and user-amassing can begin, with the help of word-of-mouth and Talk page links on relevant articles and so on. It's just plain backwards thinking to say that a WikiProject can't be created unless it already has boatloads of users from the very moment it begins (and this one was unusual in that it did have a fair number of users, before they were scared off by the pedophilia witchhunt!), not even getting it a few days to establish itself and begin gathering users and getting ready to go to work before deleting it.
  • "Let a new team start from scratch, if one gets together." - Why go to the trouble if the exact same thing could happen next time? A VfD could easily be created anytime any future WikiProject on this topic is created, resulting a second time in a bunch of users being scared off by the aggressive and polemic userbox-derived atmosphere, resulting a second time in people voting to delete the project because it's become (temporarily) scattered and disorganized and depleted due to the VfD, resulting in it being deleted all over again, no matter how many users were interested in it, and no matter how much good for Wikipedia they would have done if they'd been given the opportunity to work together contributing to articles in a WikiProject! What seems to have been forgotten is that the Wikipedia encyclopedia project is more important than avoiding offending people, more important than perfectly timing the unveiling of your new WikiProject to avoid whatever random, absurd politics and admin-wars are going on at the time, more important than satisfying dozens of arbitrary and unhelpful bureaucratic regulations—and that WikiProjects like this are attempts to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic content. Why are so many dedicated, valuable Wikipedia editors being brushed aside and sent running into the shadows rather than being given even a moment's chance to work together on an important topic which they are qualified and willing to maintain and improve? As far as I can see, nobody would benefit from this WikiProject being deleted—least of all people who oppose pedophilia, since they're the ones whose actions will only lead to Wikipedia's content on the topic being much lesser in quality than it otherwise might have been, thus resulting in less information being available on the topic, and more misinformation. Why not let the fellas have their little WikiProject, see what happens and see if they can get some more users, replenish their ranks, and do some good over the coming weeks, and then pass judgment on whether the WikiProject should be permitted to exist or not? Merely assuming that they're going to cause harm or be useless is just as foolish as assuming that they'll solve all of mankind's problems; we have a perfect opportunity to see if a WikiProject like this can work, so let's make use of that opportunity by not rushing to delete this thing without seeing whether it can do any good for the encyclopedia. -Silence 01:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete reaction to deletion of userbox on pedophilia - even though content is improving - we should consider carefully this issue and not make a point by continuing to create related pages until some concensus is reached on how to approach this on wikipedia. Trödel•talk 23:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The WikiProject has nothing to do with the Userbox, and it's entirely a coincidence that the two events occurred at relatively different times, according to the participants in this discussion. Until "Being unlucky" or "Having bad timing" are added to the Reasons for Deletion, there's no valid reason that I can see to delete this Project. Like I said, most of the delete-voters seem to be basing their vote on a kneejerk reaction to the very word pedophilia (or overreacting to the potential controversy they think using that word in a WikiProject name might cause), not to the specifics of this situation or this WikiProject. -Silence 01:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I have reconsidered my vote but still think delete is appropriate - there is no reason the existing wikiproject can't handle this subject Trödel•talk 22:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No good can come of this, anymore than a WikiProject Blasphemy. WAS 4.250 04:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't see how this just can't be merged into a sexuality Wikiproject - that is, if they're willing to accept them. It doesn't matter, anyways - this project will die soon.Morgan695 00:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • First of all, where is this Sexuality WikiProject people keep mentioning? I've done searches for it, looked through the list o' WikiProjects, and even checked Category:WikiProjects, but I haven't found it anywhere; what's its name, exactly? (Ah, I think I've found it now; are you referring to the very low-quality, strangely-named "Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality", which has been inactive since November 14, has few participants, and isn't nearly as well-organized or focused as this WikiProject seems to be? Seems like a waste.) Second of all, I don't see how the existence of a parent-WikiProject means that we can't have a sub-WikiProject too for a significant area within the main one; arguing that a Pedophilia WikiProject simply must be deleted because a Sexuality WikiProject exists is like arguing that every single religion-related WikiProject must be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion, even though they're vastly different, diverse, and complex fields. I'd say religion's not much more diverse than sexuality, so if a couple of editors want to make and there's enough support to make it a useful tool for Wikipedia, who cares? Why go to the trouble of deleting it when there are interested users who will improve Wikipedia using it? Our goal here is to do whatever most benefits Wikipedia (which in this case means letting the editors do what they want, be it making a user category or a WikiProject or a notice board, so long as it means that they'll work together to improve and maintain articles!), not to succumb to our OCD and feverishly merge all WikiProjects into broader WikiProjects (rather than simply providing a link from each one to the other, the better course of action here) even when there's easily enough information and interest in the subject for both WikiProjects to potentially flourish. If there's interest (and if there wasn't, the Project wouldn't have been created!), why not give the thing a chance and see if it can make any articles better or help combat vandalism effectively? I don't see the harm of a little WikiProject like this. Worst case scenario, its interest will dry up once this silly controversy fades and it'll become one of the hundreds of other inactive little WikiProjects; best case scenario, it'll amass enough interested users to make great improvements in POV and stability for the relevant articles, perhaps even bringing a few up to Featured quality. Since the worst case scenario isn't such a tragedy, and the best case is rather awesome, I still don't understand why there's so much opposition to this WikiProject. Nobody here has acted in bad faith or violated WP:POINT or done anything heinous; a few tempers flared for a moment, but now things are settling down and we can assess the situation rationally and come to the conclusion that this VfD was a mistake, made in error during an unfortunate edit-war over an unrelated but similarly-named userbox, on a false assumption regarding the intent, origin, and nature of the Project. Now that those misconceptions have been corrected and the misunderstandings resolved, we should be able to see that this WikiProject is just a few editors looking to work together to improve an important Wikipedia topic, not a diabolical conspiracy to rape and murder babies. My advice (ignore it if you prefer): Settle down, think it over again, and give the silly little project a shot at making Wikipedia more useful and accurate. -Silence 01:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't know that two members qualifies as "interest for the project to florish". Morgan695 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'll give this the benefit of doubt for now but I'd ask the proponents to seriously reconsider whether this might be better for the encyclopedia as a whole if it were back in the userspace. Rossami (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to ask this question. What if someone inadvertantly slipped in a reference to one of these "pedophile" websites that claims to have testimony from a "minor", such as the material Herostratus pointed at on the project talk page? What if this minor's parents somehow received an anonymous email asking them to look at "such and such" an article at wikipedia, and they find this reference? Do we have any forum where such an issue can be foreseen? Do we have anything in place to counter such a thing? Is there an issue here or am I just blowing bullshit? There's no forum in place where these questions can be expected to arise that I can see. Someone please tell me if I'm on to something or if I need to go wash my mouth out and stick a firecracker in my ear. --DanielCD 02:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The traditional remedy on IRC for such thoughts is to slap oneself around the face with a wet herring... Physchim62 (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment #2 If everyone keeps running from this issue like a bunch of squealing, blind mice jumping off a burning ship, things like this are going to be missed. Whether or not the issue is distatefull, it will either be tended to, or ignored, and sooner or later... I don't need to say more. --DanielCD 02:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

On a more serious note, WikiProjects are for writing encyclopedic articles, not for determining Foundation policy. If you are worried about how the Foundation would handle this, then drop an email to one of the Trustees. In the meantime, by all means continue NPOV editing of articles on these topics, either individually or as a group. If you wish to coordinate actions as a group, consider the best place to organise that group: userspace is relatively safe from harassment, but not very visible to outsiders; WPspace is more visible, but for that reason alone you will have to spend more of your time dealing with unhelpfulnesses such as MfD discussions. Physchim62 (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is my last comment on anything regarding this topic. How the f**k you got that from what I said there, and how you so completely missed my point, and how you have any idea I wish to be involved in this or revive it in any way, is completely beyond me. You people can.. I'm not going to say it, I'm just bowing out gracefully at this point. Good day. --DanielCD 03:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brenneman's suggestion and subsequent votes

  • I'm already invovled in some editing of some Paraphilia articles and would love some help. If this were renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Paraphilia and expanded a bit, it might attract a wider range of editors as well as avoiding the instant knee-jerk response. Any thoughts on that?
    brenneman(t)(c) 03:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's actually a pretty good idea! It's up to the people who were first involved in this WikiProject, though, as they're the ones who are taking times out of their day to work on this subject matter. If they're perfectly fine with such a merger, I am too; if they'd prefer to still have a WikiProject for Pedophilia, it could easily become a sub-page for "Paraphilia" instead of one for the much vaguer "Sexuality and Sexology". I do like this compromise, but a rename isn't vital here. -Silence 03:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - why shouldn't people try to improve Wikipedia's articles on this subject? Catamorphism 09:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: maybe this should be a child project of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, there has been a lot of controversy about pedophilia on Wikipedia. But no, we shouldn't let this project be the victim of it. As long as articles undergo improvements, I don't see why this project can't stay. Deleting this wouldn't be fair in my opinion. If we want to delete wikiprojects concerning "morally intolerant topics", we might as well nominate the fascism wikiproject for deletion as well.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 11:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename Project:Paraphilia per Brenneman and keep. Heros got a bit wound up here and while the following note is a little glib, I think the point is spot-on: these pages can be "1) edited by pedophiles or 2) blanked by self-righteous idiots". Even noting consistently that pedophilia is a paraphile and not a criminal designation serves an important encyclopedic purpose. And yes, Pedophile activism could use a group to support eachother in pruning, oh, 96 or 97%. Expanding to paraphiles in general will indeed avoid knee-jerk responses and bring more people on board. Any template could be non-divisive in this case. Marskell 13:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sigh. If you'd read the Project Goals (the only active goal was "Achieve, to the extent possible, a scholarly, generally agreed-upon, scientifically accurate, culturally accurate, and clear terminology to be used in pedophilia/childlove-related articles and the Nomenclature subpage, you'd see that naming is quite complicated, as the term "pedophiles" is used for:
    1. People with the APA-designated paraphelia "pedophilism". (If you've ever spoken to a person with this problem, its quite sad actually -- how would you like it if you knew that your basic sexual drive could never be satisfied, not even once, for obvious moral and practical reasons, and you could not even get sympathy from anyone or even ever speak of it for fear of being literally torn to pieces.)
    2. People who are not pedophiles in the #1 sense but are just horny, not especially picky, and their stepdaughter/niece/student/etc. is handy. (FWIW this is far and away the main source of child sex abuse.)
    3. People who are not pedophiles in the #1 sense but who just have absurd daydreams about "falling in love" with children (and being reciprocated) and/or the hobby of downloading cheescake pics of naked kids, hanging out in AOL kiddy chat rooms, and wanking, and some of whom have managed to convince themselves that they are an Opressed Minority because Society Is So Intolerant, and a few of whom have mangaged to convince themselves that we need to Speak Out and Reform Our Societal Norms. (It is these people who are of particular concern to me as cause of POV in Wikipedia articles.)
    4. Child sex offenders, child molesters, child rapists, whatever you want to call it. Their unifying theme is that they are criminals (but unlike the far-more-common #2's above they attack strangers). Some of these are #1's who have lost control, some are #3's who have gone off the deep end, some are just rapists who like easy targets, and there are probably other motives as well.) However, TV news shorthand will call all these people "convicted pedophiles" etc (which is a bit like calling Jeffery Dahmer a "convicted homosexual", but less accurate), and we have to accept that as a common usage of the term. The Daily Mail notwithstanding, these types are not that common, although they are very dangerous.

Imagine if the single word "gay" with no commonly understood shades of meaning had to be used to refer to your uncle Dwight, RuPaul, and Jeffery Dahmer, and you have some sense of the problem. But anyway, the place to discuss this is talk pages of articles, users, and project, and not an MfD which will soon be archived out of sight, and really I'm done here for now as the ghost of Austrian general John Hiller is bugging me for his article. Herostratus 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    • I'm not sure if the sigh was directed at me. I see all of your points and essentially agree, which is part of the reason for my vote. In the strictest sense, 1 and 3 are the most accurate and I don't know if they really need separating. Note Dahmer was a necrophile, which is probably more on topic here than homosexuality which is not a paraphile. Thus, why not a project on this broader topic? I don't image in it would be our busiest project, but there's nothing unencyclopedic about it. Again, by going for paraphilia instead we widen the scope and dampen concern over the name. Marskell 17:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep if the members are really serious about improving an area of Wikipedia and not simply making a point - a smart person might have waited until the dust had settled before creating this, though. Some of the reaction, including mine, puts me in mind of the Brass Eye paedophile issue. In the end I guess that since this is expressly about content it does (unlike the much-disputed userboxes)have something to do with building an encyclopaedia. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 15:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • We're getting a bit tired of the accusations of violating code, specifically WP:POINT. If you don't believe my word, I request to be either be brought up on charges or that people stop saying that. And I've admitted to being not only not smart enough to wait until the dust had settled but of not being smart enough to even know that there was (much) dust. What can I say? I get it, and in future I promise to try to spend more time paying attention to Wikipedia internal politics and less time on researching scholarly content, OK? Herostratus 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • My acceptance of your good faith was implicit (OK, perhaps it wasn't: I should have used since instead of if, sorry). As to the politics, well, yes, I see your point - I try not to get into the politicking, I thought it was kind of hard to miss on this one with so many of the user pages on my watch list lighting up, but of course that is distorted by my perspective as an admin and as a frequenter of AFD, DRV and of course AN/I so naturally it seemed plain to me and I can quite see how the world at large could easily remain in blissful ignorance of the whole thing (and be better off as a result, truth be known). So it wasn't personal. In fact, I think I have tidily demonstrated that absence of Clue is not restricted to the participants of this Wikiproject :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this page and all subordinate project pages. In the first place, while some of the members of this project appear to be in good faith, no case has been made that Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality is not capable of handling the editing support functions within the project mandate, and since the articles clearly are within scope, the case to keep is fairly weak. Second, Dschor has made some effective use of the project as part of his WP:POINT disruption campaign, and it is likely that the page will be further used to this end, hence the page is likely to rpove a source of disruption. Hence delete as being on balance somewhat detrimental to Wikipedia. I am receptive to the cases for (i) merging the page with the S&S project, and (ii) renaming to something less provocative, per Aaron's suggestion. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (edited --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC))
    • Just because one user made a template relating to this wikiproject as part of a WP:POINT campaign doesn't make it a violation of WP:POINT. Just like nominating Isreal for deletion to make a POINT (as has happened at least once) doesn't make having an article on Isreal a violation of WP:POINT. Thryduulf 00:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • If there was a solid case for keeping it, I would not vote delete. In the absence of that, and because I don't think that the abuse of the project has ended with the disciplinary action against Dschor, I have. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per Aaron Brenneman, who is a clever bastard. I'd help with with a WikiProject on Paraphilias in general. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per paroxysm, silence, Herostratus's reply and a handful of others. I've been slowly watching this project develop and I think it is being nominated out of pure ignorance and nothing more. By the way, a wikipedian editor was banned because he was a pedophile? That is just pathetic on wikipedia's part. So much for freedom to be an individual. It isn't against the law to be a pedophile... I wouldn't be surprised if the right-wingers have us banning gays next. --Jelligraze 23:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I would. LGBT groups are a very active, powerful, and well-represented minority on Wikipedia, relative to most real-world politics. It's considered Politically Correct in most modern subcultures (and the Internet is a breeding ground for subcultures) to support women, black people, LGBT groups, etc. and to claim to strongly endorse tolerance and strongly oppose censorship, yet to turn around 5 minutes later and react with overzealous condemnation and censorship to taboo (yet prevalent) beliefs like "I hold a belief that homosexual intercourse is immoral" or physiological conditions like "pedophilia". It's all about which groups are currently taboo or not in the pop culture politicalscape, which minorities are the "good minorities" and which are the "bad minorities" in the popular mindset, and as long as it's considered good policy to censor people with unpopular and "offensive" minority views, it will always be an uphill battle to establish any sort of dialogue or cooperation whatsoever on the matter. Even if you disagree strongly with someone, the best way to change their mind and to show how wrong they are is to let them speak and be open. But, for all my fancy talk, I'm a realist as much as an idealist, so I know Wikipedia's not yet ready for that level of openness and tolerance, and completely understand why stuff like this is scaring so many admins, who worry that the risk of upped POV battles will outweigh any benefits. At some point, though, we need to stop running from stuff like this and fight against this growing problem of Wikipedia developing a definite, solidifying POV of its own. -Silence 00:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the reply Silence. I agree with everything you've said. I hope you understand that I was, obviously, overreacting (it was a slippery slope argument) and I realize it would be impossible for Wikipedia to actually ban homosexuals. However, my analogy is still, in my opinion, a good one. I think it might put the issue of banning a person based on sexual orientation in real perspective for some people. By saying things like "who are we going to ban next, homosexuals?" I hope to help people realize that no matter how negatively people view pedophiles, when all is said and done, they are still a group of individuals who deserve as many free rights as every other sexually orientated group. On similar note, i've noticed when others overreact they never get called on it, only I do. Bad karma I guess :-) --Jelligraze 01:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep but monitor with vigilance. I am persuaded by Herostratus's arguments that he and others want to do some good work here. However, we need to watch this as it has the possibility of attracting the wrong types of editors (trolls and pedophile apologists - not the same thing). I am unpersuaded by the argument of Silence that this is a minority that deserve rights and tollerance as other sexualities. Whilst those with pedophile inclinations may deserve understanding and sympathy, active pedophiles (few that there are) are incredibly dangerous. We should no more tolerate them, than we would allow 'Wiki-project rapists' to express the opinion that violence against women is morally justifiable. There is a danger that that a page like this will encourage the networking of criminals, which would certainly bring wikipedia into disrepute - if that happens then we will need to delete this later. --Doc ask? 14:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "I am unpersuaded by the argument of Silence that this is a minority that deserve rights and tollerance as other sexualities." - I don't know what a "right" is, nor do I recall mentioning anyone having (or deserving) rights (if I did, I was probably being colloquial, not literal). You are interpreting my comments a bit too broadly. All I said was that we should tolerate other views (if only so we can respond to and criticize them effectively by hearing them out) and not stigmatize people based on the Wikipedia topic they choose to help improve. My chief concern here is that the encyclopedia is suffering from Politically Correct anti-pedophilic zeal; whether pedophilia is inherently dangerous and destructive or not (and, in fact, more so if it is), Wikipedia needs to have high-quality, well-referenced, clear, and consistent series of articles on the topic, and a WikiProject is a tool to help reach that end. It is not Wikipedia's job to judge which groups are good and which are evil; it is Wikipedia's job to cover them all with as much detail and accuracy as possible, and let people decide for themselves what to think about that.
  • "Whilst those with pedophile inclinations may deserve understanding and sympathy, active pedophiles (few that there are) are incredibly dangerous." - That's perfectly true, but I don't follow your overall logic here. "Active" pedophiles (I presume you mean "pedophiles who are also child molesters") should, firstly and most importantly, be kept from harming any children, and secondly, be given psychological analysis and treatment to the greatest extent possible (similar to how hate crime perpetrators should be dealt with (prevent further harm, rehabilitate if possible), but for a more psycho-biological than ideological problem). Implying that we shouldn't have a Pedophilia WikiProject just because active pedophiles are dangerous seems vaguely similar to logic like "having a 'firearms' WikiProject is a terrible idea because firearms kill people and should not be tolerated" or "having an 'AIDS' WikiProject is a terrible idea because "active AIDS sufferers" cause so much harm by spreading the disease, and should not be tolerated"); the fact that something can cause harm, or is possibly designed in a way to have a tendency to more than other things, does not mean that all do cause harm and harm alone (not all guns kill people, not all people with AIDS pass it on, and not all pedophiles molest children), and for that matter, most importantly, the morality of a topic has nothing to do with whether it merits in-depth coverage. This is the chief point I've been trying to drive home with my comments, and I sense, based on your comment and "reluctant keep" vote, that you agree, but your words in this context are troubling in that they imply the opposite. A little clarification would probably clear this up.
  • ""We should no more tolerate them, than we would allow 'Wiki-project rapists' to express the opinion that violence against women is morally justifiable." - "Tolerating" them seems like a bizarre way to word it; in some cases it is right to be tolerant ("let's tolerate their self-expression of an opinion"), and in other cases it isn't ("let's tolerate genocide"), and to suggest that it's always one way or the other is faulty, extremist thinking. Nor do I see how "tolerating" a certain type of person in society has anything to do with "allowing a WikiProject for that type of person"; what a bizarre combination of ideas! No WikiProject exists to further an agenda or ideology (or at least very, very few; Wikipedia:Wikiproject Rational Skepticism is a grey-zone example); notice that I compared Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia to Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology above (and a similar comparison was made above to Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism, though both Scientology and Fascism are by nature more ideological), in the sense that both are controversial, complex, and potentially harmful modern issues, but both WikiProjects are dedicated to improving Wikipedia's accurate coverage of those areas, not to furthering the interests and agendas of any groups they focus on. (So your comparison to a "WikiProject Rapists" that would support and further the interest of rapists is a clear distortion and false analogy; really, it wouldn't be as terrible of an idea as you're making it seem to have a "WikiProject Rape" (or a general "sex offense" WikiProject, though that might lead to some controversy and ambiguity...) to improve Wikipedia's neutral and accurate coverage of this horrible, and horrifically common, practice throughout history; it might not be a good idea, simply because there aren't that many articles specifically devoted to it and the connections between different articles related to the subject (like the rape of the Sabine women vs. Mace (spray)) are often tenuous, but it wouldn't be bad for the reason you stated, where you implied that such a WikiProject would necessarily be about furthering an agenda, not improving Wikipedia's coverage of an important area of knowledge). In fact, if you pay attention to who's a member of both WikiProjects, you'll find that there's more activity there from opposition to those things than from supporters, members, etc.; you don't need to support (or "tolerate") something to want Wikipedia to have higher-quality coverage of it. You're confusing two unrelated issues: whether pedophilia is good or bad (not relevant to this discussion), and the unrelated matter of whether we should have a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of it. Be careful not to do that. -Silence 19:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename, watch; hope the project survives. A rename would be useful precisely because of the nomenclature problems. Paraphilias are difficult subjects to edit; for many editors (such as myself), related articles are something one might travel a thousand edits to avoid, with stigma in even editing such articles; yet there are also regular edit wars between, say, pedophilia activists and anyone willing to take the challenge. Sustainable wikiprojects should be encouraged for difficult for unpleasant subjects -- I would much rather have a WikiProject where I could leave a note about an influx of POV or spam problems, than start a thread on a mailing list or the VP and watch people ignore it. I look forward to the day when there is a WikiProject covering every recurring, emotional, culturally sensitive edit war... (Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism? New, keep up the good work. Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict? Died after 2 years. Wikipedia:WikiProject Circumcision? not yet. Wikipedia:WikiProject Gdansk? Nobody agreed on what to name the project... ) +sj + 15:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Need to address the issues stated by project originators. Rename or merge with existing projects can be decided later. FloNight 19:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I can't see why this Wikiproject should be deleted at all. Wikipedia is not censored.  Grue  07:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, because if it organizes and improves information on the topic, it will be good for the encyclopedia. Can the moral panics please stop? Babajobu 14:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but debate on the title and guise it will take. After some time to gain hindsight, I've decided to vote. I think these issues need to be addressed somewhere, and responsible people need to help keep things balanced. But we need a group to organize it and come up with some good ideas about the form it should take. --DanielCD 23:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! One of the project editors is back on board. FloNight talk 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not back on board, really. I'm just voting. I might help out with suggestions and such, and would be happy to answer questions, but I'm seriously refocusing my editing efforts to other things, and I feel a lot happier for it. I have no plans at this time to edit in this topic area. --DanielCD 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note just over three more days of discussion to go! Physchim62 (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Here's a modest proposal... Why not take the important, scholarly info, and merge it into paraphilias and then delete the rest. Pedophilia is illegal, and we don't need a project on it. WP:NOT a grandstand. We don't need to be taking a stand on this. We shouldn't take a stand on anything! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We watch. We Write. We Document. Instead of getting hung up on all the POV and bias, sinmply document what's important and delete the rest. Sorry, but I keep thinking what the editors of Brittanica, or Americana for that matter, would think if they read the pages of debate on a Pedophilia Project. Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 23:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Pedophilia is not illegal. Sexually abusing children is illegal. However, I'm not sure why legality of a subject should determine whether people form a project to try to improve articles about it. If some people wanted to form a WikiProject to improve articles about the history of pirates, would you oppose that because piracy is illegal? Catamorphism 23:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Depends... if the project on piracy kept to improving historical (or contemporary) Pirates, of notability, or whether it delved into topics such as Keelhauling or any other variety of tasteless things. I see your point Catamorphism, and the analogy to piracy is especialy good, I still hold the opinion that this project is not necessary, why are we seeking to improve pedophilia related articles? Pedophilia, to the best of my scholarly knowledge, has not been a defining force in history nor has any Daddy's Girl Fetish, Piracy however has started wars, changed the economic models of governments, led to the removal of world leaders, and the elections of others. If we sought to improve articles on Piracy in history, that would be good. I don't see a Pedophilia project as accomplishing that.Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 00:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and do not merge into Paraphilia. Paraphilia is defined as "sexual arousal in response to sexual objects or situations which may interfere with the capacity for reciprocal affectionate sexual activity." I find it highly insulting and adultist that anybody can say that people under a certain age do not have the capacity to love somebody else. --Rory096 00:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
...why are we seeking to improve pedophilia related articles? Pedophilia, to the best of my scholarly knowledge, has not been a defining force in history...
Is this as stupid as it sounds? Can the person who said this walk and chew gum at the same time? --DanielCD 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Brittanica, or Americana for that matter, would think
  • Well, for one thing, they wouldn't dream of not having a Pedophilia article. Who opened the gate to the funny farm here? - DanielCD
You might as well have said, damn, let's get rid of the Anorexia article. Why not ditch the posttraumatic stress disorder article too? You have no conception of what's going on here.
Internet cafe computer couldn't hold a cookie long enough for me to sign in on the earlier comments. --DanielCD 02:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
This may be somewhat of an overreaction, but then again this is one of the big problems with credibility at Wikipedia. Many things are done by consensus, and people just casually vote like this without giving solid reasons, and it does not look good for Wikipedia. --DanielCD 02:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment I apologize, i didn't realize I capitalized an "f," Daddy's Girl fetish, good enough DanielCD? I threw in my 2 cents... If you disagree with me, thats fine, but please don't get hot and bothered by civil, good faith comments... Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 02:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Next time I come in here and post anything, I want someone to give me a good slap. --DanielCD 02:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep because I'm hoping it will attract even more editors with talent than we already have, and because there's no other good place I know of for people to discuss and plan out the big picture, by which I mean this family of articles and how they relate to one another. Joey Q. McCartney 04:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Because of these last two, and other votes one this page, I have put a newbie template at the top. Tell me if this is overstepping my bounds. Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 16:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
To which two votes are you referring? The last two keep votes are both from experienced users. Babajobu 23:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment The two immediatly above my post. The First is from someone who's (note not an attack, just an observation) contribs are all pedophila related, and the second, who has only a keep with no reasoning. The newbie template serves as a reminder to everyone about the nature of debate. Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 23:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment I would think that a person who spends all their time contributing to pedophilia related articles would be a good judge in deciding whether or not a project like this should stay and that person shouldn't be discredited because of the articles they choose to edit. --Jelligraze 00:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dragoonmac, I don't understand your comments? This has been a serious discussion of an important topic. What is your concern? Please spell it out so we can fully respond to them. FloNight talk 01:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand either. People fight tooth and nail and do really slippery things to get an edge in on this topic. All the more reason to get away. --DanielCD 02:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
After some thought. I'm going to go ahead and remove the template. It's not meant just to slap on any deletion discussion, it's meant for places where there is a problem. There's no specific problem of that nature here, so I'm removing it. If it were meant to be on any and all discussions, then it would be. Put the template back if anyone feels it's needed. I just want some better/more convincing reasons. --DanielCD 02:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The consensus here is aiming at keep, but I think it's safe to say it's not going to be kept in this "ped-obvious" form. This debate is really just a formality. It's really a debate about what the nature of such a thing should be and if we need a project to address these issues. On these grounds, this is not really a deletion review per se, and perhaps the discussion should be redefined as it's currently causing some confusion for me and others. --DanielCD 03:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Redefine Debate?

  • Motion To redefine this debate and move it elsewhere. Even if this passes, who's going to undelete it? Not I. I think some rethinking is called for, as the issue has reached a grow-or-die point at least in my mind. I'm changing my vote to abstain at this point.
  • Abstain Where are we going with this? --DanielCD 03:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
      • )Ouch!! ( Thanks for that! No, I think the sneakyness can be tied to the general confusion regarding what's going on here. Your comments, Dragoomac, actually had the beneficial effect of bringing this point to attention. --DanielCD 18:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No Problem I guess, good to know we're on the same page, literally and figuratively... OK that pun fell flat, but to help clarify for anyone still interested, I started this as a new section. Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 22:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As someone said a long time ago on this talk page, it's extremely difficult to find neutral, scholarly information about pedophilia. Wikipedia needs to fill this gap, and WikiProject Pedophilia looks like a very good means to that end. Angr/talk 20:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but is calling it by that name going to cause another "crisis"? Remember, all that can happen here is resurrecting it with the same name. There's no reason another project with the same goals (and perhaps others) can't be started with another title. So are we debating raising the title? Or are we debating contents? What's going on here? The title is not going to be accepted by the community. So even if we get a "keep" decision, I'm not sure it's going to have any meaning. This needs redefining. --DanielCD 20:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest we debate "content and title." Even if content is mostly undisputed, these two things are interrelated. Every user who comments should address both, at least briefly. so that people don't start comparing apples and oranges without knowing it. Joey Q. McCartney 21:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your point, but, the discussion is fizzling out. I think the people that are interested in working on the project should pick a non-controversial name and go with the same goals. The goals can be expanded later as needed. FloNight talk 22:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool! Now we're debating.
Here are my thoughts on name and goals: I think the current title is accurate, clear, and as non-controversial as we can hope for, given the current goals of the project. I can't think of a name that is as clear and technically accurate, yet doesn't sound like we're trying to be sneaky and get away with something. Then again, maybe I'm not thinking hard enough. Joey Q. McCartney 22:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
or maybe I'm being paranoid. Joey Q. McCartney 22:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • WikiProject:Pedophilia is the best name I can think of. "WikiProject:Childlove" is way too POV, and "WikiProject:Child molestation" is about a different topic, however much some people enjoy confounding the two issues. Angr/talk 23:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you to whomever made the new section. The whole point is to avoid "confounding the two issues". I'm just saying, it's my firm belief that the community is still going to have a problem with this title, in spite of the results of any vote here. --DanielCD 23:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's an idea. How about "Wikiproject Pedophilia NPOV" or something like that? Including a pillar of Wikipedia does no harm, and might help the community feel like maybe we really are in good faith. Maybe it'd even have a positive effect on the project. Joey Q. McCartney 00:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Then again, it wouldn't change the minds of anti-Wikipedians, for whatever that's worth, if anything. Joey Q. McCartney 00:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm getting ahead of myself, but here's a concern. If we were to just stick NPOV in the title and not back it up with something real, it's going to be meaningless and end up a joke or worse to the community. Possible ideas include having NPOV training (don't laugh!) or implementing special safeguards to reduce NPOV. It might not be easy, but no one promised that this project would be easy.
Also, I assume that the community is concerned that Wikipedia is being perceived as a pedophile haven. A more radical idea than any I've mentioned is to take the step of implementing actual special safeguards specifically designed to prevent the articles from being pro-pedophile. THat suggestion is as distasteful to me as it is to any of you. Another possibility is to write an open, "bipartisan" letter to the foundation or Jimbo talking about our concerns, and what measures we are considering, and what we feel is consistent with the goals of Wikipedia.
Damn. The longer I go on and on like this, the more I risk sounding like an idiot. Joey Q. McCartney 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum where pedophiles can promote minority theories of child love. Wikipedia is not a sex offender registery or a public service message board. If we stick to these rules, we should be fine. There are safeguards in place to keep articles from becoming pro-pedophile (or even neutral about pedophilia). WP:NOR, NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:BLP. And the ever important WP:AGF. The standards are present. They have been discussed on email lists, arb comm cases, on policy pages, and even in press releases. We need to enforce them consistently. That should be the focus of this project. (the should is underlined for humor, not emphasis. I was accused of being a moralizer because I used the word "should" twice in a passage. Go figure!) FloNight talk 01:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
or even neutral.. What!? Ineloquent 04:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yea, let's hold off on the foul language. No more "N" word please. --DanielCD 04:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It's time to close this debate, which I wont do because of my earlier involvement. I have taken a look over it, and I can guess which way the admin will go. I'd just like to make one final, minor suggestion: how about WikiProject Pedophilia articles as a project name? It shouldn't be necessary to make such a precision, but it might reassure so of the more faint of heart, and those who worry about "reputation". Physchim62 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.