Talk:Paedophile Information Exchange

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Clean up

  • How
  • Why? lmno 23:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I still care enough to edit Wikipedia pages in a month or so, I will be removing this clean up request unless it is carried out by someone, or at least justified here. lmno 9 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)

[edit] Legal offense

Others were offered lesser charges of sending indecent material through the mail if they testified against the five. These charges related to letters that the accused exchanged detailing various sexual fantasies.

Is it a criminal offense to send "indecent material" to some other person in sealed private correspondence in the UK? David.Monniaux 23:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes. Which offence it is depends on what is sent - if it is a photograph that shows a child it is an offence of distributing indecent photograph of a child; if it is a written fantasy or somesuch it is an offence under one of the Postal or Post Office Acts. lmno 05:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Cleanup needed

The following issues need to be addressed:

  1. Special attention to controversial topics needs to be taken to fully explain historical relevance of this disbanded organization to the audience.
  2. Needs subsections to differentiate intro, time line, history,
  3. Punctuation needs attention: misuse of quotations, commas and colons.
  4. Prose is sloppy and not well-written. Many of the claims lack context or adequate citation. For Example: "The meeting was widely covered the next morning, with many papers using it as a lead story" fails to explain which papers. U.S>, UK, International?
  5. Dates are not properly wikified. (i.e. 1 September instead of 1 September)
  6. Block quotes do not follow WIkipedia style.
  7. Titles of publications not correctly wiki italicized.
  8. In-line notation to Gary Glitter is both uncited and not formatted correctly.
  9. UK article is too Anglo-centric in that many of the place-name and taken-for-granted concepts are unintelligible to non UK readers.
  10. Tone of the article is not encyclopedia quality; reads more like a newspaper report.

- Davodd 08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Special attention to controversial topics needs to be taken to fully explain historical relevance of this disbanded organization to the audience.
What does this mean?
Needs subsections to differentiate intro, time line, history,
ditto
Punctuation needs attention: misuse of quotations, commas and colons.
?
Prose is sloppy and not well-written. Many of the claims lack context or adequate citation. For Example: "The meeting was widely covered the next morning, with many papers using it as a lead story" fails to explain which papers. U.S>, UK, International?
Thought it was too anglocentric?
Dates are not properly wikified. (i.e. 1 September instead of 1 September)
But someone else can change them eh?
Block quotes do not follow WIkipedia style.
?
Titles of publications not correctly wiki italicized.
?
In-line notation to Gary Glitter is both uncited and not formatted correctly.
This "notation" to Gary Glitter... Well, the "Gary" thing is probably one of those things that would be too anglo-centric if not explained; it is probably impossible to provide a reference - unless (possibly) one writes to Mr Goggle asking whom was actually meant.
UK article is too Anglo-centric in that many of the place-name and taken-for-granted concepts are unintelligible to non UK readers.
Examples please. Difficult to know how to satisfy foreigners without being so afflicted oneself...
Tone of the article is not encyclopedia quality; reads more like a newspaper report.
Oh.............. lmno 15:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Davodd 03:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)