Talk:North American Man-Boy Love Association/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Not sure if it's relevant enough for the main page, but there is apparently a conspiracy theory in leftish parts of the GLBT and pro-sexuality community that claims NAMBLA was started as an FBI front to discredit the gay pride movement. The analogy is made to COINTELPRO agents-provocateurs who sought to discredit Left organizations by encouraging them to become violent.

If you can cite sources (even somewhat crazy source), it's relevant for the main page (IMO). The craziness of the source(s) is inversely proportional to the amount of space on the main page the conspiracy is allowed to take. Tokerboy 01:07 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)
Yes, it is a crazy conspiracy theory. The modern gay liberation movement has forgotten what being homosexual used to mean, not so long ago. Oscar Wilde and André Gide, for instance, picked up 14 year old boys in North Africa, not 24 year old men. Pederasty and androphilia were linked, though never equal. The modern gay movement wants to paint pederasts out of history and blame them as being a government conspiracy. It's completely ridiculous, and anti-liberationist. _KhlER3L July 13, 2003
Note: I have nothing to do with the above edit. I merely restored it. --Eloquence 20:45 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Contents

North American Man-Boy Love Association

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Saturday, August 2nd, 02003.

A matter of time. Now we have it: North American Man-Boy Love Association. Now is the time for all good men to go to work. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick

Fixed. My first article reversion.  :-( is now :-) Maybe this page needs to be protected. Daniel Quinlan 02:17 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Page protection should not be used except in extreme circumstances. MB 03:57 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I found the note "NAMBLA believes that young people have a right to choose their sexual partners" tendentious. The way I changed it may not be seen as neutral either, I just think that a sentence as the one I quoted cannot stand alone. Get-back-world-respect 01:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse

Yesterday I went to Berlin's meeting of wikipedians and spoke with the head of the German wikipedia organization, Kurt Jansson. He said that the problems with the articles related to pedophilia and abuse were well known for quite some time and probably started with a posting in a forum for pedophiles about wikipedia as a great opportunity to spread the message that sex with adults is helpful for children. He already mentioned it in an interview with a newspaper in order to increase awareness of the problem. In the German pages the most notorious abuser is de:Benutzer:Mondlichtschatten, his english version - or at least one of them - is user:Moon_light_shadow. Here user:Zanthalon seems to play the main role. Checking their contribution lists tells easily which articles need a complete rewrite: List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles, Childlove movement, pedophilia, Child sexuality, Child pornography, Child sexual abuse, Capturing the Friedmans, Rind et al.. I put the german articles on the list of articles that lack neutrality and need more care - the latter was immediately reverted by guess who. Please help taking care of the trouble. Get-back-world-respect 12:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Official Name

The official name of this organisation is the North American Man/Boy Love Association, using a stroke (/) rather than a dash (-) as has been done incorrectly here on Wikipedia. The name of this article should be changed to reflect this. --Zanthalon 01:25, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suspect this may cause problems with the Mediawiki software. Sorry. David.Monniaux 18:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do not contribute in subject areas about which you know very little

As somebody who has extensive background in researching the history of children's rights movements, from mainstream child "protectionists" to the radical child "liberationists" such as Richard Farson, I find it amusing that people who have apparently no understanding of the history of the gay rights movement in general or the NAMBLA organization in particular would invest the time to flaunt their ignorance for others to see.

The edits I have made to this article are in perfect keeping with publicly known -- though obviously seldom accessed -- facts. The FBI conducted a two-year investigation into NAMBLA, infiltrated the group, even managed to procure a copy of the membership roster, but still concluded that the organization was innocent of any law violations. One of the men responsible, Walter Harlan Echols, who wrote the well-known book "I Know My First Name Is Steven" assisted in this process.

Membership to NAMBLA is open to anybody, regardless of sexual orientation, age, sex, ethnicity, etc., who agrees with eliminating age-based laws restricting sexual behavior. To claim that NAMBLA is an "organization of pedophiles" is innaccurate in that some controversial public figures who were NOT pedophiles have admitted openly in the past to being members (again, this is a matter of public record). Notwithstanding that the membership is undoubtedly most pedophiles due to the social stigma attached to the objectives of the group, to call NAMBLA an "association of pedophiles" merely because the political objectives of the group seemingly benefit pedophiles is as honest as claiming that the ACLU is an alliance of secular atheists simply because a few of them happen to be members with self-interests that correspond to the stated goals of the organization.

Any edits that are not based on fact should and will be stricken.

If a Soccer Club is open to non-soccer players, should we stop calling it a club of soccer players? The recent edits are highly dubious. I can see no legitimation to call the founding "as a response to a sustained campaign of police intimidation and harassment of local gay teenagers". Also, it is absurd to write it has been "cleared of legal wrongdoing". It should be stressed that authorities deem strong observation as necessary, not that the group could not yet be proven to have broken the law. It is also not neutral to stress the official stance of NAMBLA that it aims at "empowering youth to make their own decisions regarding sexuality". It is more or less consensus among observers that the group's main aim is not empowering youth but pedophiles. The innuendo about alleged "moral equivalence between homosexuality and pedophilia" is just pathetic, abusing children cannot be compared to the free choice of homosexuals to live their sexuality. Statistics "which indicate that most sexual molestations are crimes of opportunity committed by otherwise normal heterosexual men" are not to the point here. This is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda forum for pedophiles. Get-back-world-respect 15:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The aim is both actually. You are, and have been, the only one talking about abuse in this context. Who else is? lysdexia 16:13, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dubious? What is dubious about a facutal account?

That some would see dubiousness in what is tantamount to setting the record straight denotes a problem with the person who thinks truth is dubious, not the record-straightener. Even negative accounts of NAMBLA acknowledge that its history traces back to a series of police incidents involving gay youth in the highly charged political atmosphere of 1970s Boston. Two groups emerged from this time, GLAAD and NAMBLA. Inserting factual information into an article that (at least professes to be) about NAMBLA is about as clear-cut of a case as can be made. Indeed, the entire concept of Wikipedia rests upon it.

That NAMBLA has been cleared of legal wrongdoing is simply stating a fact established by records which any person with some ingenuity and a little spare time can retrieve from authoritative sources, and is absurd only insomuch as the claims that the Sun rests at the center of the Solar System are also absurd. Anybody who reads that the investigation was subject to intense scrutiny for a number of years can see that "strong observation was deemed necessary," so it hardly needs to be repeated. If doing so makes some people feel better, they can add a reiteration; however, removing the entire statement because a few individuals with axes to grind think that it portrays the organization in too much of a positive light is the very definition of absurd on a source designed to explicate fact, and debunk fiction. Sure, NAMBLA has yet to be found guilty of legal wrongdoing and so has the AMA, Sierra Club, the NRA, and countless other organizations. What is important here is that authorities launched and inviestigation, and that the investigation turned up no evidence of legal impropriety, a fact some conveniently want to omit from the equation.

"Empowering youth to make their own decisions regarding sexuality" is the very essence of NAMBLA's position. Whether that empowerment leads to twenty-somethings getting in bed with fifteen-year-olds, seventeen-year-olds having sex with nineteen-year-olds without the ninenteen-year-old being added to a list of sexual predators for the remainder of his or her life, or even teenagers telling old people that they're sick pervers who can fuck off is irrelevant here. The benefits to pedophiles would be secondary to a minor's self-determination and possibly not even come into existence at all. I suppose the same argument can be made that those who oppose misoginy laws simply wanted to divorce their spouses and marry black people, but serious people shouldn't such an argument seriously.

The innuendo about alleged "moral equivalence between homosexuality and pedophilia" maybe pathetic in your eyes, but it's the case that Christian conservatives are trying to make. Is there something against hearing all sides of the argument that offends you? If so, perhaps you should move to Pakistan.

Abuse of children is not comparable to consenting activity, but I think NAMBLA's larger point is to stress that age is a poor factor in determining what sexual activity constitutes the latter and what sexual activity belongs to the former. Again, this is not an argument that I am making, but an argument that NAMBLA is making. As such, it has every right to have a space on supposedly objective explanation of NAMBLA's history, purpose, critics, and legal difficulties.

If you want a board where you can pump out your OPINIONS, this isn't the place. If you want to convince me that your offense at factual information is reason enough to strike said information from an article, then perhaps Wikkipedia is not the place for you. (anonymous)

I insist that it does not have to be stressed that NAMBLA "was cleared of any wrongdoings". If no wrongdoings are reported the reader knows that no serious wrongdoings are known to wiki authors. Redundance cannot be healed by adding more of it. If you know of investigations important to know about the Sierra Club go and add it to that article.
If you have sources proving your version of the history (foundation because of police harrassment of gay teenagers) you can insert it. I find it extremely dubious given that the organization names itself MAN-boy "love" and given that no one else has supported this version up to now.
It is my impression that it is not mainly Christian conservatives who are trying to include pathetic innuendo about alleged "moral equivalence between homosexuality and pedophilia" but pedophiles who want to abuse homosexuals by saying "look, they were once persecuted once as well, and now people turn on us although we only love boys - that is why we should be granted the right to abuse them".
Abuse of children includes what pedophiles like to call "consenting activity" as children are not able to understand the consequences of sexual activity, and they are easily seduced. Adults have a special duty not to abuse their superior knowledge, experience, skills of persuasion, power, etc.

As reverts seem to be chosen over discussion until consensus can be found I asked for protection. Get-back-world-respect 01:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You haven't given a shred of evidence that "children" (Everyone is a child of someone, so this is a poor word choice.) aren't able to understand those consequences. There are plenty of legal adults who are less qualified to have sex than those illegal children. Your unfounded opinions and insults against children are ageist discrimination and ignorant, prejudiced moral outrage. Children participate in many activities, legal but not necessarily ethical, moral, or logical, whose consequences aren't known to them, under the behest of domestic and|or social influences with no reason other than tradition and good intentions. What do they know if they aren't willing to take apart their customs, and what do you if you aren't? lysdexia 16:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Archived Fact and Compromise discussions

See this October archive for the discussions of 'The Facts are Documented' and 'Working on a Comrpomise', both of which got caught up in ten-indent discussion threads that made reading this page a pain. +sj+

Pederastry

I was onder the assumption that many members were advocating for equal laws for gays and heterosexuals with regards to the age of majority. For example, in Canada it was ruled unconstitutional that homosexual anal sex was outlawed for anyone under the age of 18, yet the age of concent is 14 (with a few restrictions). Now homosexual and heterosexual sexual realationships can occur with people aged 14 and above (with a few restrictions).

I also suggest you take a visit to WikiProject fact and reference check. If people cannot agree on the wording, at least they can agree on the facts at hand after verifying the resources. --ShaunMacPherson 05:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Second paragraph

This paragraph deals with the relationship between NAMBLA and crime. I believe my proposal neutrally distills the key points of both versions, which are that:

  • NAMBLA is not specifically linked with any wrongdoing
  • Paul Shanley is speculated to have been involved with NAMBLA
  • The two unnamed criminals have alleged ties to NAMBLA
  • NAMBLA openly condemns criminal acts

silsor 07:16, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

And the versions:

Version 1: Some convicted sex offenders are thought to have been involved in the organization, including Paul Shanley, a Roman Catholic priest from Boston, Massachusetts, accused of criminal sexual activity with very young boys. Two men with alleged ties to NAMBLA were responsible for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley in October, 1997. The leadership of NAMBLA condemned this crime, and the organization is on record as opposing all violence and oppression.

Version 2: Although both the F.B.I. and the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations have cleared the organization of legal wrongdoing, some have speculated over its possible links with convicted sex offenders, including Paul Shanley, a Roman Catholic priest from Boston, Massachusetts, accused of criminal sexual activity with very young boys. Two men with alleged ties to NAMBLA were responsible for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley in October, 1997. The leadership of NAMBLA condemned this crime, citing its long-standing record of opposing all violence and oppression, and has insisted that the most effective method of curtailing crimes against children is to empower youth to make their own decisions regarding sexuality.

Proposal: Some sex offenders have been accused of association with NAMBLA, but no clear ties between sex crimes and NAMBLA have been established. Convicted sex offender Paul Shanley, a Roman Catholic priest from Boston, Massachusetts accused of criminal sexual activity with very young boys, was speculated to have been involved with the organization. Two men responsible for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley in October, 1997, had alleged ties to NAMBLA. The leadership of NAMBLA condemned this crime, citing its policy of opposing violence and oppression. The organization has been cleared of legal wrongdoing by the FBI and the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

The facts about NAMBLA and zymurgy are missing in the context of NAMBLA in conflict with authorities. It is inappropriate to write in an encyclopedia that authorities have "cleared someone of wrongdoing". It would be neutral that although investigations were deemed necessary no proofs of crimes could be found. Do you see a consensus about the first paragraph? Get-back-world-respect 20:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I will rue the day when it becomes inappropriate to include documented and established facts in Wikipedia articles. The reason the article should have a statement that the FBI and the US Senate have cleared NAMBLA of wrongdoing is that the US Senate and the FBI have, indeed, concluded investigations without charging NAMBLA, thus clearing them. If they still had doubts that NAMBLA could have been guilty of committing violations of the law, they would not have closed their investigations, would have they? When authorities launch investigations then conclude them without issuing any idictments, we say that the authorities "cleared" the subjects of the investigation of wrongdoing.
NAMBLA is now a worthless group comprised of nervous, middle-aged men and undercover cops. Its only uses now are as a rich resource of comedy material and an invocation that child sex hysterics can use to push whatever agenda they happen to have at the time (fighting gay rights, touting parental rights legislation, pushing for sex offender registries, etc, etc). What would be inappropriate would be to neglect to mention the fact that the US Senate, US Postal Service, and the FBI have no ongoing investigations relating to NAMBLA, implying they are still somehow the subject of intense investigation -- which is only silly speculation on your part with no basis in fact. The revised version is fine and should be implemented as-is. Corax 05:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think that this proposed revision is excellently worded and balanced. GBWR please do not be obstructionist, if you do not like the revision please propose your own and say why you think it is better then the current proposal. I also think many of the points in this talk page should be put directly into the article. --ShaunMacPherson 11:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I really don't want to become involved in this dispute, but I suggest the "proposal" is vastly superior in remaining neutral than the two versions preceding it. I can see where GBWR is coming from with the complaint about the last sentence, but it does seem really just to be stated fact - without an actual slant to the way it's presented. zoney ♣ talk 15:49, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My Proposal: Some sex offenders have been accused of association with NAMBLA, but no clear ties between sex crimes and NAMBLA have been established. Convicted sex offender Paul Shanley, a Roman Catholic priest from Boston, Massachusetts accused of criminal sexual activity with very young boys, was speculated to have been involved with the organization. Two men responsible for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley in October, 1997, had alleged ties to NAMBLA. The leadership of NAMBLA condemned this crime, citing its policy of opposing violence and oppression. Investigations by the FBI and the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found no proofs of legal wrongdoings by the organization.
In New York, the corporate, not-for-profit status of Zymurgy, Inc., which was the corporate entity for the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), was dissolved because it promoted illegal sexual activity between adults and children. The law was passed by both Senate and Assembly and signed by the Governor. [1] Get-back-world-respect 00:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I don't really undrestand why it is so difficult for you to comprehend the fact that NAMBLA does not now nor has it ever promoted illegal sexual activity, through zymurgy or otherwise. Zymurgy's tax-exempt status was revoked because people were offended by NAMBLA's positions, not because NAMBLA's positions in any way facilitated or endorsed law-breaking. This is the reason why the court refused to act on revoking it, and a legislative proposal was needed instead. The sooner you come to grips with this fact, the sooner we can move on with creating a real article, one that is not teeming with your fantasies. It is quite obvious that if you had your way, NAMBLA's article would mention absolutely nothing about its real purpose, which is to lobby for sexual self-determination for youths, and instead be a repository for accusations and innuendos that try to tie NAMBLA in with the murder and molestation of children. Get over yourself. It's not going to happen, anymore than the article on the Democratic party of the U.S. is going to consist only of republican critiques of their stances on issues like abortion or same-sex marriage. Corax (signature added by Get-back-world-respect)
If the additional information you cite is correct, I suggest it go in another section, probably == Reasons why NAMBLA dissolved ==. It is wasteful holding up the resolution of this article over citing a single sentence involving one case of an apparent NAMBLA member murdering someone. Especially when, according to what i have read here, NAMBLA does not advocate the killing of children or illegal activities. Using the exception to prove the rule is a logical fallacy, and an observation such as this is better left to a dissolved section as I described above. ShaunMacPherson
I do not quite see why you are now writing about murder? All I suggested to add was a New York law that is sourced and that determines that the corporate, not-for-profit status of Zymurgy, Inc., which was the corporate entity for the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), was dissolved because it promoted illegal sexual activity between adults and children. The law was passed by both Senate and Assembly and signed by the Governor. [2]
Corax, feel free to hold your personal opinion about why this law was passed. But please agree that the law is relevant information for the article while your personal opinion is not. Get-back-world-respect 00:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
First, Zymurgy is an entirely separate entity from NAMBLA. It was not "a corporate entity for NAMBLA," but an entirely different organization started by the people who were involved in creating NAMBLA. At the most, Zymurgy should be a footnote to any article on NAMBLA, if that. But even conducting this discussion on your terms that Zymurgy is somehow a non-profit incarnation of NAMBLA, your link to some gay rights web site hardly constitutes the citation of a credible source, especially in light of all the posturing that gay rights groups have done to distance themselves from NAMBLA (and which continues to manifest itself on this very talk page). I can quote a web page that says Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, but the fact that somebody put it on a web page does not make it a fact. The fact that some advocacy web sites claim that Zymurgy promoted illegal behavior similarly does not mean that Zymurgy promoted illegal behavior. Reference me one official statement by NAMBLA which encourages the violation of the law -- just ONE, and I will shut up and allow you to craft the NAMBLA article to your hearts content, making it nothing but a long indictment of how evil and wicked the members are and how much harm they want to wreak on poor innocent children. However, if you cannot, I expect you to withdraw your proposal to include the statement about Zymurgy in the article.
I will continue to hold my personal opinion on why the law was passed, but I certainly won't try to codify my opinion as some sort of official version of events in the way that your proposal does when it states that the law was passed because the group "promoted illegal sexual activity between adults and children." I would expect the same consideration from others in terms of abstaining from interjecting their POV into articles with disputes that are being mediated.
My point about you trying to turn the NAMBLA article into a repository of criticism still stands. Everytime somebody has tried to include independently verifiable, non-condemnatory information pertinent to the subject, you have tried to censor it out, claiming that it is redundant or is "pedophile propaganda." Yet you allow reams of speculative accusations that online nutcases and advocacy groups to stand unchallenged, and balk the moment somebody suggests that the disproportionate attention paid to these allegations in the article is indicative of a POV approach. Corax 00:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is not my proposal that the law was passed because the group "promoted illegal sexual activity between adults and children." It is sourced. Your complaint about the source is a typical case of the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy.
You can certainly find all sorts of claims about politicians. You will certainly not find a law passed in the US saying that some Inc. was the corporate entity for politicians and its corporate, not-for-profit status was dissolved because it promoted illegal sexual activity between adults and children. As the law was passed by both Senate and Assembly and signed by the Governor I am sure that you will have no trouble to verify what is the direct proof that your claim that NAMBLA was never related to any conflicts with the law is untrue. Get-back-world-respect 00:48, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is a very simple calculus, my friend. If you claim that NAMBLA or Zymurgy promoted illegal activity, it is your responsibility to provide specific, verifiable evidence to demonstrate that your claim is indeed true. If you cannot do so, I see no reason to support your revision of the second paragraph. Simply directing people to a gay rights website which itself professes to have "an agenda", then claiming that so doing is "citing information" does not even pass the giggle test. Either put up or shut up, and don't waste anymore of my time Corax 01:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

GBWR's POV

I also would like to bring to the attention of people here a quote from Get-back-world-respect's talk page:

I think that messaging users, like user:Doug22123 that mildly is against masturbation and who has trouble mantaining a NPOV in the aforementioned article, to help you with the NAMBLA issue is not a correct Wikipedia behavior, specially after you complain about how people "splits up entries and bans unwanted topics into special entries that will hardly ever be read".

Apparently, from what I see, GBWR is organizing people to try and push POV views which may or may not be a violation of Wikipedia rules. I bring this to all parties attention to remind ourselves not to play games but instead genually try to come up with a NPOV article. --ShaunMacPherson 11:18, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apparently, from what I see, you have not read my reply to the above copied message:
I do not think that you need much knowledge for trying to help resolve conflicts. Any reasonable user can help resolving conflicts, which are most often not based on disputed facts but on opinions and neutral presentations. I am not "against" pedophiles. I am just worried about tendencies to downplay the harm of child sexual abuse, and I hoped that someone who feels comfortable with editing articles like masturbation or Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal might be comfortable with helping out with another touchy article related to sexuality as well. This is not "recruiting" of people I regard as potential supporters of my opinions. I did not even look closely at your edits. I just see many controversial articles dominated by very few editors, which is not good for neutrality and makes it difficult to get a picture of what would be the consensus in a community of neutral editors. Sorry if this disturbed you. Get-back-world-respect 20:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No offense taken, it was just a constructive critic.
I agree that controversial articles should be reviewed by more people than currently do it, but I also think that many people editing this kind of articles (I am not refering to you), do not take NPOV seriously, and in my opinion that is the most important thing to have in mind when editing Wikipedia. --xDCDx 21:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I fully agree. The more people we have editing every single article, the higher the chance that some are among them who do care about neutrality. Get-back-world-respect 23:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Back to the topic now? Get-back-world-respect 00:00, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The topic at hand is that everyone else seems to be in agreement and yet you are pushing a POV. State what revisions you want done, and why you want it. --ShaunMacPherson 19:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My proposal for a balanced article on NAMBLA

Below is a template that I believe would be an accurate, fair, NPOV treatment of a highly controversial topic. It includes not only NAMBLA's history, but also equal attention to NAMBLA's stated agenda, common criticisms of NAMBLA, and the responses to common criticisms. A revision, should it follow this proposed design, would resolve the ongoing dispute and enhance the factual content of the existing article by incorporating new, factual information.

Intro: I believe the revised introductory paragraph broached by Silsor is acceptable.

History of NAMBLA - a synopsis of the early history of NAMBLA that focuses on how it emerged from the radicalized gay rights movement that was thriving in Boston in the late 1970s. A large portion of this section should relate the events that immediately preceded and catalyzed the formation of NAMBLA: the arrests of men in Revere, Massachusetts, the formation of the Boston-Boise Committee, etc.

NAMBLA's stated objectives - an explanation of NAMBLA's stated purpose as being an educational and political advocacy group that calls for the elimination of age-based restrictions on sexual behavior and provides materials that the organization believes demonstrates the wisdom of the repealling of the laws in question.

Allegations of legal impropriety - an inventory of the arguments commonly made by people critical of the group, with focus on the claim that NAMBLA "promotes" illegal behavior. Zymurgy, Jeffrey Curley, and Paul Shanley would all be appropriate topics to discuss here. Another important aspect that has thus far slid under the radar is the question of legal precedence and the restriction of speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that speech can be restricted when it is "intended and likely to incite imminent lawless actions."

NAMBLA's critics - a summary of the common criticisms lodged against NAMBLA. Among the most common are the accusation that NAMBLA is a front for child molestors who seek to justify their behavior, the claim that NAMBLA cloaks its agenda of fighting for the right of men to have sex with young children as a defense of children's autonomy.

Wow. Can we say weasel words?

Members of the Religious Right in the United States have exploited NAMBLA's infamous reputation to attack more conventional gay rights groups, suggesting a moral equivalence between homosexuality and pedophilia. These critics attempt to conflate pedophilia (as medically defined in DSM IV) with homosexuality by asserting that gay men perpetrate the majority of child sexual assaults, despite statistics which indicate that most sexual molestations are crimes of opportunity committed by otherwise normal heterosexual men, not gay men or even pedophiles, who use children as a substitute for same-age partners. In the early 1990s, the International Lesbian and Gay Association had its United Nations Economic and Social Council non-governmental organization status withdrawn after it was revealed it had links to NAMBLA. ILGA then expelled NAMBLA from the organization, but still has not been able to get back consultative status. Some members of the gay movement opposed ILGA's action as a witchhunt.

Count 'em. "Members of the Religious Right in the US." Unsourced, so count 1. "These critics attemt to conflate pedophilia...". Unsourced, doesn't say who the critics are. So count 2. "Some members of the gay movement opposed ILGA's action as a witchhunt". Which members might they be? Count 3. So basically we have a whole paragraph of unsourced allegations. Way to go. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right. Christian Conservatives in the United States love gays -- and NAMBLA. I've seen the light. ~

Eliminated Unsupported Claims from Criminal Cases Section

Under the Johnathan Tampico bullet, a sentence claims that "NAMBLA supported an a foster home in Thailand that sexually exploited children." Strange that NAMBLA has been able to remain in operation after the discovery this illegal activity. In actuality, the article clearly states that individual memebers of NAMBLA had been frequenting and using Thai orphonages -- maybe many, maybe only one (the article isn't specific) -- to gain access to children for sexual purposes. This is a far cry from NAMBLA subsidization. As such, I dedacted the unsupported and clearly false claim.

Fair enough. I was simply moving this material from Childlove_movement where an anonymous editor dropped them off this afternoon. I did not think that the allegations were substantive, but I figured I would leave it to the people who are more knowledgeable about NAMBLA to make the final decision as to the veracity of these claims. I should have noted that when I left them here. Sorry for the oversight. --Zanthalon , 05:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually, regardless of whether it is strange, the original statement is true. According to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that reviewed the district court's sentence, the district court did indeed find as a matter of fact that NAMBLA supported the orphanage. As the Court of Appeals summarized the district court's finding (emphasis added) [3]
"In justifying its upward departure, the district court noted: first, that the sentencing guidelines did not adequately take into account the volume of pornographic images; second, that the defendant had sexually molested children other than the victim that led to Tampico's first conviction; third, that Tampico had used the Big Brothers program to target children for sexual exploitation, and had therefore smudged the reputation of the Big Brothers program; fourth, that Tampico associated with NAMBLA, a group known to promote adult/child sexual relations, including the support of a foster home in Thailand for the sexual exploitation of children; and fifth, that the defendant's criminal history category was underrepresentative of the seriousness of his conduct and the likelihood of recidivism, as he failed to notify officials of his change of address when he moved to Texas."
Sounds to me here like the district court simply bought into the collected set of myths that the public "knows" about NAMBLA, most of which are easily refuted urban legends. The first example of this is to say that NAMBLA "promotes" adult/child sex, which is simply a rehash of the standard right wing nonsense of referring to any position to the left of center as "advocating and promoting" some allegedly questionable activity. NAMBLA has never suggested anyone have sex with anyone else. It advocates that penalties for harmful sexual activity not be out of line with penalties for comparable non-sexual harm, that all partners have their privacy respected, and provides a forum for people involved in marginalized sexual activity to tell their story in their own words. There is a big difference between saying that the way society treats a certain activity is wrong, and encouraging everyone to go out and engage in the activity. The fact that the court chooses to ignore this and call NAMBLA's activities "promoting," a semantic trick used by most of the organization's critics, means we should closely examine the court's other claims about NAMBLA.
The origin of the NAMBLA sex orphanage fable arose from a case in which an American businessman, at the behest of the US government, was arrested and imprisoned in Thailand for allegedly operating an international sex tour ring. This was accompanied by great fanfare and press stories about an alleged Thai orphanage with ties to NAMBLA which allegedly provided boys to sex tourists.
What most people don't remember, is that the men were ultimately cleared of all charges, and the story was shown to be little more than a bullshit exercise on the part of a bunch of self-styled "child advocacy" groups, and their fellow travelers within the USDOJ, assisted by a convicted child molester who had 40 years chopped off his sentence in return for concocting the child sex orphanage story, which ruined a popular street children's shelter in Thailand, as well as the lives of countless Thai and US citizens caught up in the witch hunt. Amnesty International had to intervene to get the men released, as the US and Thai governments were willing to lock them up forever rather than admit they had screwed up.
The principal in the case ultimately chronicled the story of the whole sordid mess in a book titled "The Poison River" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0964253399
In spite of this embarrassment, the self-styled anti-child-sex crusaders continue to trumpet the NAMBLA sex orphanage story, documented by press clippings of stories from before the fraud was exposed, and the story refuses to die, with apparently in this case, even a judge citing the nonsense in his ruling.
Merely because a judge says something in a ruling doesn't make it authoritative. Jesse Helms, who drove the NAMBLA/IGLA flap, was one of the big proponents of the great NAMBLA sex orphanage fable, and he's a senator. Doubtless there are judges who view themselves as champions of the same battle.
Given this unambiguous citation, I will restore the original content. 216.131.220.140 23:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Over the course of the next day, I will string together some sources that counter the district court's vague assertion of NAMBLA's activites. Hold yourself in NPOV readiness. Corax 00:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The court record said that Tampico filed over 40 objections to the Pre-Sentencing Report, which was the source of the allegations. nd that the court responded to each. However, none of Tampico's objections offered any evidence to disprove the PSR. So, thinking more carefully about it, it would not suprise me if the factual findings of the final sentence still contained some real b.s., even after a significantly fought out sentencing hearing.
We could move the back-and-forth to a separate section on Tampico. I'd also support scaling the summary back to your edit of the Tampico material, so we avoid repeating b.s. and then saying that it is b.s. . . . and so on . . . whaddya think? 216.131.220.140 21:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think your choice is very simple. You can choose to include the factual claim that the court stated that NAMBLA supported a Thai orphanage. If so, I will feel free to add more factual information, such as what has been posted above, except in greater detail. Or you can choose to leave it out, and I will abstain from writing about the make-believe NAMBLA orphanage story.
Quite frankly, the entire "Criminal cases" section is suspect, since the only "ties" that these illegal activites have to NAMBLA is that the people who perpetrated them were members. Every organization has members that violate the law, including the Republican Party and the Christian Coalition. The important question here is whether NAMBLA supports illegal activity. Both the Senate and US Postal Service have both found no evidence it does. Furthermore, court opinion you love to cite as the gospel -- if true -- would mean that the United States government could bring federal charges against the group (which would be possible because the proceedings would be criminal, not civil, and would be a federal case, not a State case). Yet this has not happened, even despite the FBI's obsession with pinning criminal charges on NAMBLA, leaving any reasonable person to assume it is bullshit. It's just more of the same nonsense that the sexually overwrought purveyors of superstition and bad science have parroted for years.
Devoting an entire section to Tampico in an article about NAMBLA is absurd. It would be tantamount to devoting an entire section of the article on the Sierra Club to an eco-terrorist. If you have such an obsession with him, just start an article on him and link to it from the NAMBLA article. As much as you fantasize about it, this article is not going to turn into your personal plaything to grind your ideological axe. (Unsigned, by User:Corax)
Wow. I suggested going back to your edit, so I’m kind of surprised that I got such a negative comment. Please, no personal attacks. You and I are in violent agreement about cutting the Tampico stuff back to your edit. I agree that adding more stuff wouldn’t be good. I was just trying to be polite: I didn’t want to come down hard on not adding more stuff because adding the material was your idea and you hadn’t added it (and you seemed pretty fired up about it too). . . anyway, I’ll revert back to your wording.
As for the criminal cases section being suspect, I don’t think it’s ax-grinding to say that these cases have been a very large part of the history and public perception of NAMBLA. I can’t imagine an objective book about the history of NAMBLA not having a large section on them. Nor a wikipedia article not covering them either. As for the use of legal sources, note that, upon your suggestion, I dug deeper and modified my opinion based on the facts of the case at hand.
To extend your analogy, the Sierra Club does not lobby to legalize blowing up SUVs. But if they did, and if a bunch of their members went to jail after blowing up SUVs, you can bet the public would see the connection (heck, I would, and I used to be a professional staff member of an environmental group). And after the public outcry, it would get written up in wikipedia. 216.131.220.140 17:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Minor Edits

I removed the sentence:

The city was rife with a rebellious spirit. Just a decade earlier, the street youth of nearby Greenwich Village had ignited the modern-day gay rights movement by rioting at the Stonewall Inn bar.

from the second paragraph under Trouble in Revere. The reason being that this sentence is part of a paragraph trying to establish that Boston was the home of radicalism in the 1970s. The Stonewall riots happened in Greenwich Village in New York, not Boston, which is only nearby in the sense of being on the same coast, and so actually works against the thesis of the paragraph, that Boston was a radical centre for the sexual revolution and hence the foundation of NAMBLA there would make sense. The sentence I removed could argue the opposite, that it was peculiar that NAMBLA was formed in Boston given the greater importance of the leadership of New York to the radical spirit of the times.

Unless the whole direction of the article at this point were to be re-thought, it makes sense to remove this, or re-work it in such a way as to mention that the Stonewall Riots in New York had energised radical gay protest in America's large coastal cities making these ripe times for movements like NAMBLA pushing the envelope of sexual freedom, which I suspect was the reason why it was added in the first place - to emphasise the importance of Stonewall to the spirit of the times. I added a sentence to the previous paragraph to emphasise this point, as that paragraph addresses the radicalism of the times, and the new public militancy of the gay rights movement is pertinent to that.

Not to mention, the original form of the sentence emphasises the youth of the Stonewall protestors. While I see the point to the general thrust of this article, I do not believe historical reality deserves that emphasis or justifies its narrative use, so I did not preserve it.

--Steve D 15:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you think that the gay youth of Greenwich Village don't deserve special mention, then you clearly have not done your homework. David Carter's recent book "Stonewall: the Riots the Sparked the Gay Revolution" gives a well-documented and compelling argument that without the youth of Greenwich Village, including many teenagers, the riots would never have happened. The common belief that "queens" and others were largely responsible for the riots is fiction produced for political reasons.
In the context of this article, this point is extremely important, for it underscores the hypocrisy of a political movement that eventually came to disavow the sexual rights of the very people who helped to kickstart it in the first place. Many people do not understand that the name "NAMBLA" was not intended to refer to five-year-olds having sex with grandfathers. Rather, it alluded to relationships that gay teenagers commonly had (and still do have) with older partners. Any cursory examination of NAMBLA's early literature and the writings of its founding members at the time demonstrates this beyond any doubt. The idea that NAMBLA is a front for clinical pedophiles who want to ravage prepubescent children is a pure invention. Eliminating the fact that the youth precipitated Stonewall discards an important point: that NAMBLA has remained closer to the ideals of "gay liberation" while other groups have unsuccesfully tried to mainstream, in the process compromising their principles. Corax 22:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unfair gay associations

It is true that NAMBLA members are interested in homosexual activity, but this does not in any way mean that the rest of the gay community outside NAMBLA's small membership share any of the views of this organization.

This article comes far to close to using the words 'gay', 'pedophile' and 'NAMBLA member' interchangably. I feel it requires a serious rewrite. As a friend of quite a few GLBT people, i find this association not only entirely inaccurate, but offensive. I may attempt to rewrite the article without these associations, however i feel someone with a better understanding of NAMBLA would do a better job.

I do not feel my lack of knowledge about NAMBLA has anything to do with the legitimacy of my complaint. The suggestive tone of this article goes well beyond simply stating the sexual orientation of the members of the organization. It associates the hundreds of millions of GLBT people on this planet with something that they may find equaly if not more repulsive than any strait person may.

If you wish to edit an article on Wikipedia, there had better be a good reason why you choose to do so apart from vague "feelings" about discomfort from associations that you perceive to exist in the text.
A good reason to edit an article would be that the article contains factual inaccuracies. If this is the case with the NAMBLA article, feel free to edit the incorrect information. If there is no incorrect information, perhaps you should reconsider your calls for rewriting the article, as they would then have to be nothing more than an inability to cope with reality.
The article is written in a way that leaves no doubt that "gay" and "pederast" and "pedophile" are not interchangeable. The fact that these terms are used at all should clue you in that these categories of people are not being jumbled together incoherently under one label. Since NAMBLA was a splinter group from an ad hoc gay civil rights committee in Boston, it only makes since that there is considerable overlap in views (not ALL of them) and members (Harry Hay, David Thorstad, etc.). Again, if this makes you uncomfortable, then I daresay that you need to learn to cope instead of trying to edit away verifiable information.
Lack of knowledge about NAMBLA is certainly pertinent to the value of your input on the article. This article is neutral and does not assert one normative position over it another. It is a fair historical account of various political movements, what they have tried to accomplish, and how their relationships with one another have evolved over time. You have no knowledge about this aside from your mantra that "gays aren't child molestors." Because this article is not about that, you have nothing to add to it.
The Catholic church took five hundred years to apologize for the agenda-driven priests and zealots making uninformed criticisms of Galileo's advanced understanding of science. How long will it take you to stop beating your little drum and face the facts? Corax 05:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


NAMBLA's "Real Interest"

I've been following this article for quite some time, and it never ceases to amaze how many people think they are somehow ordained to speak about what NAMBLA's real interests are, as if they are somehow high-ranking members.

In order to determine what NAMBLA's "real interest" or "sole interest" is, one need look no further than their website, which clearly states that NAMBLA's "interest" or "purpose" is "to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships" by building understanding, educating the public, cooperating with other advocacy groups, and fighting ageism. Again, this lifted directly off the web site and is independently verifiable. Notice how the organization's purpose exceeds simply changing laws. It encompasses educating and fostering less hostile attitudes toward age-discrepant sexual relationships.

This is not to mean that there aren't critics who believe that the educational aspects of the organization are just a bunch of hogwash designed to make the organization seem more credible, and that the organization is nothing more than a front for perverts who want to legalize sex with prepubescent children. Clearly, this is the opinion of the poster from 66.157.146.187. Because it is a common opinion, I believe it deserves inclusion in the first paragraph, represented accurately as being an opinion, not a statement of fact. However, until evidence surfaces that indicates NAMBLA is lying about its publicly espoused and available purpose, any theories in contradiction are pure speculation. It would be just as honest to claim that the right of a woman to have an abortion is the democratic party's sole raison d'etre.

Simply stating one portion of the organization's purpose (by claiming that "the sole purpose of the organization includes..."), while not mentioning other planks in the organizatoin's platform is at best sloppy, or at worst, indicative of the kind of agenda-driven editing that has no place on Wikipedia.

A recent edit

I removed 'FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY!' from the reference to the NAMBLA home page. This is not NPOV as it would only be said by someone who wanted to make it clear that they (or WIKIPEDIA) were against NAMBLA.

                                         ---Hjs 3/17/05

Police Brutality.

I've removed the paragraph:

To committee members who had an exclusive attraction to teenage males, the Revere incident was a reminder of their vulnerability within the larger gay community. The Boston police also recognized this and routinely used age of consent laws to harass them. Their gays teenage lovers (the sorts of young people that protested at Stonewall) would disappear in police custody. Then days later, they would reappear battered and bruised, having had the names of older sexual partners coerced out of them.

There is no evidence to support these allegations ever happened and is trying to paint the NAMBLA as victims of the police.

Tendentious Material?

To the gay rights activist known as Adam Carr:

I noticed in your recent edits that you have a horrible penchant for editing away verfiably accurate information with imaginary claims cooked up in your activist mind. But you should be reminded that good advocacy never consists of lying.

NAMBLA has never been an organization for "male homosexual paedophiles." It has never defined itself as such. The self-defined purpose and nature of the group is available for everyone to view. Furthermore, its membership has often included individuals who do not have a sexual attraction exclusively toward prepubescent children (which is the definition of a pedophile).

Strangely, the factual information surrounding Byrne's prosecution of the twenty-four GAY men was stricken from the article, yet none of the highly suspect yellow journalism included in the "criminal allegations" section was touched.

Could it be that your entire purpose for editing the article was not to improve its quality by incorporating additional factual information, but instead was to misrepresent NAMBLA in an all-too-ironic demonstration of the modern gay rights movement's decision to "distance [itself] from anything even remotely related to youth sexuality"?

Be honest, here.

  • My agenda was to remove the tendentious pro-NAMBLA editoralising from the article. Beyond that I don't intend being drawn into polemical arguments with anonymous editors, or indeed with anyone.
  • I agree with you that the strict definition of "paedophile" is a person attracted to pre-pubescent children, and that not all NAMBLA people met this definition, since some were interested in having sex with adolescents rather than children. I think the standard term for this is ephebophile, so I will change the opening sentence accordingly.
  • I removed the detailed account of the Boston trials because it was hopelessly polemical and not really to the point.
  • I have no detailed knowledge of the cases in the "criminal allegations" section, so I left it alone. If you know this section to be inaccurate, you are free to edit or delete it.

Adam 07:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Adam Carr is my real name by the way - what's yours?)

If you don't feel you can support and consequently fail to support the reasoning for your edits, your edits will not remain. It's that simple.

Second, do you have proof that NAMBLA has any qualification to join besides a belief in its principles? If not, how can you classify it as an organization for any one group of people? As far as I am aware, the definition of one's sexual orientation has no direct relationship to his political opinions on youth rights or age-of-consent laws. Do you have information that all the members of NAMBLA have been sexually attracted toward males between certain ages? If you don't have proof, you have no grounds for inserting this line in the article since it would be POV.

The detailed account on the Boston trials was very much to the point, but unfortunately not exactly to your liking. I was under the impression that information could be removed from a Wiki article only if it was false or irrelevant. All the information you removed was totally pertinent to NAMBLA, and all of it was similarly accurate. What other reason could you possibly have for removing it?

You have no detailed knowledge on anything in this article besides the fact that you dislike what it says to the point that you're now bent on distorting it for what are obviously political purposes.

If you cannot answer any of my above questions, I will expect you not to edit the article.

Sincere, non-anonymous Corax 08:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • The text says "and their sympathisers".
  • I disagree.
  • I won't respond to rhetorical flourishes.

Adam 08:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your version of the article is tantamount to calling the National Rifle Association in the USA a group of "gun-toting murderers and their sympathizers." You have no idea what the sexual orientation is of the members of NAMBLA anymore than you know about the history of NAMBLA. Nor do you know of the sympathies of the members besides the fact that it lies with responsible young people who want to decide to enter into sexual relationships with whomever they choose without the government prosecuting their lovers.

You do disagree. But luckily for me, you disagree with reality as well.

Corax 08:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The statement that "the NRA is an organisation of gun-owners and their sympathisers" is perfectly accurate. I have not made any pejorative characterisation of pedophiles or ephebophiles. I have merely said that NAMBLA is an organisation formed by them and consisting of them and their sympathisers, which is a factual statement. Who else would it consist of (apart from FBI agents)? Adam 08:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It consists of individuals who pay more than just lip service to the idea that some young people have the capability to decide for themselves with whom they wish to share their body.

Contrary to your representations, NAMBLA has never championed the rights of adults and has always championed the rights of young people. The primary way this is done is through supporting the repeal of the age-of-consent laws. They stipulate an arbitrary age below which a person is deemed utterly sexually incompetent and above which a person is suddenly endowed with the wisdom of an enlightened adult. Corax 08:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That, I'm afraid, is just a lot of lying NAMBLA propaganda. If you want to argue for your right to fuck children then do so openly - don't insult my intelligence with this kind of garbage. Adam 08:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You claim that my response was lying propaganda, then you refuse to demonstrate how it is a lie. Which part of my phrase is the lie? That people have joined NAMBLA who weren't sexually attracted to minors? That age-of-consent laws are so overly broad and arbitrary that they often rubber-stamp otherwise healthy and consensual relationships in which young people are engaged? Or is it that NAMBLA's purpose is different from what its web page states it is?

It seems you are the one who is high on "rhetorical flourish" and short of substance.

And just as a reminder, in case you are failing to pay close enough attention, this discussion has nothing to do with either your or my sexual predilections. Corax 08:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah right. Adam 09:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Working on attributing the claims in this article

Hi Adam, I was reading through this talk page and it seems that your argument is "NAMBLA is an organisation formed by them and consisting of them and their sympathisers, which is a factual statement. Who else would it consist of (apart from FBI agents)?". Do you have a source for this?

Similarly, to Corax, your argument is "its membership has often included individuals who do not have a sexual attraction exclusively toward prepubescent children", and "[it] consists of individuals who pay more than just lip service to the idea that some young people have the capability to decide for themselves with whom they wish to share their body". What are your sources for this membership information? silsor 20:25, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Let me express my gratitude for your willingness to tackle this touchy subject. You've really only mentioned one of the many reasons why Adam's edits were unacceptable. Not only did he interject speculation and inaccuracies, he also removed perfectly factual and easily verifiable information that was pertinent to the topic simply because he was uncomfortable with how he felt about it (ostensibly, since he can give no other justifiable reason).

Has NAMBLA ever had members who were not pedophiles or pedophile-sympathizers? Of course they have. As the original article stated, Gore Vidal was a long-time supporter of the group. And he is in no way on record as sympathizing with pedophiles or child molesters or any other such subsection of the population. The original membership of NAMBLA included boys themselves. Bill Andriette was 15 when he joined NAMBLA, and Harold Baker was 14. One is now an editor for the mainstream gay magazine "The Guide" and the other is a married man with children of his own. Their reasons for joining the group were not to facilitate men sodomizing babies, but because they understood that current laws were overly repressive. They believed that mature young people who were competent and willing to enter into consensual relationships were prohibited from doing so by the government. Thus they joined NAMBLA.

All of this sidesteps the real argument, anyway, which is not whether I have evidence to disprove what Adam is saying. In order for Adam to insert such information into the NAMBLA article and represent it as undisputed fact, he had better have comprehensive sources of his own. Otherwise, he would be wise to prefix his remark with the weasal-worded "Some people say..."

Could you just imagine what wiki articles would be like if people were allowed to include any claims they wanted unless another party could disprove those statements?

Corax 20:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When this article is unprotected I will return it to the version as edited by me. I don't claim my version is perfect, but it is better than a load of dishonent, self-serving NAMBLA propaganda. Adam 00:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean you won't answer my question? silsor 00:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
You can interpret that as a yes. Corax 03:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A way forward?

Can I suggest a possible way forward here?

It seems to me that in the past year or so a lot of information has been added to this article that is extremely helpful. It has helped to show (on the basis of verifiable information) that NAMBLA is not just a criminal organisation, but has some important ideas to offer, ideas that need serious consideration at the very least.

On the other hand, there is something not quite right about the style in which a lot of this material is written. It's too much "from the barricades", so to speak--fine in a polemical piece with a certain stance, but not suitable for an encyclopedia entry. Consider as an example:

"The gay community surprised Byrne by fighting back. Staff members of the newspaper the Fag Rag sensed that the bust was politically motivated. They believed that Byrne repeatedly used the strategy of exposing sensational "vice rings" in order to garner publicity before elections. On December 9, they organized the Boston-Boise Committee, a name chosen to reference a similar reign of hysteria that gripped Boise, Idaho in the 1950s. The committee served its purpose: Byrne's exaggerations were largely dispelled, and all but three of the accused were acquitted. But more importantly, it was this committee that led to the formation of NAMBLA."

I believe that every factual statement made here is probably true and can be sourced. But it is not written in a neutral way. Here is a more neutral version:

"Organised gay opposition to Byrne started to emerge. It was suspected that Byrne’s actions were politically motivated. (Wasn't he always exposing sensational "vice rings" just before elections?)On December 9, a group of gay activists organised the Boston-Boise Committee. (The name was intended to refer to a similar situation in Boise, Idaho in the 1950s.) The pressure brought to bear by the committee led to all but three of the accused being acquitted. But more importantly for the purposes of this article, it was this committee that led to the formation of NAMBLA."

To Adam Carr and his supporters I'd say this: Insofar as your objections are a response to the biased STYLE of much of the writing I think they are valid and could perhaps be met by revisions along the lines suggested above.

To Corax and his supporters I'd say: your information looks fine to me--it is, as far as I can see, verifiable and accurate. But some of it needs to be rewritten in a style that will hopefully make it more acceptable to a wider range of people and may perhaps do something to prevent large-scale attacks on your valuable work.

Would fellow-editors be favourable to the idea of me attempting similar edits like the one above with a view to achieving a version that might at long last put an end to the unproductive edit wars waged over this article?

  • I didn't say NAMBLA was a criminal organisation. So far as I know it has never been prosecuted as an organisation, as presumably it would have been if the FBI believed that it had committed or facilitated illegal acts. What I said was that it is (or was) an organisation of pedophiles, ephebophiles and their sympathisers, which seems so self-evidently true that I can't see why anyone would bother denying it. Who else would join such as organisation?
  • All this detailed stuff about what happened in Boston in 1977 is irrelevant to the topic of the article. All that needs to be said is that the organisation was formed against the background of those events, not the polemical and one-sided account currently given. Its purpose is to create a spurious link between the objectives of the gay rights movement and NAMBLA's objectives, a link which is rejected by virtually everyone in the gay activist community.
  • More generally, the whole tenor of this article, and of Corax's comments above, is to suggest that NAMBLA's agenda is or was "youth liberation," rather than the desire of adult men to have sex with children or adolescents. This is self-serving and dishonest. It's OK to say that NAMBLA claims this, but it cannot be asserted as a matter of fact, because it is hotly disputed. Adam 05:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) (PS please sign your edits)

You are demonstrating either that you haven't read the current version of the article carefully enough to understand it or that you have no interest in presenting an honest and comprehensive history of the group, which absolutely has relevance to the article.

"All this detailed stuff that happened in Boston in 1977" is important in that they were the immediate driving forces behind the creation of NAMBLA. If the events that led to NAMBLA's creation aren't pertinent to an article about NAMBLA, what is, pray tell?

The tenor of the article may need to be adjusted. I never on this page or anywhere else stated that rewording or rephrasing was out of the question. Rather, I protested in the strongest possible terms your manipulation of the content.

I disproved your statement that the group is comprised solely of pedophiles and their sympathizers by listing two teenage boys who were in the group -- as advocates for their own sexual rights, not the rights of these adults you seemed to dream up in your feverish imagination.

Additionally, you seem to THINK that NAMBLA is an organization that wants to fight for an age-of-consent of zero (which is nowhere to be found in the group's positions statements), that everybody has the ability to provide meaningful consent to sex, including infant girls or whoever else respirates. In fact, NAMBLA states no such thing. Its real position is that age is a poor determining factor of when a person can give meaningful consent to sex, especially in the teenage years, and that age-of-consent laws are often so high and broad as to be unnecessarily oppressive.

Your belief that something is true does not make it so. Just because you think NAMBLA champions a certain thing for a certain reason does not mean that such is the case. NAMBLA's positions are spelled out and elaborated at length on their web site, and this article reproduces those positions honestly -- verbatim in many places, in fact. Conspicuously absent from any of NAMBLA's papers is anything even remotely alluding to the right of an adult to have sex with anybody.

You are the person who is attempting to obliterate the true positions of the group from the page, yet you keep repeating over and over again that the page is dishonest. I must ask you once and for all -- which parts of the article are dishonest? Can you cite exact passages and show all of us how they are dishonest?

If you can, we can beging to make some meaningful headway and begin to improve the article, rather than to wreck it out of personal vendetta and prejudice. Corax 07:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looking again

As far as I can see from their latest comments both Adam Carr and Corax are interested in avoiding an excessively polemical style. So could I ask you both to focus on my example rewrite under "A way forward?" and see if you could approve of it and if not say why not?

                                                    --User Hjs

I agree that your version of the paragraph is an improvement on the present one.

Organised gay opposition to Byrne started to emerge. It was suspected that Byrne’s actions were politically motivated. (Wasn't he always exposing sensational "vice rings" just before elections?) On December 9, a group of gay activists organised the Boston-Boise Committee. (The name was intended to refer to a similar situation in Boise, Idaho in the 1950s.) The pressure brought to bear by the committee led to all but three of the accused being acquitted. But more importantly for the purposes of this article, it was this committee that led to the formation of NAMBLA.

But it still contains a several tendentious statements. The second sentence begs the question, suspected by whom? Why is a prosecution of men suspected of sexually abusing children "politically motivated"? The third sentence is a rhetorical question. What is the answer? I don't know, but in any case how is it relevant? The assertion that "The pressure brought to bear by the committee led to all but three of the accused being acquitted" suggests that an activist committee somehow influenced the judicial process. Who says it did? By what method? None of these matters are directly relevant to the topic of the article. What needs to be said is this:

NAMBLA was founded in December 1978 in Boston following police raids on a house in the Boston suburb of Revere, in which 24 men were arrested and indicted on over 100 felony counts of sex with boys aged eight to thirteen. All but three of the accused were acquitted. Some members of the committee set up to protest against these prosecutions, led by Tom Reeves, convened a meeting called "Man/Boy Love and the Age of Consent." Roughly 150 people attended, and about 30 decided to form an organization, the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)."

That paragraph is factual and sticks to the point. It notes that most of the men were acquitted, and that NAMBLA was founded as a result of this incident. That is the only relevant point.

Adam 09:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nextly, Corax denies that NAMBLA seeks the complete abolition of age-of-consent laws. He might like to comment on this:

A quote from NAMBLA's Official Position Papers, Oct. 12, 1996. "NAMBLA'S first position was adopted at its third General Membership Meeting in June, 1980. It focused on the hated "statutory rape" laws which confuse rape and violence with consensual sex. "Statutory rape" laws vilify, persecute, and arrest the development of the love which men have for boys and which boys have for men. These laws are used in a discriminatory way to give long prison sentences to boy lovers and hinder the development of the gentleness, wisdom, and creative contribution of boy lovers as a minority group. The resolution proposed by Tom Reeves states: (1) The North American Man/Boy Love Association calls for the abolition of age-of-consent and all other laws which prevent men and boys from freely enjoying their bodies. (2) We call for the release of all men and boys imprisoned by such laws." (located here, my emphasis).

When the article is unprotected I will be incorporating that sentence in it. Adam 09:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will also be incorporating material from here (I think Corax and co may come to regret provoking me into taking a greater interest in this subject). Adam 10:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This should also be incorporated:

"GLAAD Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA
January 16, 1994
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation deplores North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD.
GLAAD also supports the statements issued by other gay and lesbian organizations supporting the International Lesbian and Gay Association's (ILGA) call for NAMBLA's immediate removal from the international association.
GLAAD concurs with the 1990 ILGA resolution based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states, "Major power imbalances create the potential for child abuse. ILGA condemns the exploitive use of power differences to coerce others into sexual relationships. All children have the right to protection from sexual exploitation and abuse."
Although statistics indicate that the vast majority of sexual abuse against children is perpetrated by heterosexual men, it is imperative that child abuse, in all forms, be condemned by gay men and lesbians."

As should this:

NGLTF BOARD POSITION ON NAMBLA
Washington, D.C. -- (May 26, 1994) -- The Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted the following resolution regarding the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) at its quarterly meeting in Seattle, Washington, May 20 - 22, 1994:
"NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization.
"NGLTF specifically notes that numerous studies have shown that the vast majority of child molestation is committed by heterosexual men, usually with members of their own family."

Adam 12:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The GLAAD and NGTLF positions on NAMBLA would be more credible if they correctly stated NAMBLA's goals before condemning it. NAMBLA condemns all forms of child abuse, and opposes only the arbitrary criminalization of otherwise positive relationships based solely on the rubber stamp of age. Given that elimination of age of consent laws was a major point of every gay rights platform in the 1970's, before the right wing successfully smeared the gay movement on the issue, one should take the anti-NAMBLA press releases of these organizations in their correct political context, which is that the organizations are jumping through hoops and trying to successfully pass litmus tests in order to reduce the heat on them over the child sex issue.

I think the article covers this issue sufficiently well when it states that the mainstream gay movement has abandoned NAMBLA and any association with the issue of youth sexual rights. A detailed blow by blow description of all the names the mainstream gay movement now calls NAMBLA is completely irrelevant in a factual account of NAMBLA's founding and history.

Hermitian

I could live with Adam's latest version of that particular paragraph.Hjs 09:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: I can live with Adam's version of the paragraph about the Boston raids and the founding of NAMBLA.Hjs 09:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To the activist known as Adam: Nowhere did I state that NAMBLA does not support the abolition of age-of-consent laws. I stated that NAMBLA did not support an age-of-consent of zero. There is a big, big difference, one that you should spend some time considering. Corax 17:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me be the one to ask the stupid question. If there is no age-of-consent law, then an adult-child relationship would not be punishable, that is, it would be legal. So how would that be different from an age-of-consent law of age zero? 148.87.1.171 20:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Changes to the paragraph under discussion were proposed so that it would read:

Organised gay opposition to Byrne started to emerge. It was suspected that Byrne’s actions were politically motivated. (Wasn't he always exposing sensational "vice rings" just before elections?) On December 9, a group of gay activists organised the Boston-Boise Committee. (The name was intended to refer to a similar situation in Boise, Idaho in the 1950s.) The pressure brought to bear by the committee led to all but three of the accused being acquitted. But more importantly for the purposes of this article, it was this committee that led to the formation of NAMBLA.

Adam protested on grounds that this was still misleading because:

1) It makes no mention of who suspects that Byrne's actions were politically motivated. The truth is that the original version of the article is quite clear. The members of Boston's gay community suspected that it was politically motivated. In particular, workers for the Fag Rag believed it was politically motivated. This is not tendentious -- it is the reason they protested the handling of the case.

The prosecution of men can be politically motivated for district attorneys if the district attorney, preparing to seek re-election, uses bloated staff to trump and exaggerate the most lurid kinds of charges in order to gain publicity -- which, oddly enough, Byrne had done on a number of occasions before. I would have added these examples to the article, but figured it was going too in-depth.

2) Adam believes that crediting the acquittal of the 21 of the 24 men is unrelated to the Fag Rag's activities. He is correct in noting that there was no direct relationship. What should be said instead is that the pressure of the gay community led to the DA's office dropping charges in some cases, and disconnecting the notorious "hot line" by which anybody could submit names to the DA as suspected child molesters (this achievement was accomplished by the gay community through direct court action).

Additionally, Adam, who seems to think that the history of NAMBLA is not relevant to an article on NAMBLA, now sems desire to turn the NAMBLA article into a clearinghouse on detailed statements mainstream gay groups have made in regards to the group. It is already clearly stated that the modern gay rights groups have "distanced themselves from anything even remotely related to youth sexuality" and that they have condemned and abandoned NAMBLA. It is stated in the beginning that NAMBLA's detractors, which obviously includes the gay rights groups which ostracized NAMBLA, claim the group is a den of child molesters who want to sodomize babies. While we're at it, why don't we just ask random Wiki users what their opinions are on NAMBLA, and list them on the page also?

Inserting a disproportionately large section about the opinions of other gay rights groups in to the article is unnecessary and inimical to the purpose of the article. I will fight it at every attempt. Corax 17:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of protection

I was surprised to see that this article is now unprotected again. It didn't seem to me as if all the disputes about it had been resolved.Hjs 11:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The protection message is a little misleading, pages can be protected just until an admin figures they can be unprotected without problems, not just until every issue is beaten to death on talk. No problems so far. silsor 16:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I see--ThanksHjs 06:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason there have been "no problems so far" is that Silsor banned me under the 3R rule all of yesterday and today (despite himself being a participant in the debate). But now I am back, and this article will soon be rewritten. Adam 09:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another version

Try this:

"NAMBLA was founded in December 1978 in Boston following police raids on a house in the Boston suburb of Revere, in which 24 men were arrested and indicted on over 100 felony counts of sex with boys aged eight to thirteen. A committee was set up to protest against these allegations, and as a result of pressure from this committee and from other sympathetic elements of the gay community, all but three of the accused were acquitted. Subsequently,Tom Reeves convened a meeting called "Man/Boy Love and the Age of Consent." Roughly 150 people attended, and about 30 decided to form an organization, the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)."

---from hjs

The statement that men accused of serious crimes were acquitted "as a result of pressure from this committee" is still an assertion and a highly improbable one. Even if this article was about the Revere case, the statement would need to be supported by evidence, but since it is not, the statement should be deleted. The only relevant point is that NAMBLA grew out of the agitation around that case. Adam 09:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have once again rewritten the article and added more material and references. If Corax reverts this version or rewrites it back into NAMBLA apologetics, I will refer the matter to arbitration. Adam 13:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will always be a firm believer that the addition of information is not harmful, as long as that information it is kept in proportion to other relevant aspects of the object under investigation. My purpose was never to preserve the status quo of my article down to the last punctuation mark. Thus I will actively be assisting you in your rewrite of the article.

Currently, half of the article consists either of other gay rights groups calling NAMBLA various names, and of police reports of what various people supposedly tied to NAMBLA have done illegally -- while only a couple of paragraphs are devoted to the history of the group. I will be working on this to fix the balance of the article so that it does not tilt too far in the direction of taking a POV position by focus.

I've already worked on organizing the article, eliminated redundancies, revised unnecessary POV language. Additionally, I will be reincorporating some of the pertinent information which you removed -- this time with language that will be unarguably neutral. If you try to force the issue, this will go to arbitration -- this time with the original version of the article that I supported at the beginning of the week.

Corax 16:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I accept Silsor's and Mikkalai's edits. I reject all of Corax's edits, which are no more than further dishonest and self-serving attempts to whitewash NAMBLA and to reintroduce the tendentious phraseology which I removed. I am therefore submitting this article to arbitration. In the meantime I have restored my version. Adam 00:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A general comment: Corax complains that there is much more material dealing with criticism of and attacks on NAMBLA than there is positive material. This is true, and I would argue that it is also appropriate. Most of what NAMBLA does is, if not actually secret, certainly not done in public or on the record, so it cannot be reported here. If Corax has access to such information (as opposed to rhetoric), he should add it to the article. Meanwhile, most of what is on the public record about NAMBLA is concerned with the criminal prosecutions and civil suits launched against its members, and with the repeated allegations that NAMBLA facilitates or legitimises the sexual exploitation of children. These matters must be fully discussed in any worthwhile article about NAMBLA. Adam 02:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't Adam's last comment ignore the large body of published literature produced by NAMBLA over the years giving the group's point of view, often backed up by scientific evidence?Hjs 04:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is not the same as information on what the group actually does. We already have a selection of NAMBLA's views. Possibly we could have more, although this is not an article about pedophilia or ephebophilia per se. But Corax was complaining that there is not enough about NAMBLA's history. My response to that is that no such information exists, since NAMBLA seldom discloses its activities. Adam 06:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why Adam's Version is Propaganda and Why I've Altered It

  • The claim at the beginning of Adam's version that "The group argues that children or adolescents can give meaningful consent to sexual relations, and that sex between adults and children or adolescents can be healthy and liberating for both partners." is redundant. Two paragraphs down it is repeated in the section which states: "NAMBLA's concrete political objective is the repeal of age of consent laws. In 1980 a NAMBLA general meeting passed a resolution, proposed by Tom Reeves." Furthermore, the claim that the group argues that "children or adolescents can give meaningful consent" is inaccurate. It claims that SOME adolescents and children can give meaningful consent -- and that age is a poor predictor of when consent can be given. Thus their call for a repeal of age-of-consent laws.
  • The second paragraph which explains a critical view of NAMBLA is far too comprehensive to be in an opening summary paragraph. The original version of this article, wrongly touted as the wrong version when it was protected, did a wonderful job of giving both sides of the argument without going too in-depth. I moved the large paragraph to an appropriate subsection titled "Critics" -- which, by the way, repeated almost all the information contained in the opening paragraph.
  • Similarly, the section on NAMBLA's purposes is also far too in-depth for an intro section. In the "wrong version" that was protected, this was under the subheading "Purpose." Apart from a summary explanation, this is where the paragraph belongs now.
  • Adam insists on calling gay groups that favored abolishing the age-of-consent laws "radical." This is unadulterated POV and has no place in the article.
  • Lastly, there is a major POV problem with the following paragraph: NAMBLA supporters counter these statements by saying that they misrepresent NAMBLA's views. They contend that NAMBLA opposes only the "arbitrary criminalization of otherwise positive relationships based solely on the rubber stamp of age." This assetion, however, contradicts the NAMBLA policy adopted in 1980, which calls for the abolition of all age-of-consent laws without qualification.

This assertion contradicts the policy nambla adopted? Does it really? According to what besides Adam's POV? NAMBLA fights that 'arbitrary' criminalization of otherwise positive relationships by insisting on keeping rape and assault laws on the books for ALL relationships, while removing age-based laws as a deciding factor in who can have sex with whom.

There is nothing contradictory about that, and saying there is openly in the article is about as POV as I can stomach.

Before Adam does any reverts, I highly suggest he comment on this discussion page to avoid another war. Corax 16:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't propose dignifying Corax's pedophile apologetics with further debate. Nor however do I want to get banned again since am working on other projects. I have submitted the matter to "requests for comments" and I will let someone else take over the tiresome task of reverting Corax's dishonest and self-serving rubbish. Adam 17:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You will not be permitted to spin anything that doesn't align with your highly subjective interpretation of the group as being "pedophile propaganda." The fact that you choose to call names instead of debate the issues speaks volumes about your credibility on this issue. Thank you for not wasting anymore of my or wikipedia's time. Corax 18:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The term was actually "pedophile apologetics," and it was a reference to you, not the group. They do it, you apologise for it. Adam 01:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would ask you where in our discussion or in the article I have made any defense of adult-minor sex. But judging from the history of our interactions, you'd simply ignore the question and call me more names like "pedophile" (as you did so obnoxiously on the RFC page).

The argument we've had is not about whether child sex is good or healthy; it has been about whether or not you should be allowed to turn the NAMBLA article into a misrepresentation of the group's objectives. My position has been consistent: the article should not be a repository for your personal feelings on NAMBLA, disguised with weasal-worded attributions to "some people" and "critics"; you should not be allowed to justify your removal of verifiable and pertinent information from the article by claiming it is "pedophile apologistics" and "pedophile propaganda" written by "NAMBLA advocates"; you should not be permitted to squelch any opposition to your editing by painting people who disagree with you as child molesters or child-molester-apologists.

The fact is that NAMBLA formed as a response to anti-gay harassment campaigns launched in the 1970s. Some gays immediately distanced themselves from NAMBLA, but many mainstream gays also stood in solidarity with NAMBLA because they perceived attacks on the group as veiled attacks on the entire gay community. This may make you so uncomfortable that you feel compelled to rewrite history (in a way that would make Oscar Wilde blush). But that's your problem, and not a sufficient reason to make the wikipedia community suffer the censorship of valuable and insightful information on the history of the gay movement.

You've chosen to twist my objections to your agenda-driven edits into some sort of expression of my sexual interests. Clearly, you either have some mental issues you're working out, or your ethical standards are so low that you resort to name-calling and character assassination as a substitute for defending your edits with reasoned debate. Do us all a favor and refrain from making wikipedia's articles pay the price for your self-indulgence, mean-spiritedness, and denial of history. See a shrink or something. Corax 09:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Samboy

Thank you for initiating yourself into the highly Quixotic "Campaign To Save Children By Manipulating the Content of the Wikipedia NAMBLA article." [Personal attack removed]

First, NAMBLA does not argue that age-of-consent laws prohibit relationships that are ALWAYS beneficial, or that that age-of-consent laws NEVER protect children, only that they are so overly broad that they sometimes criminalize otherwise harmless relationships.

Second, the purpose of an introduction is to provide an overview of the main points of an article. In this context, your insistence on inserting a lengthy paragraph about common criticisms of NAMBLA is grossly out of place, not only because it is far too detailed for an intro but also because the information contained therein is later repeated in the body. [Personal attack removed]

Thanks. Corax 10:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have removed some personal attacks in the above. Basically, NAMBLA is not a popular organization, and the introduction needs to reflect this to some degree. Samboy 11:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Current status

I have taken the article back to my last edit, since I don't think anything that has happened since then is of any merit. As I said above, if Corax wants to add more factual material about the history and activities of NAMBLA, he should do so. For example - who is its current leadership? Does it hold conferences? Does it publish anything besides its website? What political activities has it conducted recently? If NAMBLA was a bona fide activist group, rather than just a network for pedos to swap tips on picking up boys and staying out of jail (as I suspect), there would be answers to these questions. So let's have them. I will continue to oppose the inclusion of all this tosh about the Revere case, Anita Bryant etc, which is both irrelevant and tendentious.

On the Thorstads - does Corax have personal knowledge that David and Daniel are two different people? If he doesn't I think I am correct in assuming they are not, since the coincidence seems too great. "Daniel" gets no Google hits outside the Curley case and I suspect he is either (a) a clerical error in those documents or (b) David's real name, Daniel being a nom de pedo (or possibly vice versa). Adam 14:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dumb new editors

The RfC has brought in some new editors, like myself. Corax, please explain what your exact problems are with the version by Adam Carr. Thanks, -Willmcw 18:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Reasoning

  • My version uses more concise language. For example, "which advocates the abolition of laws against sex between adults and children or adolescents (specifically boys)" is more concisely stated as "which advocates the abolition of age of consent laws."
  • My version uses the introductory paragraphs as an introduction. The lengthy paragraph about what critics think about NAMBLA needs to be in the body of the article under "critics." A brief mention of a common view of critics is acceptable in the introduction, and my version includes just that.
  • My version includes a more detailed history. NAMBLA was founded as a splinter group of the Boston-Boise Committee, which itself was founded as a civil rights group in response to a perceived anti-gay witchhunt. THis is perfectly factual and belongs in the article, yet some participants think this and other portions of the history make them too uncomfortable to allow.
  • My version has better organization. It places the condemnatory statements of modern gay rights gruops under the "isolation" section of the history portion. It places criticisms under criticisms, and clarifies the response to these criticms.

All in all, it is just a superior version. It is far more informative and neutral. Corax 18:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your editing. It helps those of us who are new to the article.
  • I agree that the sentence you mention is not as concise as your alternative, nor is it as accurate. Am I correct in thinking that NAMBLA does not limit itself to adolescent boys, but would like to have the opportunity for sex with boys of all ages?
  • It is better to include major criticism promptly, and not wait until a "criticism" section at the end. The summary of criticism needn't be in the first sentence, but it should be at least mentioned in the first paragraph, and summarized as part of the intro.
  • The detailed history is nice, but it should be objective. The version you wrote imputes emotions and thoughts to participants which I do not see in the source materials. The dry facts are sufficient. The Boston-Boise Committee may be worth spinning off into its own article.
  • Again, it is preferred to spread the criticism in the appropriate places in the article, rather than in a lump at the end.
  • Also, a question about the logo - it is not in use on the current NAMBLA website. Is there a reason for that? have they dropped it?
    • I took the new logo from the URL that's mentioned on the image page. silsor 06:01, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again for working through this with other editors and for your patience. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda

Adam's version of the NAMBLA page is little more than a thinly veiled attempt at converting the factual page written by corax into an anti-NAMBLA screed.

The Boston-Boise committee, which spawned NAMBLA, was an important gay civil rights group, and its non-inclusion in the article is a glaring omission.

This article should concentrate on facts about NAMBLA, and the events which led to its creation in historical and sociological context. Criticism of NAMBLA can be included in the criticism section, but this is an article about the facts surrounding NAMBLA, and not an article on what various people have called NAMBLA.

If denunciations by mainstream gay groups are included, then balancing comments by artists, intellectuals, and academics like Camille Paglia and Allan Ginsberg should also be included.

Non-derogatory facts about NAMBLA should not be attributed in the article to NAMBLA's "supporters" or "sympathizers." It is possible to know the facts about NAMBLA without being a booster.

The mainstream gay movement's denunciation of NAMBLA should be placed in its correct context, namely the mainstream gay movement distancing itself from everything having to do with youth sexual rights, in response to allegations of recruitment and predation from the political and religious right wing. It should be noted that historical gay icons like Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing would be "registered sex offenders" by today's standards, due to the age of some of their sexual partners.

The article plays the game of declaring positions to the left of center as "advocating and promoting" an activity. Saying, for instance, that criminal penalties for sexual activity with minors are disproportionally severe compared to those for non-sexual crimes against minors which do comparable harm, is not a call for people to run out and break the law. It is political advocacy, and people need to make this distinction.

With regard to people who have association with NAMBLA, and commit crimes, the question should be whether minor-attracted adults who are members of political advocacy groups like NAMBLA are more or less likely to commit crimes than those who have no such membership, and in particular, are more likely to commit the kind of crimes which "shock the conscience." Some reputable sociologists would suggest that working within an organized political advocacy group has a moderating effect on problematical behavior.

So clearly, for these reasons, and others too numerous to mention, we should return to the version of the article authored by Corax, which is factual and neutral, and isn't an attempt to grind an axe.

Hermitian

An article can be factual and non-neutral. There are two or more sides to every issue and it is necessary to include every one, as appropriate, to arrive at an NPOV article. In general, the preference in Wikipedia articles is to present the criticism throught the article, rather than clumping it together. The Boston Boise Committee sounds like it may be worth its own article. Wilde and Turing may have been persecuted, but they were not members of NAMBLA. While NAMBLA may advocate for changing laws, the group also extols the virtues of "boylove." As for the comment Some reputable sociologists would suggest that working within an organized political advocacy group has a moderating effect on problematical behavior, if that is the basis for any edit please provide a source that mentions this theory in relation to NAMBLA. Supporters of NAMBLA are welcome to edit this article, but like all editors, they must strive to achieve an NPOV outcome. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
I must point out that Hermitian is a new user who has done only two edits, both to this page. Samboy 22:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current version

I won't bother with further reversions or attempts to rewrite the article, since it is obvious that Corax will continue to revert all such efforts until he is stopped by some external intervention. In my view the following matters must be rectified:

  • Introduction
    • The words "notorious" and "notoriety" are always POV and should be deleted.
      • changed to "attention" or removed. silsor 07:20, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • The statement that "the group has all but dissolved" needs evidence. In fact the recent San Diego arrests suggest that NAMBLA has an active membership and a national leadership.
    • Para 4 is pejorative and irrelevant and should be deleted. I don't believe NAMBLA ever used this slogan.
      • Changed to "Although some sources allege that a motto of NAMBLA's is "sex by eight is too late" or "sex by eight or else it's too late", this motto is properly attributed to the Rene Guyon Society." and moved to the "positions" section. I think it's important that this be addressed in our article because of the confusion. silsor 07:20, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • History
    • "Eighty-year-old Suffolk County District Attorney Garrett Byrne" What is the relevance of his age? Are 80yos incapable of holding public office?
    • "bust" is a polemical term and should be replaced with "arrests"
      • changed to "raid". silsor 07:20, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Some members of the gay community surprised Byrne by defending the men" What evidence is there that Byrne was surprised? (In fact all this detail is irrelevant and should be deleted)
      • I had assumed that this was presented in the source cited there. silsor 07:20, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Gay groups sought to distance themselves from the issue of youth sexuality." This is tendentious. What they distanced themselves from was "boylove," another term for pedophilia.
      • I think the current version is fair. Instead of saying "youth sexuality", implying that the boylovers had only the interests of the youths in mind, is there some term for "inter-age relationships"? silsor 07:33, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • ""boylovers" who championed the sexual rights of youths" This is also tendentious. "Boylovers" primarily champion their right to have sex with boys.
      • Changed to just "boylovers" with a link to the boylove article. silsor 07:33, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • "The promotion of sexual rights for youth created a lightning rod with which other gay rights groups were unable or unwilling to cope." This is pure opinion, and false opinion at that. (It is also bad grammar - it wasn't the lightning rod they were supposedly unable to cope with.)
      • Rewrote the last part of this paragraph to say "The promotion of sexual rights for youth by people interested in sexual relationships with them was a controversial topic, and by the early 1980s almost every well-known gay organization adopted the pragmatist position and jettisoned NAMBLA." How does this sound to you and Corax? silsor 07:33, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
"Pragmatic" contains an implies comparison with "principled" and suggests that gay rights groups reject NAMBLA only because they are afraid of Antita Bryant or whatever. In fact they reject NAMBLA because they reject its basic premises - that age of consent laws ought to be abolished and that men ought to be allowed to have sex with boys. Adam 08:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What do you suggest, then? I chose the word "pragmatic" to echo the word "pragmatists" used just before. silsor 08:13, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
See at end of Talk. Adam 09:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Isolation
    • "The television airwaves were filled with Christian organizations repeating claims that homosexuality is a perversion that contributes to child sexual abuse ([6] (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1629&print=yes)). Critics of such organizations have pointed to statistics which indicate that most sexual molestations are crimes of opportunity committed by otherwise normal heterosexual men who use children as a substitutes for same-age partners." While this latter point is correct, it is not really relevant to the topic. The fact that most pedophiles are heterosexual does not alter the fact that there is a minority of homosexual pedophiles, some of whom have formed NAMBLA. This is an indirect attempt to show NAMBLA as innocent victims of a Christian smear campaign.
      • What I think must be addressed in this article are the twin views that homosexuality propagates by recruiting youths, and that homosexuality and abuse are linked. If this section can be salvaged, fine, but if it cannot a new one must be written. Corax?

silsor 07:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Why must they be addressed in this article? This is not an article about homosexuality or paedophilia. Adam 08:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Criticism
    • "NAMBLA has often responded to such criticism with the reminder that it has never been the target of a criminal prosecution, despite investigations by the U.S. Senate and U.S. Postal Service." Where and when have NAMBLA said this? In fact I said it, but now it has been attributed to an uncited statement from NAMBLA.
      • Because of the way this is presented it must be deleted unless we have actual sources. silsor 07:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • "NAMBLA supporters are also careful to point out that NAMBLA does not advocate that people engage in interngenerational sexual relationships, only that those who choose to do so should be able to do so without sanctions by the state." Where are when has NAMBLA said this? It is specious nonsense. What is the point of campaigning for a "right" and at the same time disavowing the exercise of that right? In fact I don't believe NAMBLA has ever said this.
      • Sources anybody? silsor 07:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Criminal allegations
    • I still want some evidence that Daniel and David Thorstad are two different people.
      • FWIW, I did a Nexis search for all news sources as far back as they are archived; many hits on "David Thorstad" as a founder of NAMBLA; none for "Daniel Thorstad" period, whether associated with NAMBLA or not. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:54, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • David Thorstad named in the Curley case (from a 2003 motion to dismiss on Curley v NAMBLA: On or about October 1, 1997, Charles Jaynes, allegedly a member of the defendant North American Man Boy Love Association ("NAMBLA"), abducted and ultimately murdered ten-year old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, [*3] Massachusetts. On May 16, 2000, the plaintiffs Barbara Curley and Robert Curley ("the Curleys"), as administrators of the estate of their deceased son, commenced this action to recover for his conscious suffering and wrongful death under Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 229, §§ 2 and 6, naming NAMBLA, Best Internet Communications, Inc., Verio, Inc., Roy Radow, Joe Power, David Thorstad, David Miller, Peter Herman, Max Hunter, and Arnold Schoen as defendants. From the same motion, a paragraph establishing personal jurisdiction for the purposes of inclusion in the suit: David Thorstad has been a resident of St. Paul, Minnesota since approximately 1992. Thorstad has been a member of NAMBLA since 1978, and served as a member of the Steering Committee from some undetermined time until September 1996. He is listed as a member of the Bulletin Collective, though he claims he "had no role in producing" the publication. He did contribute letters and articles to the Bulletin, and one of his articles was also posted on NAMBLA's webpage. In 1995, he was nominated to be an official NAMBLA spokesman. As a member of NAMBLA's Steering Committee, he participated in controlling and directing the actions of Andriette, Reeves, Rhodes, and others as they purposefully engaged in public outreach activities conducted in or directed into Massachusetts on behalf of NAMBLA. Personal jurisdiction exists over David Thorstad. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Adam 06:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just when I thought your credibility could not diminish anymore than it already has, you pledge for what must be the fourth or fifth time in the past week not to edit the article any more. But what purpose would whining on the talk page do if you were being honest (which I don't think you are)? You have no credibility on this issue. You came to the article with no knowledge on NAMBLA's history or its real purpose, believing that it consists solely of old fags who are fighting for some imaginary right to sodomize young boys as they choose. And you've done nothing but obstruct and piss and moan that the article is going to contain information besides a laundry list of bad names that gay rights groups have called NAMBLA. Make good on at least one promise in your life and go away already. Corax 06:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Corax I have been editing at Wikipedia for a long time now and I am completely immune to vulgar abuse of this kind. Ask the LaRouchite User:Herschelkrustofsky, who tried this stuff on me for months and eventually got himself banned. Try and address some of the above points and save your rhetoric for the grand jury. Adam 07:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion from above

I would replace this:

Gay groups sought to distance themselves from the issue of youth sexuality. In the next several years, a rift developed in gay rights circles between a small faction of radical gays and "boylovers" and a much larger group of pragmatists. The promotion of sexual rights for youth by people interested in sexual relationships with them was a controversial topic, and by the early 1980s almost every well-known gay organization adopted the pragmatist position and jettisoned NAMBLA. NAMBLA descended to its current state of disrepute, invoked more often by its enemies than by its supporters.

with this:

Quite apart from the pragmatic consideration that the issue of pedophilia was being used to attack the gay and lesbian rights movement, the great majority of gay and lesbian rights movement shared the general public abhorrence of pedophilia, rejected NAMBLA's claims that there was an analogy between the campaign for gay and lesbian equality and the abolition of age-of-consent laws, and took the view that NAMBLA's rhetoric about "the sexual rights of youth" was only a cover for its members' real agenda. They therefore ended any formal association with NAMBLA and prevented NAMBLA from taking part in gay and lesbian rights movement events.

(I should say in passing that it is quite untrue that "Gay groups sought to distance themselves from the issue of youth sexuality." Many mainstream gay rights groups continue to campaign for the sexual rights of youth. In Britain and Australia, we have campaigned successfully for the reduction in the age of consent, for example. That is quite different from recognising the legitimacy of pedophilia. One of the sexual rights of youth is the right not to be preyed on by pedophiles.) Adam 09:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adam 09:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to criticisms

Despite the fact that the critic has vowed not to get involved in the article anymore (a strange and bogus claim), I'll humor him:

INTRO:

  • The word notorious was chosen only to convey how unpopular the group has become. Samboy expressed the importance of relating this information in the article, and I complied. If this is a problem, I will remove the statement.
  • The statement that the group has all but dissolved is a deduction from the fact that the membership has been substantially reduced in recent years, and that national conferences are no longer held.
And your source for this is? Adam 12:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HISTORY:

  • The statement about Byrne's age is a fact. That it is irrelevant is your opinion. It's staying in the article.
I don't dispute that it's a fact. I asked what its relevance is. Whether it stays in the article will be determined by the collectivity of editors. Adam 12:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Byrne's surprise at the response of the gay community is taken directly from the book "The Boston Sex Scandal." I will make a direct attribution.
  • Gay groups did indeed attempt to distance themselves from the issue of youth sexual rights. This is the result of the right wing's attempts to transform the issue into some imagined campaign over adult men's right to have sex with toddlers. The distancing is clear in statements released by gruops in the early 80's -- this is factual and an important part of the history of NAMBLA.
Evidence please. Adam 12:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "The promotion of sexual rights for youth created a lightning rod with which other gay rights groups were unable or unwilling to cope." is not pure opinion. It is an observation of reality. Gay rights groups, left with the choice either to support the right of gay youth to be sexually active with whom they please or not to, decided to support increasing the age-of-consent in some instances (like in NJ) with the hope of reducing the heat that had been created by right-wing anti-gay groups. They began issuing statements that right of youth to choose their sexual partners was a dangerous idea that led to child sexual abuse. This is neither "tendentious" nor questionable.
All of that is pure opinion, which confirms my statement that the original statement is also pure opinion. And, as I have said several times, the issue is not "the right of gay youth to be sexually active with whom they please." It is the asserted right of adult men to have sex with children, which would be the logical outcome of the abolition of age of consent laws as per NAMBLA's stated policy, quoted in the article. Adam 12:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The problem with this is that NAMBLA never has and never will advocate the right of men to have sex with children. This is just some weird fixation that you have, and it's causing you to shit all over a perfectly good article. Why should all of us sane people stand idlely by while you write an article about a group whose central views you can't even get right? Corax 17:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ISOLATION:

  • The use of the "pedophile" accusation by the Christian right is most definitely relevant to the topic. It is relevant because it has been a tactic used successfully as a veiled attack on all homosexuals, which in turn has caused many homosexuals (including adam carr) to attack anything even removely resembling "pedophilia" -- even if it is IS NOT pedophilia, and is in fact pederasty or ephebophilia. It is factual and will remain in the article.

I find it odd that you would go to such lengths to claim this article is about a group of "pedophiles" -- even commenting on jimbo's page under the subheading "pedophiles." Then, when it suits you, you pretend that "this article is not about pedophiles." Make up your mind, pal.

I said it is "not about pedophilia." It is not a good idea to misquote people when the correct quote is on the same page. Adam 12:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I see. So it is about pedophiles, but not about pedophilia. Thank you for clarifying. Corax 17:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CRITICISM:

The article does not state that NAMBLA says any of that. It says that supports say it. And they have and do. Corax 11:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does Corax really think he can get away with misrepresenting Tatchell's views so blatantly? Obviously he is used to dealing with people who know very little gay activist history, and who he thinks he can bluff and intimidate with his cheap line in sarcasm and personal abuse. Well now things have changed, pal. Adam 15:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would hardly call quoting Tatchell verbatim "misrepresentation." Again, it seems as though you can't control your impulses. Not only have you broken your promise to stay away from the article and not edit again (surprise, surprise), but you've done so in order to remove a referenced quote that was issued in perfect context. For the last time, Adam, you will not be permitted to censor all information that makes you uncomfortable from the article. You will not be allowed to stomp and pout and remove information just because it contravenes your warped perception of the world. If it can be said that GLAAD and other groups oppose NAMBLA because they believe eliminating age of consent laws will lead to widespread child sexual abuse, it should also be said that Peter wrote that the gay rights groups' positions on the age of consent issue are unethical and selfish. This is called balance. Get over yourself. Corax 17:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Corax, please stop directing personal remarks towards other editors; it does not help the editing process. Regarding Tatchell, the cited article calls for lowering the age of consent from 16 to 14. As I understand it, that is not at all what NAMBLA's policy calls for. Any quote from that source that is drawn so as to imply support by Tatchell for removal of all age of consent laws would be incorrect. -Willmcw 22:35, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
I am hardly going to feel any shame for telling Adam what a (personal attack removed) he is when he has called me a pedophile apologist, and very nearly called me a pedophile. At any rate, it was not a deliberate misrepresentation. It was imprecise language, which Silsor and I have worked to fix. Regards, Corax 04:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In other words, deliberate and malicious misrepresentation of his position. Adam 00:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect Information and POV Commentary Removed

The last paragraph in the "Isolation" section was a glaring blemish before I revised it to conform to reality and neutrality.

Take for instance, the statement that Tatchell supports only lowering the age of consent to 14, and even then they propose restricting the age at which it would be legal to have sex with 14-year-old to persons no more than three years older. This, perhaps it was Adam Carr thought he read, but what the article in question [4] clearly states (and I quote) is the age of consent should be reduced to 14 for everyone - gay and straight – and consensual sex involving people under 14 should not be prosecuted providing there is no more than three years difference in the partners ages.

In other words, Tatchell supports unconditionally lowering the age of consent to 14 across the board, with no age-based restrictions whatsoever for the fourteen-and-up crowd. Additionally, he believes that sex with the under-fourteen crowd is acceptable granted that there is no more than three years different in the partners ages.

The current version has a reference, but the reference leads one to Tatchell's index page, which has nothing even closely connected to discussion on the age of consent on it. Under the link "age of consent" there is a position paper, but even it states unequivically that OutRage! is proposing an element of flexibility in the age of consent: "sex involving young people under l4 should not be prosecuted, providing both partners consent and there is no more than three years difference in their ages".

Somebody here is doing an excellent job of really misrepresenting Tatchell's position. Let's guess who. (personal attack removed)

Lastly, the second-to-the-last sentence in the paragraph is woefully inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. The version reads: This would still prevent most "boylovers" legally having sex with males younger than 16. According to whom? Where is a source for this? Who defines the term "boylover" here and gets to decide what the age boundaries are for boys who attract these "boylovers"?

I have made edits accordingly. Corax 04:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tatchell,Corax and Me

  • Firstly, I oppose editing Corax's comments on this page. If he wants to make childish personal attacks on other editors, let them stand.
  • Secondly, Corax is correct that I have misstated Tatchell's position. This is partly because I was editing at 2 in the morning and partly because Tatchell represents his views in slightly different ways in two different articles at his website.

My paragraph was:

Even the more radical gay rights activists do not endorse NAMBLA's policy of abolishing age-of consent laws. For instance, while British gay human rights activist Peter Tatchell says that "on the age of consent, much of the gay community has... taken leave of its ethical senses," he and his group OutRage!, who frequently take positions more radical than mainstream gay rights advocates, support only lowering the age of consent to 14, and even then they propose restricting the age at which it would be legal to have sex with 14-year-olds to persons no more than three years older. "OutRage! is proposing an element of flexibility in the age of consent," Tatchell writes. "Sex involving young people under l4 should not be prosecuted, providing both partners consent and there is no more than three years difference in their ages." This would still prevent most "boylovers" legally having sex with males younger than 16. Even this position, as Tatchell says, is more radical than most gay rights advocates will accept.

The first passage marked in bold should have read with people under 14. The second passage in bold should have read younger than 14. I have of course directly quoted Tatchell in the sentence beginning "Sex involving young people," which states his position correctly.

I acknoweledge that error, but I point out that my paragraph is good deal more informative and honest than Corax's original paragraph:

Nonetheless, a few gay men still express solidarity with NAMBLA's desire to eliminate age-of consent laws. For instance, gay human rights activist Peter Tatchell believes that "on the age of consent, much of the gay community has similarly taken leave of its ethical senses." He later notes that "the lesbian and gay community’s demand for equality is often also tinged with a whiff of self-obsession and selfishness." It should be noted, however, that the position of Tatchell is in the minority.

This paragraph did not state Tatchell's actual position at all, but rather led the reader to believe that Tatchell supports "NAMBLA's desire to eliminate age-of consent laws," whoch he clearly does not.

Adam 05:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's see Corax explain this:

  • What Corax wrote: "To do so is necessary, says Tatchell, for the current age of consent laws are "tinged with a whiff of self-obsession and selfishness."
  • What Tatchell actuallty said: "The lesbian and gay community’s demand for equality is often also tinged with a whiff of self-obsession and selfishness. Solely concerned with winning rights for homosexuals, it offers nothing to heterosexual people. Perhaps if queers supported the sexual human rights of straights, more of them might be inclined to support us in return?"

Tatchell's comment thus did not relate to age-of-consent at all. It's hard to see this as anything other than deliberate falsification.

Adam 05:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If that also qualifies as "imprecise language" then I would hope that the editor involved can learn to be more precise before making further edits. While I do not condone user User:Adam Carr's personal references to other editors (albeit milder than the responses he's received provocations he's risen to), I fully agree with his assessment of the quality of edits that some have made to this article. I know that myself and other editors support the goal of bringing this article to a higher level of accuracy and NPOVishness. -Willmcw 07:09, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Logo

I do not see any logo on the home page of NAMBLA. Is this just due to a lazy webmaster, or is NAMLBA in the situation where it no longer owns its own logo? That has happened to other organizations that have had to surrender/sell all assets, including files and such as a result of lawsuits (see Cult Awareness Network). Should we label it a former logo? Cheers, -Willmcw 07:27, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

The source of the logo is linked from the image page. silsor 07:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Huh. So it's on their website's server but not on the homepage itself? I guess that confirms the (boring) lazy-webmaster alternative. Thanks for the reply. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
No, it is on their web site. Go there and click on the main picture. silsor 08:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Aha - there it is. As Emily Litella used to say, "Never mind." Cheers, -Willmcw 08:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Blah...

Childlove movement needs serious work too. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

At a quick glance I would say it needs to be abolished and its contents moved to pedophilia. Adam 23:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I notice that Corax is still editing this article, busily deleting material which might reflect badly on his NAMBLA friends. But he has yet to give us any explanation for his egregious misuse of the Tatchell quote which I pointed out above. Until he does so we are entitled to assume that he did it deliberately. Corax needs to realise he is dealing with adults now, and that he can't get away with stuff like this. Adam 00:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am editing the article so that it reflects a neutral position, and does not portray opinion as undisputed fact. Your speculation about my motives are irrelevant. Your sideswipes intended to attack my character are utterly inconsequential to the central reason that I am here -- which is to ensure that the NAMBLA article does not become a warehouse for your warped opinions, selective use of history, and belligerent and biased rhetoric.
An excellent example of this is your recent reversion of the article so that it once again includes a lengthy opinion: Quite apart from the pragmatic consideration that the issue of pedophilia was being used to attack the gay and lesbian rights movement, the great majority of gay and lesbian rights movement shared the general public abhorrence of pedophilia, rejected NAMBLA's claims that there was an analogy between the campaign for gay and lesbian equality and the abolition of age-of-consent laws, and took the view that NAMBLA's rhetoric about "the sexual rights of youth" was only a cover for its members' real agenda.
Now, if I weren't here, this comment would obviously stand. But since I am committed to ensuring that the article is free of any unsourced, unproven, or otherwise overtly subjective claims, I am am more than happy to point out its POV nature. First, the use of the word "abhorrence" is extremely inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. While it might make for nice, flowery prose, this is not the place for such fanciful scribbling. Second, where is the source for your comment that the "majority" of participants in the gay rights movement rejected NAMBLA's claims? Where are your statistics? The fact that gay rights groups distanced themselves is not proof of this for two reasons: 1) the leadership of these groups may have been acting contrary to the wishes of the majority of their members, and 2) the groups may have done so out of a political calculation rather than out of principle.
If Adam Carr wants to write that Adam Carr wants to burn NAMBLA members at the stake, that is his right. He can do so on his user page, but to try to sneak his personal views into the article and attempt to project them onto the entire gay community without having any corroborating evidence is beyond the pale.
Thus, until such time Adam Carr is willing to come up with some hard, well-researched facts, I am going to omit his current commentary, reword it, and place it alongside a competing explanation of why the gay community ditched NAMBLA, presenting both as speculative theories -- not as incontrovertible fact. Corax 01:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I hope that User:Adam Carr finds some citations for that text before adding it back. But that does not answer the questions that have been raised about the intent of the Tatchell quotations. Unsourced assertions are bad, flatly incorrect assertions are worse. -Willmcw 01:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Since I am not attempting to reintroduce the quote, it is not anymore of an issue than is Adam's blatant misrepresentation of Tatchell's AOC views. Corax 02:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I stated Tatchell's views incorrectly, a fact which I immediately acknowledged when it was pointed out. The error made no difference to the point being made in the paragraph, which was that Tatchell does not support the abolition of age of consent laws.
  • You have taken the Tatchell quote "tinged with a whiff of self-obsession and selfishness," and used it in a context quite different to that intended by Tatchell. This can only have resulted from malice or stupidity. I have seen plenty of evidence that you are malicious, but no evidence that you are stupid. Adam 02:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User:Adam Carr has properly acknowledged his mistake, which seems relatively minor. I hope that user:Corax will show his good faith by admitting that he made an very misleading edit, and will avoid doing so again in the future. Thanks, -Willmcw 02:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

More citations please

I'm asking for all parties involved in editing this article to please back up their statements with citations. For example, I would like to see citations of people in the gay community privately supporting the goals of NAMBLA, but publically condeming them because their views are so repugant to mainstream Americans. Actually, I'd just be happy with citations of gay activists supporting NAMBLA at all. Samboy 02:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, I want to see solid citations of gay activists saying they despise NAMBLA before we say that most gay activists don't like NAMBLA. Samboy 02:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article quotes GLAAD and NGTF to that effect. Adam 02:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article state that gay groups have ever secretly supported NAMBLA. Where are you reading this? Corax 02:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your version said that gay groups only abandoned their support for NAMBLA out of fear of Anita Bryant etc. Adam 02:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, that's what your poor reading abilities are leading you to think. The article says that one theory regarding the ditching of NAMBLA proposes that political considerations, combined with indifference to NAMBLA's objectives, were responsible. Corax 02:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before we go any further with that, I want you to acknowledge that you incorrectly cited Tatchell and tell us why you did so. Adam 02:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am hardly going to honor the request of somebody who has dubbed me a pedophile apologist. This is not a court of law, and I do not need to answer your questions as a defendant on a witness stand would. Corax 02:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let the record show that the accused has declined to answer the question. The court will know what conclusion to draw from that. Adam 02:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adam, I guess we're going to have to play revert wars. Revert to a version you like, and if Corax revert's your revert, I'll revert back to your version. Yeah, this is childish, but it is occassionally necessary. Samboy 02:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is only necessary for people who realize they don't have an argument, and choose instead to try to ram through their opinions by force instead of by reason. The fact that you dislike that some people believe that gay groups ditched NAMBLA for political reasons does not mean that there are not people who believe this. Some people do, and I am one of them. The article does not coronate their theory as the truth, as Adam's version did for the alternative theory. My version is neutral, which is why you are acting so vehemently to thwart it, I suppose. Just don't be surprised when the "wrong version" is once again protected. Corax 02:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Purported disagreement

User:Corax, after critizicing another editor for making unsupported assertsions, I see you have added one of your own.

Disagreement has emerged regarding the primary reason the gay community chose to distance itself from NAMBLA. One view is that gay rights groups opposed NAMBLA on the basis of principle. According to this theory, most mainstream gays believed that NAMBLA's rhetoric about "the sexual rights of youth" was only a clever way for advocating the rights of adults to have sex with minors. As such, they moved rapidly to sever any ties with the group and its goals.

Can you provide us with a source for this "view"? Thanks, -Willmcw 02:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is clearly the view of Adam, who originally wanted to incorporate the substance of the paragraph as fact, rather than speculation. Additionally, it is the expressed feeling amongst other gay rights groups, such as GLAAD and NGTF. Corax 03:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The views of editors are irrelevant to this article, which should only reflect the verifiable views of involved persons and groups. I've cut down the grafs in question, cutting out a false dilemna and unwarranted editorializing. -Willmcw 05:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
The views of the editors are relevant if they are similar to the verifiable views of notable persons and groups involved, which both these views are. One is widely heralded by almost every modern gay rights group. And the other is argued effectively by a strange coalition of religious fanatics and very radical gays.
Again, if your argument is that you dislike one of the theories, that's you're own prerogative. But both theories exist and are touted by big players in this controversy. Your attempt to strike one of them from the record with fiction-style prose has not been overlooked. Corax 06:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Many articles succomb to the "unnamed critics" mode, where off-stage voices make assertions. In this instance, a dichotomy has been established, in which either the gay rights groups condemn NAMBLA because they dislike pedophilia or because of political calculation. The section begins:
Disagreement has emerged regarding the primary reason the gay community chose to distance itself from NAMBLA.
Disagreement between whom? And no, "between editors on Wikipedia" is not a sufficient answer. Please, either Corax or Carr, explain why the condemnation of NAMBLA by every major group in the gay rights movement is structured as an either/or tension between opponents? -Willmcw 06:52, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The disagreement is over why they did so. Corax implies they (we) did it because they are cowardly opportunists. I say they did because apart from a small radical fringe we abhor NAMBLA and all its works. Adam 07:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those are not mutually exclusive. ;) In any case, unless a significant source has presented this as a disagreement I think that we should simply say that these are various reasons that groups and individuals have given for rejecting NAMBLA. Remember, we don't have to decide who is right: we just have to report the matter in a balanced fashion. Saying, on our own, that two statements are mutually exclusive is original research (mathematical axioms aside). Cheers, -Willmcw 07:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
No, they are not mutually exclusive. But the fact that some important players in the history of NAMBLA and the gay rights movement believe that one factor was the overriding one should not be written out of the article because you think it is presented as a dilemma (which it is not in the current language of the article -- it's presented as two theories, not necessarily mutually exclusive or exhaustive). You are correct in stating that we have to "report the matter in a balanced fashion." This first requires that we report the matter -- which you've tried to stop, and, secondly, necessitates that we do so without using language like "repugnant" unless we decide to place quotes around those words to show that they are opinions, not statements of fact. Corax 07:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any source saying that their view is overriding other views, which would be an indication of disagreement. We can list the different views, with attributions, without claiming that they disagree. Two people can look at a painting, one of whome says that "I like the colors" and another says "I like the shapes". They would not be disagreeing, simply giving different views. OK, so again, which source is saying "One view is that gay rights groups opposed NAMBLA on the basis of principle"? -Willmcw 07:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
You're seriously asking me which gay groups claim to oppose NAMBLA on the basis of principled opposition to child abuse and pedophilia? You're kidding, right?
The issue is a simple one. Most members of the gay orthodoxy believe that politics had very little to do with the gay mainstream expelling NAMBLA from the club. Radical gays (usually the "liberationist" type or members of marginalized subsets of the larger gay population) DISAGREE with this assessment and believe that politics played a primary role. My version reflects this diversity of opinion, while your silly version does not even mention the views of the radical gays.
This is why I have reverted it and will soon do it again unless you can get with the program and fix the article yourself. Corax 07:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If "most" members of the gay orthodoxy believe something, then you should be able to find a source for it. Please do not add assertions about what "most" or "many" believe without a source. That is basic Wikipedia practice. As for the "radical gays", all you did was mention the name of one, you did indicate what her vewis are. I did not delete the link. Meantime, please do not add anything about a disagreement without presenting evidence of this disagreement, or other unsourced assertions. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. Gay groups don't oppose NAMBLA. Let's rewrite the whole article :) Corax 08:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ha ha. Thanks for rewriting that section to get rid of the false disagreement. May I ask why yuo got rid of the subheaders in the "Criminal allegations" section? They help break up a long section. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Once again Corax has been caught out

In the article Corax has cited a quotation from the late Steve Endean to support his proposition that the gay and lesbian rights movement distanced itself from NAMBLA out of political opportunism and not out of principle, ie, not because they objected to NAMBLA's policies and activities. He quoted Endean as saying: "What NAMBLA is doing is tearing apart the movement. If you attach it (the man/boy love issue) to gay rights, gay rights will never happen."

But here is the story (Kansas City Star, 19 October 2004) from which Corax obtained that quotation:

All in the name of political gain
MARY SANCHEZ
Politics can be a dirty game; that is no surprise. But just how far will a candidate go to get elected? Defaming an opponent? Unfortunately, this is common during the waning days of most elections. But defaming a dead man? Most voters, regardless of party affiliation, would be offended by such a ploy.
Yet this is what Republican Kris Kobach has done. Kobach is a U.S. Congressional candidate for the 3rd Kansas district. Kobach recently called for his opponent, Democratic incumbent Dennis Moore, to return contributions from Human Rights Campaign, a Washington gay and lesbian political advocacy group.
The reason: Kobach implied Human Rights Campaign founder Steve Endean was a supporter of pedophilia. Endean died in 1993. For proof, the Kobach campaign cited, but did not reproduce, a 1980 news article. The article, the Kobach campaign said, proves Endean spoke to a gay pedophilia group and therefore, was supportive of their crime. And Congressman Moore, therefore, is somehow supportive of pedophilia, too.
A connect-the-dots sort of theory. But the dots don't connect. The article was apparently taken out of context. Obviously Endean can not speak for himself. But those who knew him, and his memoirs, paint a different picture of the man.
“He felt the number one stereotype the gay movement had to counter was that gays were dangerous to children,” said Vicki L. Eaklor, a professor at Alfred University in New York who recently edited Endean memoirs. Endean did speak to a pedophilia group. But this is what he said, according to one research paper:
“What NAMBLA is doing is tearing apart the movement. If you attach it (the man/boy love issue) to gay rights, gay rights will never happen.”
NAMBLA stands for North American Man Boy Love Association — a disgusting fringe group whose members are gay people who abuse young children. Pedophilia is a vile crime. But the crime is sex with a minor. It is wrong in all circumstances. The gender of the victim and the abuser are not what makes the act a crime. And most pedophiles are straight men, preying on little girls. Not gay men, with little boys.
Endean, born in Davenport, Iowa, worked to distance his lobbying efforts from gay groups he saw as radical. Endean didn't like protests, he didn't believe in outing gay people and he didn't support gay marriage. He simply wanted gay people to have some protection if their sexuality became an issue in where they could live, in going to public places and in getting a job. He believed in engaging people in conversation, in letting them address their fears about gay people, learn new information and then make up their own minds, said his friend and political counterpart, Bob Meek of St. Paul.
"He was a born-again Christian with Midwestern values who happened to be gay," Meek said.
Endean carefully chose the name Human Rights Campaign Fund for the group now known as Human Rights Campaign. Endean knew a title including the words “gay and lesbian” might make it hard for some politicians to work with the group.
How sad politicians still have to dodge such links. Distortions like Kobach's allegation tend to show up late in political campaigns. They often become blips in a barrage of news coverage. The purpose is to confuse issues and win voters who have strong feelings against homosexuality.
But the issue here is not gay rights. Rational people can disagree about how and if society will shift to legally include gay people. Issues include extending the right to make decisions about healthcare for a sick mate or to apply corporate insurance benefits to a partner.
Those are legitimate topics. But twisting the image of a dead man for political gain? That is simply wrong. [5]

The complete text of the article thus makes it clear that Endean did not hold the position that Corax attributes to him. His objection to NAMBLA was based on principle, not on political opportunism. He was a "born-again Christian with Midwestern values," and (like most gay men and lesbians) did not approve of pedophilia or "boylove."

This is the second time in two days Corax has been exposed using out-of-context quotations to make FALSE statements about other people's positions. Once might be excused as careless - although Corax has not in fact deigned to give any explanation for his misrepresentation of Peter Tatchell. Twice can only be seen as calculated dishonesty. In other words Corax is a bare-faced liar, and a pretty stupid one, too, since I was able to expose both his lies with minimal effort. Adam 12:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would you consider toning down the attacks on this talk page? Wikipedia:Assume good faith requests that you assume the quote was accidentally taken out of context by Corax, who may have been running through a lot of material quickly. I realise that you may be unwilling to assume good faith since you believe your faith has been violated before this, but what is all this proving? That Corax has an agenda? Lots of people do. Our primary goal on this talk page is to collaborate to build an encyclopedia; I just don't think that the hate you and he are sending back and forth is necessary in order to do that. silsor 16:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Let him speculate about what my motives are. It's what he's good at. In fact, he tried to turn the entire NAMBLA article into his own personal conjecture of what the group wants and has done. The only difference is that I don't care if he speculates about my personal motives -- he does not know me. But I do care if he tries to slide his warped theories under the radar and into an article that is supposed to be both factual and neutral. Corax 17:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're stalling the discussion on this page just as much by accusing Adam of having "warped theories" not to mention all the other slurs you've made against him. Yes, he's treated you just as badly, but it needs to stop from both parties. silsor 17:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am reinserting the Endean quote because your claim that I "misrepresented his views" is totally without merit. In fact, the paragraph in question was not about Endean's views at all. It was about the views of people who interpret Edean's quote.

If I had represented his views as one of political opportunism, I perhaps would have been dishonest. The fact is that I did not. I simply stated that some gay people look at his quote as an illustration of the fact that gay people realized that gay rights would be impossible if it had come attached to NAMBLA. That is what his quote says.

Regards Corax 16:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As an update, I have reworded the paragraph once again, inserting that Endean was opposed to NAMLA's principles, in order not to ruffle Adam's rainbow-colored fag feathers. Corax 17:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • You know, there are other people potentially reading and participating in this debate who might be offended by your comments, particularly this one. Rainbow-colored fag feathers? I assume you meant flag. Even so, that's almost as offensive. And anyway, what exactly are you trying to suggest with this kind of comment? What usefulness does it serve except to possibly make someone upset? Let's all take a deep breath. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:02, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thorstad

Adam, regarding your earlier question on whether Daniel and David Thorstad are two different people:

FWIW, I did a Nexis search for all news sources as far back as they are archived; many hits on "David Thorstad" as a founder of NAMBLA; none for "Daniel Thorstad" period, whether associated with NAMBLA or not.

David Thorstad was named in the Curley case (from a 2003 motion to dismiss on Curley v NAMBLA: On or about October 1, 1997, Charles Jaynes, allegedly a member of the defendant North American Man Boy Love Association ("NAMBLA"), abducted and ultimately murdered ten-year old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, [*3] Massachusetts. On May 16, 2000, the plaintiffs Barbara Curley and Robert Curley ("the Curleys"), as administrators of the estate of their deceased son, commenced this action to recover for his conscious suffering and wrongful death under Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 229, §§ 2 and 6, naming NAMBLA, Best Internet Communications, Inc., Verio, Inc., Roy Radow, Joe Power, David Thorstad, David Miller, Peter Herman, Max Hunter, and Arnold Schoen as defendants.

From the same motion, a paragraph establishing personal jurisdiction for the purposes of inclusion in the suit: David Thorstad has been a resident of St. Paul, Minnesota since approximately 1992. Thorstad has been a member of NAMBLA since 1978, and served as a member of the Steering Committee from some undetermined time until September 1996. He is listed as a member of the Bulletin Collective, though he claims he "had no role in producing" the publication. He did contribute letters and articles to the Bulletin, and one of his articles was also posted on NAMBLA's webpage. In 1995, he was nominated to be an official NAMBLA spokesman. As a member of NAMBLA's Steering Committee, he participated in controlling and directing the actions of Andriette, Reeves, Rhodes, and others as they purposefully engaged in public outreach activities conducted in or directed into Massachusetts on behalf of NAMBLA. Personal jurisdiction exists over David Thorstad. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:12, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes it clear that there is no such person as Daniel Thorstad, and that the Thorstad who is (or was) a defendant in the Curley case is David Thorstad, as I said but which Corax denied (without telling us how he knew this). I will restore my original edit. Adam 14:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where exactly did I deny that David Thorstad is a defendant in the NAMBLA case? You're just making things up as you go along now. Corax 16:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just made a quick fix to the text to clear up the inconsistency,; have at it. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Suggested change

Yet most gay rights groups paid little attention to the pederasts in their ranks. To them, the idea of "boylove" was just another variation of gay love that was sharing in the struggle for liberation.

  • "struggle for liberation" is loaded language. Anti-gay activists would probably disagree that the gay rights movement has been a "struggle for liberation." It's also impossible to ascribe such broad motives for every member a gay group that looked the other way, suggesting they believed "boylove" a "struggle for liberation." Some gay rights groups may not have paid attention simply because they weren't paying attention, and so possibly went the membership; fringe groups get ignored all the time, even amongst other fringe groups. Suggest: To some, the idea of "boylove" was just another variation of gay love seeking societal acceptance. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Question on History

Staff members of the gay newspaper Fag Rag believed that the raid was politically motivated. They and others in Boston's gay community saw Byrne's round-up as an anti-gay witchhunt. On December 9, they organized the Boston-Boise Committee, a name intended as a reference to a similar situation (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0295981679?v=glance) [...] It was this committee that led to the formation of NAMBLA. On December 2, 1978, Tom Reeves of the Boston-Boise Committee convened a meeting called "Man/Boy Love and the Age of Consent," at which roughly 150 people discussed the problems of men attracted to underage males. At the meeting's conclusion, approximately thirty people decided to form an organization which they called the North American Man/Boy Love Association, NAMBLA.
  • Who else on the this committee actually helped to found NAMBLA? Can specific members of the staff of Fag Rag be linked to the initial membership? Is this Tom Reeves the only one that can be named specifically? · Katefan0(scribble) 18:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Split from gay rights groups question

I am no gay history scholar, but I find the language on how gay rights groups supported NAMBLA rather tenuous. Can we see some sourcing here? It is blithely mentioned in the article that NAMBLA enjoyed acceptance from gay rights groups such New York's GAA and the CLGRC, and the mention of the Gay Rights Platform, and I accept that as fact. My problem, though, is that there's absolutely no context. How widespread or powerful were these groups? Was there something like GLAAD then and if not, were these the closest approximations? Or were these themselves small or fringe groups? I can start a Cadbury Chocolate Rights Platform, but that doesn't mean a majority of women who like chocolate would prefer Cadbury. There is too little context here to know if whoever advocated this Gay Rights Platform (which is also missing from the article) was considered a real spokesgroup for the gay community.

In that vein, I have questions about the way the article currently transitions from the Boston-Boise/GAA/Gay Rights Platform information to the Anita Bryant information. It suggests that somehow all the important gay groups (and, by implication, lots of gay people) who previously believed pederasty was fine suddenly changed their minds because people started gay-bashing over childrens' exposure to gay people. I particularly have a problem with this sentence: A rift developed between a small minority of radical gays and "boylovers," and the majority or mainstream gay rights movement. I would argue that gay people who supported "boylovers" were from the start a small minority. While admitting that I am not the most learned on the topic of gay history, I'd still like to see sourcing for how my argument isn't true. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:53, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

You're arguing against statements that aren't in the article. As it stands now, it does not assert that gay rights groups ever supported NAMBLA, only that the repeal of age-of-consent was not an uncommon plank in the platform of gay rights groups. A number of examples illustrate this.
Nowhere does the article claim that gay groups believed that pederasty was "fine", as you claim the article states in your second paragraph. It states that Anita Bryant was used the existence of NAMBLA as proof that gays were "recruiting," which in turn -- either out of principle or political calculation or a little of both -- caused gay groups to condemn NAMBLA.
The article mentions a rift that developed between radical gays and boylovers, and mainstream gays. This rift did not exist earlier not because most gays supported repealing age of consent laws, as you have somehow strangely read into the text, but because they had not actively distanced themselves from it until it had begun to take a political toll. Corax 19:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, support for abolition of age of consent laws and support for NAMBLA are pretty much one in the same, since that's what the group advocates, right? It's disingenuous to argue otherwise over an article about historic support for NAMBLA. My questions about scope and context still stand unanswered. I argue that support for NAMBLA and legalized pederasty was never the position of the majority of gay people, rather a radical fringe, and that is not highlighted in the article. Rather, it in fact explicitly states that A rift developed between a small minority of radical gays and "boylovers," and the majority or mainstream gay rights movement. I argue that NAMBLA supporters were always a small minority of radical gays. Please show me how I'm wrong. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:36, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Currently, the article does not state one way or the other what views gay groups had of pederasty thirty years ago. If you argue that support for NAMBLA and legalized pederasty was never the position of the majority of gay people, provide a source and put in the article. I don't think it should be in the article by default as an assumed fact just because I or anybody cannot actively disprove it. The article is fine in noting that a VISIBLE rift did not occur (not a difference on the issues, but a concerted effort to translate that difference into behavior) until after opponents of the gay rights movement used NAMBLA to bludgeon gays on the head. THis is perfectly factual and neutral. Corax 19:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the sentence A rift developed between a small minority of radical gays and "boylovers," and the majority or mainstream gay rights movement needs to have some supporting evidence, as it implies that there was a previous unity. -Willmcw 20:13, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • To Corax: Sure it does -- it implies acceptance by holding up these groups as exemplars of the gay rights movement with no further context on how widespread (or not) their representation was. Without that context, it suggests that their support equated with general support from the gay community, and this is where my question about scope and context comes into play. In its early years NAMBLA found some degree of support for its positions among the gay rights movement. Nowhere here does it state "fringe elements of" or "a small portion of radical gay activists." Neither does it state that the named groups were powerful and represented large portions of the gay community -- this is perhaps true, I'm not sure to be perfectly honest. But it has to be one or the other and that should be made clear.
It does not imply acceptance. You are reading something into the article that isn't there, and I don't think it's a good idea to over-lawyer the language of the article to prevent every lazy reader or hyper-critical pundit from drawing their own false conclusions about the text. The paragraph in question makes a series of points, all of which are salient and true: 1) A number of gay groups officially supported abolishing the age-of-consent. 2) Gay groups had yet to pay attention to NAMBLA, which had presented itself as a gay rights group -- thus creating the appearance of unity between the two groups. 3) Anita Bryant exploited NAMBLA's platform into campaigning that gays corrupt and recruit young children. 4) Gay rights groups, which either hadn't cared about NAMBLA or hadn't paid attention to the group, began to distance itself from NAMBLA -- thus creating a visible rift in the unified front that NAMBLA had forged by the way it portrayed itself.
Anything above and beyond that is reader speculation, and an attempt to twist the article into saying something it isn't saying in order to remove information that is perfectly factual. Corax 20:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I also challenge your assertion that the article text shows "that a VISIBLE rift did not occur (not a difference on the issues, but a concerted effort to translate that difference into behavior)[...] ."
Look at these sentences:To them, the idea of "boylove" was just another variation of gay love that was sharing in the struggle for liberation. Thus gay rights groups did little to distance themselves from NAMBLA's platform at the time the group formed. Together these sentences clearly state as fact that these groups didn't distance themselves sooner because gay rights activists and boylovers "shar[ed] in the struggle for liberation" -- a clear endorsement OF THE ISSUE, implying that they were somehow comrades in arms. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
You are being silly now, and are merely attempting to pick nits as a scorched earth policy. How can somebody possibly prove that something did not happen a certain time? To prove something requires to show evidence that something has occurred. Since the purpose of the sentence is to show that something had yet to occur, it would be pretty difficult to offer proof, would it not? Needless to say, no group issue official condemnations of NAMBLA until - as I said - after Anita Bryant & co. hit the gay movement. If you can show an earlier statement that would indicate disunity, you need to come forward with it or move on with your life. Corax 20:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
NAMBLA was founded in 1978, while Bryant began her campaign in 1977. Comments like "move on with your life" are inappropriate. -Willmcw 20:49, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me. Let me revise my statement. Gay groups didn't distance themselves from "boylovers" and "pederasts" -- which had been a subsection of the gay liberation movement -- until after Anita Bryant turned up the heat, not before. Statements calling me a pedophile apologist are also inappropriate, but I didn't see you mention anything about it. Corax 20:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have asked my questions and responded to your answers in good faith and with no sarcasm or personal attacks. I ask that you do the same. I am not responsible for other users' personal comments about you, but you are certainly responsible for your own. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Regardless, I find it a revealing pattern of behavior that the assembly of posters we have here, unified for the ostensible for purpose of neutrality, criticize me for occasional sarcasm and swipes, while ignoring instances in which I have been viciously attacked as a liar and a defender of child abusers. Corax 21:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you look above I've asked both you and Adam Carr to cease the hostilities. I've also removed personal attacks by him here and elsewhere on the wiki. silsor

21:09, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean for my comments to include you. Corax 21:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • My purpose is not to defend (or attack) anyone. I fail to see how not going back to talk about old comments that had nothing to do with me is a justification for you attacking me personally. Back to the topic at hand.
      • My basic points remain unanswered:
      • 1. I don't argue against the information stating certain gay rights groups expressed early support for repeal of age of consent laws. My problem is that the way this information is presented in the article does not give enough context about who these groups were; they are presented with no mention of how widespread their support was, leaving open the question of how widespread that meant support was from the gay community at large. (All of ANSWER's policies certainly doesn't represent the majority of people who dislike war.) If you cannot tell me who these groups were or how widespread their support is, I would be inclined to add information to the article calling into question how widespread their beliefs were in the gay community.
      • 2. A rift developed between a small minority of radical gays and "boylovers," and the majority or mainstream gay rights movement. This implies prior support that should be proven (incidentally, this could possibly be proven or disproven by answering #1). Otherwise, I think the language needs to be changed.
      • 3. The two sentences about how gay groups supported repealing consent laws because they shared in a "struggle of liberation" needs to be changed, even by your own reasoning, which is that gay groups largely ignored NAMBLA until political pressure was brought to bear. Either they ignored NAMBLA or they accepted them as fellows in the "struggle for liberation" (which assumes support for THE ISSUE); it can't be both ways. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

structure

This article seems to have no logical order. Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, most of the history section should be roughly chronological. Paragraphs of criticism should be placed in the time that the critics spoke. Current positions should be a separate section, as they are now. The history subsections headers might benefit by having a date range included as well. -Willmcw 20:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The structure as it exists includes a history that IS in chronological order. Additionally, it takes issues like common criticisms and criminal allegations, and separates them from the history section so that they do not hinder the progress of the chronology. Corax 20:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Criticisms that occured contemporaneously should be placed contemporaneously. That's standard Wikipedia practice. They are a part of the chronology. Also, the chronological order seems to be slipping. -Willmcw 20:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
The criticisms enumerated in the "criticisms" section are not specific enough to warrant incorporation into the larger history. They are generic criticisms that have been echoed since the moment of NAMBLA's founding. It would be impossible to place them in crhonological order. Corax 20:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Generic criticism should be separated, but dated, specific criticisms should go in their logicla order. I've re-ordered the history to reflect chronology, to remove the unsourced "rift", and to put the Curley case into the history. -Willmcw 21:12, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
And how, exactly, do you intend to date criticisms that have been recurring non-stop since 1978? Corax 21:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If a graf starts, "in 1998, Joe Blow wrote that NAMBLA is a tax shelter" then that should go in the chronology in 1998. Simple. -Willmcw 21:37, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Goodness me, you folks have been busy while we in the Antipodes have been sleeping. Just to go back a few hours, Silsor said: "Wikipedia:Assume good faith requests that you assume the quote was accidentally taken out of context by Corax, who may have been running through a lot of material quickly. I realise that you may be unwilling to assume good faith since you believe your faith has been violated before this, but what is all this proving? That Corax has an agenda? Lots of people do. Our primary goal on this talk page is to collaborate to build an encyclopedia; I just don't think that the hate you and he are sending back and forth is necessary in order to do that."

I appreciate Silsor's good intentions here, but I can no longer assume good faith on Corax's part. My issue with him is not that he has an agenda. As you say, most of us have agendas. My issue with him is that he has twice been caught out falsifying sources to bolster his case. (He also deleted my assertion that David Thorstad is a defendant in the Curley case, when he must have known that this was true). If an undergraduate did stuff like this, they would be kicked out of their course (as I'm sure Corax knows), so it is hardly acceptable in an encyclopaedia editor. Furthermore, if you look at Corax's "user contribution" page you will see that he is not here "to collaborate to build an encyclopedia": he is here to provide cover for his friends in NAMBLA and for no other reason. All his actions here need to be judged in the light of that fact. Adam 23:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If NAMBLA is to be damned, then let them damn themselves by providing the necessary facts on the article page. I'm just asking if the two of you could at least try to not deliberately insult each other on the talk page. silsor 00:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
My userpage shows that I have written or contributed chunks of information to a good number of articles in light of the fact that I have a life outside of Wikipedia. You have no idea why I am here, and if you insist on pretending you do, I will respond in kind. Corax 00:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not "insulting" Corax, I am pointing out specific acts of intellectual dishonesty and fraudulence, which in the context of editing this article is a perfectly correct and reasonable thing to do. Adam 02:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Or error. silsor 02:13, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Go back up and look at the Tatchell quotes and tell me how that could have been an "error". Adam 02:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Error' could also have been out of pure stupidity(No offense Corax). You seem bent on making everyone believe that Corax is evil and vile and it's getting REALLY OLD. What if he read the quote SOMEWHERE ELSE and stupidly used them in the wrong form. You're the one who now seems to have the agenda, and that is to make everyone think Corax is bad. Stop it. It's childish. And I know for a FACT that you're giving poor silsor a headache! Moofie

If Corax has an exculpatory explanation for the misleading use of the Tatchell and Endean quotes, he has declined to offer it, preferring bluster and insults. I don't believe Corax is stupid. I am therefore entitled to assume malicious intent. I do indeed have an agenda: to expose Corax's intellectual dishonesty, and thus to reduce his ability to foist his propaganda on Wikipedia. I'm sorry Silsor has a headache but these are serious matters. Adam 05:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)