Talk:Pro-pedophile activism/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Psychological Effects

When reading this article, I noticed there was a bit about the activists' questioning of psychological harm, but I saw very little info on any actual scientifice research on the topic (I think the only evidence was described as "anecdotal"). Anyone know of any info on this? I don't happen to be a psychologist/victim of pedophilia myself, but I would be rather surprised if there was much data lying around saying it produced no effects.

NPOV

This page needs a lot of work to get it up to scratch re our POV policies. Merging into anti-pedophile activism would be a start, SqueakBox 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I dispute a lot of the statements in this article. Yes, merging it with the "anti-pedophilia activism" article would be a good first step. Lots of work is needed here. BTW, the totally disputed tag should stay. DPeterson^talk 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I understand that you find the article to be problematic in its current form, but "this article needs a lot of work" is not a reason to place the TotallyDisputed tag. I am removing the tag because no one has made it clear why it should be there. Please note that I have not even read the article myself, so it's not as though I disagree with you or have an opinion one way or the other about the content. The point is that the template is being used inappropriately. Please discern the specific items, themes or concepts that are "totally disputed". Joie de Vivre 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I was being polite when I said the article needs a lot of work...to be blunt, many of the statements here are POV, without Wikipedia:Verifiability support, and wrong. The tag belongs and work can proceed to improve the article...or we can just argue about the tag...I, for one, would prefer to move on with fixing this article. DPeterson^talk 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The tag is not being used inappropriately, indeed I have rarely seen a more appropriate use of it, especially given the recent history of the article that perhaps you are unaware of, Joie, SqueakBox 00:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem. Anyone just joining in cannot discern why the TotallyDisputed template is in use, because no one has explained. That is the problem. Please elucidate what you think the problems are and what you think needs to be changed about this article, in order to justify the use of the template. Joie de Vivre 01:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WEll they could try reading the article, SqueakBox 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked why the template was placed, what the problems are and what needs to be done to rectify the problems. Squeakbox has become rude (above) and Dpeterson reverted without comment. I don't see what can be done at this point. Joie de Vivre 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting this page. if you want to help create a better article that would be fantastic but until then stop making demands on other editors time and energy, SqueakBox 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, Joie de Vivre, avoid Personal attacks. We should focus on the content of this diputed article. The content is under dispute as the editing history and revert history shows. Now, it would be more productive to spend our time improving the article rather than arguing about the tag. My comments and reasoning are stated above. You certainly may disagree with me and prefer I argue differently, but I stand by my statements. If there is a consensus that I am wrong, so be it, but I don't see that on this page about this issue. DPeterson^talk 02:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that I have done any such thing. I have asked politely many times for an explanation as to the use of the template. Instead there has been name-calling and accusations of trolling. I am really not sure how to proceed if requests for explanation result in persecution.

It is not a personal attack to express that I believe that someone is being rude, by saying "this person was rude", and nothing more. Joie de Vivre 02:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Given your behaviour on my user talk page and here I find it hard to believe you have any good faith intentions here. The accusations of trolling are based entirely on your behaviour on my user talk page. We are working hard to get an NPOV article and once that happens, assuming it does without encountering the kind of stiff opposition we hasve encountered very recently then the tag will be removed. You dont have the right to demnad we ex[plain ourselves ad nauseam, SqueakBox 02:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys!! Joie de Vivre is not one of the heads of the hydra come back again. The template is still there, but there's no evidence of the POV pushers around. Talk is all archived, so there's nothing to see (except 12 pages of archives -- which indicates there's been a lot of fighting). Joie, the editors at this and other pedophilia related pages can get testy sometimes because of the endless trolling that's gone on here and on other pages for a long time. SqueakBox and DPeterson^talk can both be argumentative, which has been an asset under the prior circumstances, and will be again next time another troll comes along. I think you know that several relentless POV pushing editors have been banned indefinitely, as well as sockpuppets of those users who've been back to deliberately cause trouble. People are taking a deep breath, but there's still a lot of history to overcome, and a defensive stance is sometimes hard to let go. There are a lot of issues that were challenged left on the page. The existence of the page itself was roundly contested. There are other pages that need work too. It's hard to get to every problem, everywhere at once. I do not blame them for not wanting to outline all the POV issues that remain right now--bleah--but I also don't think it's wrong of you to ask why the template is still there but nothing is going on with the page. Now I hope I haven't pissed off both sides by getting in the middle here, but we all need each other and it would be nice not to fight for a change and finally get these articles cleaned up. -Jmh123 03:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand the history of this page better now. Joie de Vivre 03:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on! What good logical reason is there to merge this with the anti article? We're talking different movements, here. It's already big enough with the (disputed) merge with the history article, and the anti page is barely a stub, with lots of work to do, IMO. (f a b i a n) 15:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Someone posted a plea on Wikipedia:Third opinion about the TotallyDisputed tag. Having read the discussion, it sounds like the problem is resolved; i.e. this article still contains a history of issues that had been challenged in previous archived discussions and those issues haven't been addressed. If that is the case, then the TotallyDisputed tag should stay. Perhaps someone could go through the archives (ugh, what a lot of work that looks like) and list the remaining issues that had been challenged, so that they might be addressed. -Amatulic 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fabian discussion

**Please revert your 3RR violation. Personal discussion does not belong on this page**

• • What is this above? there is no 3rr violation, SqueakBox 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago, this article was merged with the history article. Although the user who merged it claimed that the (weak) consensus in favour of keeping the articles apart had changed, I found no discussion indicative of such a consensus. (f a b i a n) 17:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The opposers all got banned, and as their views now dont count a clear consensus was indeed a reality, SqueakBox 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fabian is another SPA with contribs dating back to Junne 5, SqueakBox 16:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes you so confident that I'm an SPA? Even if I am, you better read WP:SPA (f a b i a n) 16:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your contribs and the history of this article, SqueakBox 16:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact you know about SPA's etc makes me wonder whose sock you are, SqueakBox 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets have a proper vote or discussion on merging

A few days ago, this article was merged with the history article. Although the user who merged it claimed that the (weak) consensus in favour of keeping the articles apart had changed, I found no discussion indicative of such a consensus.

Personally, I believe that the articles should be kept apart, as per the same reasons suggested in the last discussion I found on this issue. (f a b i a n) 10:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As you can see it was 3 permanently blocked users and one user who changed his name before being permanently blocked in his new name who opposed the merge so I felyt it right to ignore their opinions and thus there was a consensus for the move, SqueakBox 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So let's have this discussion, now that the merge tag in on Anti-pedophile activism. The proposal is, in effect, to move some of the content of Pro-pedophile activism into the anti article, and then redirecting pro to anti. I would have two comments: 1) it seems the resulting article should be called "Pedophile activism", since it presumably would be about both directions, 2) why merge, when the resulting article is likely to be quite large? Discuss. --Askild 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's fix the article

There is a lot of bickering and infighting going on here; which is not productive. I think it would be better if we all were to focus our energy on fixing the article instead.

Part of the problem is that what needs to happen is not clear. I think a good first step would be to identify the problems that need to be fixed. Joie de Vivre 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the article merged into anti-pedophile activism and then that whole article can be written in a strictly NPOV fashion. This article tends to glorify pedophilia and make it somehow seem alright which is not a neutral perception. I see no evidence of in-fighting or bickering going on and am surprised that you would make such a comment, SqueakBox 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for communicating; this is good. I understand your concern that the existence of this could be construed as giving credibility to the concept. I certainly have seen many articles that are very WP:SOAP-y, and use the existence of the article as a platform for espousing certain views. See Feminists for Life; it is pretty darn sudsy by my account. I understand the frustration, so let's look at how we can fix the problem.

As far as whether the existence of the article itself is POV; I don't think it is; the reason is that there are many articles written about social groups that are considered terribly unsavory. That an article's subject is widely considered unsavory is not usually reason to merge the article elsewhere. Neo-nazi, for instance, is not merged to Nazi or Holocaust for glorifying Nazism. It is a discrete concept and brought towards NPOV on its own, in its own article.

As WP:NPOV is required for all parts of all articles, I think a better way in which to approach this would be to bring this article towards NPOV, on its own, before discussing a merger. The content has to be NPOV regardless of whether it is its own article or part of another article. I think merging before we have brought it to NPOV is not a good approach, because therefore we dump a lot of material that needs work into another article, creating a bigger mess.

I think NPOV should be the first goal. Rather than getting caught up in where it should be, I think we should focus on the content and bringing that to an encyclopedic standard first. We can certainly make it clear that the movement is widely considered offensive (as is done with Neo-Nazi). I think we should work towards NPOV within this article.

Thoughts? Joie de Vivre 21:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly dont object to your approach, SqueakBox 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important that this article be NPOV and properly balanced. Criticism of the pro-pedophile movement should be included here but that doesn't mean we have to merge the "anti-" article at this time. For example, groups like Perverted Justice are anti-pedophile but they are not chief critics of the pro-pedophile movement. Also, we need to coordinate this article with Age of consent reform better, as there is some overlap. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed individuals listed as supporters

There were a number of individuals who were listed as being supporters of pedophilia, without supporting references. Unsourced assertions of this nature should not be allowed to remain for one moment, regardless of whether they are true. I am investigating the truthfulness of these claims and will add them back if sources are found. Joie de Vivre 21:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I personally think that this is silly, you will find proof within the aricles for the people themselves. Good luck, and please don't take too long over it 153.19.178.28 23:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Refs

We have 101 and only 96 are turning up. Can someone better at these things than me please fix it? SqueakBox 21:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They are all there; one thing you can do to check is to go to the last reference, and click on the little carat (^). That will direct you immediately to the place on the page that the reference is used, and it will highlight it as well. (At least it does on my Windows machine with Firefox). Joie de Vivre 00:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I should've posted on talk--it was a coding error, which I fixed that day. -Jmh123 01:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Why must we refer to DSM?

Why should we do this in the opening couple of paragraphs? The DSM bears little relation to activism, and it just seems like we're listing "negative things" against pedophile activism, because we foolishly think that it "balances" the article (when it actually introduces subjectivity galore) 153.19.178.28 23:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

With ref. to Mr Petersen, your revert was kind of a broadsweep on all the changes that I had done (as if the lot were vandalism or something). Surely not all are reverts? 153.19.178.28 23:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are a new user with a controversial special interest and a perspective you apparently wish for the article to convey. Normally on pages that are controversial, edits are discussed on the talk page first. -Jmh123 23:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I just added a tag to this page to underscore and suppor twhat Jmh123 said. DPeterson^talk 00:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Is DP willing to discuss why exactly my edits are inferior? 153.19.178.28 01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your question, it makes sense to present the existing view of pedophilia, as represented by objective, mainstream sources like the DSM, that the activists are working to change. They are not acting in a vacuum. The alternative to DSM would be to represnt the often cruder viewpoints of pedophilia held by less professional commentators. - ·:·Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to anon user, I don't think your edits are inferior. I do think that that the points made by Jmh123 and Will Bebecak address your concerns. DPeterson^talk 13:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's fix the article (round II)

Hi, all. So, it looks like we actually got somewhere in the section titled #Let's fix the article as far as determining what to do; we had several editors in agreement that bringing this article to NPOV was a good first step. The momentum was lost before any changes were made, so let's get it going again. Currently the {{totally disputed}} tag is still up, but we haven't identified what content should be changed in order to bring this article to NPOV. I actually don't see much that is explicitly POV; the material is presented in terms of what the activists do, say, and believe, i.e. "this is what they do", "this is what they believe". It is not used as a platform for espousing or legitimizing personal views as far as I see. However, Squeakbox had advocated for including the template, so I thought that perhaps he could outline the things that need changing most. It's not good to leave an article hanging around in a state of dispute, so let's fix it. Joie de Vivre 13:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's been a couple of days. I'm removing the totallydisputed tag. If someone wants to put it back, they should explain why it is there and what needs to be changed in order to bring the article to NPOV. Joie de Vivre 11:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The article continues to strongly favor and "normalize" child sexual abuse and the molestation of children. DPeterson^talk 12:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

For example, sections in the research section. DPeterson^talk 12:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no section called Research, I really don't know where you mean. Please be more specific about what information is problematic and what needs to be done to bring the article to NPOV. Saying "it's legitimizing pedophilia" does not help bring the article to NPOV, we need to outline specific changes. Joie de Vivre 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Scientific Claims," Sorry about the miscue there. Also see: "Papers supporting some activist opinions" Too much there of questionable valdity. DPeterson^talk 17:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's OK, thanks for clarifying. Good, we've identified two areas that should be addressed. OK, if these are of questionable validity, how do you want to demonstrate that? Can you introduce any contextual arguments, i.e. similar studies that refute the claims? Should they be removed altogether? Would a Criticism section at the end help? Just throwing out ideas here. Joie de Vivre 17:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Joie de Vivre is right to point out that we need a more concrete reason to remove the said references to and summaries of said studies from the article. The papers currently referenced within the article appear to be legit. There is no doubt that a great deal of mainstream research will disgree with the findings of these works. However, the text clearly states that studies used by pro-pedophile activists to support their position generally criticize mainstream research findings, and suggest that there are ways to improve on the way mainstream research is conducted. However, since this article is specifically about pro-pedophile activism and its rationale, it makes sense to concentrate on the research that pro-pedophile activists utilize within their movement. Articles that deal with mainstream research into child sexual abuse are accordingly found within the article on that subject. Thus, in my opinion, the "Scientific Claims" and "Papers supporting some activist opinions" sections should stay as they are, unless more specific rationale is provided to support changes within the corresponding text.Homologeo 05:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My problem is it is still not clear why the TotallyDisputed template is in place. I understand that the topic is upsetting, but we have upsetting articles all over the place, Torture, Fascism. I just want to get this article to NPOV. We can't just slap an orange warning label on this one because we don't like it. That isn't what the template is for. If we can write a neutral article on Global warming, we can do it here too. I am still waiting for the people who placed the template to explain what is wrong and what we can do to fix it. Joie de Vivre 10:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I see on one reading. 1) I do think the scientific aims and claims section appears biased. Even though it is true that this is a section about what studies are used by pedophiles to rationalize their position, it is also true that these studies have been refuted. The entry doesn't make that at all clear. At the very least it should be stated that mainstream science does not concur or that studies exist to contradict these (and I don't mean with a disparaging dismissal as in the case of Rind). 2) There are "citations needed tags" throughout, because there are many unsourced statements. 3) There's a conflation between pedophilia and same-sex attraction in the entry as written that is exacerbated by virtually no discussion of age. The statement by one organization that this is "a gay issue" seems to erase completely other possible forms of pedophilic acts and lump all of these together as one issue. Relations between a 25-year-old male and a 14-year-old male, or between females of the same ages, versus a 50 year old man claiming he is having a love affair, including intercourse, with a 3-year-old girl--are we to assume that, to these organizations, both situations are the same in every respect? 4) Psychological harm is addressed, but physical harm is not. Again, age is clearly a factor here. -Jmh123 22:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You raise a number of good points. I think all unsourced statements should be deleted now. Unless the other improvements you suggest can be made, I support deleting the offending sections DPeterson^talk 23:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I explained my problem with the "scientific claims" section here and got no responses. --P4k 23:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct and all that material should be deleted now. You have my support DPeterson^talk 23:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested link

"David.L "Dave" Riegel is mentioned - but his home page (http://www.shfri.net/dlr/) is not linked to his name. Should it be? If so, could someone who knows how do so?24.229.103.183 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Abstinent Childlove, Non-Abstinent Childlove, and Anti-Childlove

I think this article puts too much emphasis on Non-Abstinent Childlove and it's opponents. Non-Abstinent Childlove advocates "consensual" sexual relationships between adults and children. However, the article largely ignores Abstinent Childlove, which opposes child pornography and sexual relationships between adults and children. Instead, Abstinent Childlovers work towards social tolerance and repealing laws against fantasy-oriented activities, such as lolicon. There should also be mention of Anti-Childlove, which opposes social tolerance and fantasy-oriented activities. They usually express the opinion that all Childlovers pose a danger to children, regardless of their "stated" views on abstinence. These topics may be difficult to research, as different groups use different terms.{{subst:unsigned|68.1.124.88

You've made the same comment twice, further evidence the pro and anti articles need merging, SqueakBox 20:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Like any topic, we can only talk about Abstinent Childlovers if we have reliable sources for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Merting the two articles really makes sense. That way both points of view can economically be cited, assuming there are reliable and verifiable sources to support statements. DPeterson^talk 23:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it makes sense to merge the Pro and Anti articles together, for they both deal with the same topic - pedophile activism. One is the actual movement of individuals in support of advancing the pedophile perspectives on life, and the other is an attempt to counter such ideas and their influence on society. Both views deserve to be viewed from a neutral point of view. This is the key to making the two articles work well together on the same page. The goal should be to ballance the information, and to make sure that it is clear who is making what claims. Likewise, it is important to be as thorough as possible (to a reasonable degree of course), thus it's a good idea to distinguish the different stances that people take in regards to pedophile activism. This measns that the article should explain the different kinds of pro-pedophile and anti-pedophile activists there are. However, truth be told, until we're capable of bringing each of the two currently seperate articles to NPOV, it does not seem wise to merge the two. What's more, we need to finally reach some consensus on the issues that have been causing discord among the major contributors to these articles. It's now clear to all that change is necessary - the point is to determine what change is warranted, and how to make it reasonable enough for all (or most) editors to agree on.Homologeo 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully support independently bringing each article to NPOV. However, merging the two together does not make sense. By that logic, should we merge the White supremacy and the Anti-racism articles together, on the grounds that it is not possible to present one phenomenon without presenting the opposition in its entirety? I hate to sound like I am defending adult-child sexual contact, but melting two opposing camps into one article doesn't make sense. Should we merge Pro-life and Pro-choice into Abortion debate? If we can independently bring each article to NPOV, there is no need to merge the two. Joie de Vivre 12:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Homologeo that merging the two articles is in order. If someone can tell me how that is done, I will begin that process. DPeterson^talk 21:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Merge. First step is to open the process for discussion, thusly: Proposing a merger. -Jmh123 21:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging Pro and Anti Pedophile articles

Please comment here on this subject.

So let's have this discussion, now that the merge tag in on Anti-pedophile activism. The proposal is, in effect, to move some of the content of Pro-pedophile activism into the anti article, and then redirecting pro to anti. I would have two comments: 1) it seems the resulting article should be called "Pedophile activism", since it presumably would be about both directions, 2) why merge, when the resulting article is likely to be quite large? Discuss. --Askild 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (copied from above by DPeterson^talk 22:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

I agree with the proposed title. I don't think the article would be that large. It would eliminate the necessity to having each POV in each article in order to create two NPOV articles. DPeterson^talk 22:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is worth reading over discussion here. In particular, if a merge is decided upon, I quite like Will Beback's suggestion to call it "Pedophilia-related activism", for the sake of NPOV and unambiguity. --Askild 23:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read it now. I like your new suggested title, Pedophilia-related activism," and support that. DPeterson^talk 23:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If consensus is actually reached on how the two articles are to be bonded together, and it is established that pro- and anti- pedophile movements are indeed different versions of the same phenomenon, then it would be reasonable to use the title "Pedophilia-related activism." This would be a neutral way of relaying what such an article would be about. All the while, I still believe that "Pedophile activism" should redirect to the new article. However, the concerns I voiced in the section below still stand...Homologeo 07:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since pro-pedophile activism is one of the primary catalysts behind the creation and growth of anti-pedophile activism, and the latter often focuses on countering the claims of the former, it seems to make more sense to merge the anti- into the pro- article. Besides, in all honesty, the anti-pedophile activism article is not even close to being as developed as the pro-pedophile activism article is right now. It would be a disservice to Wikipedia to combine such uneven articles into one, especially since there are concerns over NPOV in both cases. For this reason, since both articles still need to be tagged due to the repeated suggestion that they should be merged, I switched the "mergeto" and "mergefrom" tags on the respective pages. Please respond on my reasoning here on the Talk Page before reverting my edit. Thanks in advance, Homologeo 07:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Homologeo. Switching the merge tags is fine with me. DPeterson^talk 11:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus to merge Pro- and Anti-pedophile activism. -- Jmh123

If I counted correctly, this is how the final vote count looks (each side could have one extra tally, depending on Will Beback's vote):

4 (or 5) Yes vs. 6 (or 7) No

Homologeo 09:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge "Pro" and "Anti" Pedophilia into Pedophilia article, preliminary discussion only

1. YesDPeterson^talk 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you already cast your vote. At this point, the votes are 4-4. Samantha Pignez 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, this was a "vote" on an alternative proposal for a different merger, not yet formally proposed--hence my comment directly below. -Jmh123 21:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It's a bold and interesting proposal. Procedure requires that before a proper discussion and "vote" can take place, the appropriate tags should be placed on the appropriate articles. An archive of the discussion will remain on the talk page which is designated for that discussion. Unless you're just getting opinions before starting that discussion. My opinion is that it is definitely worth considering. -Jmh123 16:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The combined article would be quite long. A good first step, which may be helpful regardless of the outcome of the merger decision, would be to trim down excess material from both articles. There's plenty of unsourced material, and even some sourced material may need to be removed to ensure balance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Look at some of the queer articles. This article is one of the most sourced on this website, whilst other equally important ones have no sources, or one book in their reading list.

We should not go about destroying sourced, notable material for the sake of "balance". If "balance" is required, there should be anti-pedophile material available to add. If not, then an article that does not document much anti-pedophile activism is balanced.

And the reason that this article is bigger than the anti-pedophile aricle is because the anti article was only created a short time ago, and because pro-pedophile activism is relatively uncontested!

Not my POV, but isn't it just the case?

Another problem that the merged article would introduce is the fact that pro-pedophile activism argues for the emancipation of pedophiles, whilst "anti-pedophile" activism argues against child porn, violent rape and a lot of other things that (from this article, it appears), the pro camp oppose vehemently Samantha Pignez 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's relatively "uncontested" because the vast majority of pro-pedophilia activism is non-notable, not reported and not known by the general public. The idea that anti-pedophile activists argue against mere child porn and violent rape... incorrect. Anti-pedophile activists argue against the sexual fetish of pedophilia period. I have no idea how you would come to such a conclusion.

The non-notability of the vast majority of BOTH the pro- and anti- pedophile activism means the articles could be trimmed to even ten percent of their current size and no real loss to Wikipedia quality would occur, especially considering that the vast majority in both articles were added by banned SPA's in order to advance their cause and viewpoints, certainly not keeping in line with the NPOV standards people expect from Wikipedia. No other solution than reworking the articles into the pedophilia article makes sense. XavierVE 22:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no mention of rape at all, and I must've missed that vehement opposition to child porn on the part of the pro camp? I see "In Germany, the Krumme 13 organization, founded in 1993 and dissolved in 2003, stirred up massive mostly negative press coverage in the years 2001 through 2005. In 2005, krumme13.org won a penal court case that a textual depiction of a love relationship between an eleven-year-old boy and a thirty-year-old man in the Pedosexual Resources Directory was not child pornography." and "Robin Sharpe, a Canadian pedophile, successfully challenged some aspects of child pornography laws in the Canadian Supreme Court in 2002, arguing that his fictional writings were not illegal because they had artistic merit.[53]" Well, there's this: "The movement's members have vehemently opposed these characterizations.[citation needed]"

Pro-pedophile activism is relatively uncontested because most people aren't aware of its existence. -Jmh123 22:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

'COMMENT'I am in agreement with Jmh123. I think we should proceed with this NEW proposal in a formal manner and see what develops. OK? Next question, is how to do that? If someone knows and can start the ball rolling, that would be great. DPeterson^talk 22:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, ball is rolling. -Jmh123 22:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Pro-pedophile activism and Anti-pedophile activism into Pedophilia

Vote seeking

User:86.131.41.244 is writing to others asking them to vote on this and thus trying improperly to affect the vote. This is likely user:Voice of Britain, and we will have to take his tactics into consideration when deciding about consensus, SqueakBox 00:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aiming to achieve consensus on this article. You have no right to come in here, sneering about what kind of consensus I am trying to effect. It is totally within the rules of wikipedia to ask for someone's POV on an issue. Such activity is a valid part of the voting process, but you seem intent on abusing it to discount any vote against this ludicrous proposal. Go read logic, SqueakBox 86.131.41.244 00:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly a violation of the policy on WP:CANVAS. I think appropriate action should be taken within the scope of wikipedia policies and procedures, such as filing an Administrator incident report and such. DPeterson^talk 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is obviously one of the users who have been banned for trolling. I've blocked him as a likely sock of user:Voice of Britain. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If I've been solicited by a stakeholder, and not someone acting in good faith, I'll be striking my comments. I can't even implicitly support that kind of behavior. --Haemo 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Further vote seeking is referenced here: http://www.boychat.org/messages/1083105.htm - The pedophile community which seeks to "own" these articles is encouraging their supporters to register new nicknames in order to try to oppose the proper merging of the three articles as it will remove their ability to "control" the propaganda they have laid down in the pro-pedophile article as they have done for so long. Please be aware of new accounts registered for this purpose. XavierVE 01:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up...It is very important to remain vigilant. DPeterson^talk 01:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Xavier, your logic is flawed. I'll have to weigh in again, with one of my radical objectivity speeches.

I do not care at all who is asking who to vote what way (as long as it goes on away from wikipedia). I am concerned with the justifications and motivations given for the votes. Who is to say that the "boychat" community will not produce reasonable votes? Whilst this approach is fair and reasonable, it is utterly abominable to point towards this example and use it to reject any "against" vote made by a new user. As well as being biased, this would be a complete desertion of the good faith assumption.

As for the now blocked user, do we have any evidence that he/she was a previously banned user? Do we have any evidence that he/she was calling on an audience with partisan interests? I think not. Samantha Pignez 01:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Do we have any evidence that he/she was calling on an audience with partisan interests? I think not" - Please don't waste my time thinking I'll respond to any comments you have to make in the future, especially after you've written something like that. Fact is, pedophile activists are soliciting pedophile SPA's to come and try to influence the article merge process. Whether you wish to know that or not is irrelevant to me. XavierVE 02:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The folks at BoyChat are welcome to edit BoyWiki without any interference from us. But they are not welcome to come here and push their fringe viewpoints in this wiki. I trust the editors here to edit this article in a neutral manner without their help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Always good to hear such responsible statements. XavierVE 05:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

= "We don't take kindly to your type round here". Why exactly should a person be excluded from a project simply because of their opinion? Why should we tolerate diverse opinions and assume that they can leave them at the door, but not boychat regulars? And don't generalise by using your own subjective experience, Will. I wan't to know exactly why you make this discrimination. 213.239.218.176 05:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The truth is, he has no legitimate reason to make this distinction. As has been mentioned, the spirit of the "good faith" policy is that we allow people to edit regardless of their backgrounds or views under the assumption that they are here to make changes for the good of the encyclopedia rather than push a viewpoint. If their activity proves disruptive, THEN we deal with them, but we don't turn people away beforehand.

Xavier would be wise himself to not violate this "good faith" policy.

Mike D78 05:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The distinction which matters is that Wikipedia allows "anyone to edit" only if they follow the policies and norms of the project. Those who can't or won't aren't welcome. In those instances there are procedures in place to block their accounts. Using new accounts to circumvent blocks is not allowed. However, this page is for discussing the article, not the editors. If folks want to pursue this then there's my talk page, WP:AN/I, WP:RFC, and other forums for general or personnel issues. So I suggest we close this thread and return to discussing the merger and other article-related topics. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've started the discussion here; might as well finish it here.

The bottom line is, do you KNOW that the user you just blocked was a sockpuppet of a banned user, or are you just assuming?

Mike D78 07:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I already covered that in my first statement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the pro pedophile activists and I have something in common! ie we both see that keeping these 3 articles separate favours the pro pedophile activist cause. A pedophile who doesnt say I am a pedophile is clearly welcome here, one who self proclaims pedophilia is subject to blockiong. That much is clear. One who doesnt delf proclaim and attempts to edit these articles following our NPOV policy is clearly welcome here but one who tries to insert prop pedophile POV (as they threaten to in the chat forums) clearly is not welcome here. Will's action was based on the evidence and isnt controversial, SqueakBox 15:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether you think the current arrangement advances any particular cause is irrelevant (this is my word of the day! =) ). POV can be handled in a way that doesn't effectively gut 90% of the content in an article.

What matters is that the proposed merge would create a lot of confusion, and would ultimately result in the elimination of most of the notable information related to activism. Quality information will be lost. It should be obvious that this is the goal of those who proposed this idea; indeed, they themselves have made this clear. This is simply the next attempt to remove this information after all the various attempts to outright delete this article have failed.

Additionally, whether one "self proclaims" that they are a pedophile is just as irrelevant as whether one self-proclaims what country they are from or what political party they belong to. Wikipedia is intended to accept people of all backgrounds and views, and, again, if their activity proves disruptive, you ban them for their disruptive activity, not for their self-identification. Perhaps you hold the stance you do because of users in the past who you have considered to be disruptive? It seems unfair to presume that all people who self-identify in a certain way are incapable of making constructive contributions. And if it's others who make an issue out of how another user has self-identified, then THEY are the ones who are proving disruptive.

Mike D78 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your concerns about the merge being done badly are unfounded, all these issues of where to put the pederastry stuff etc can easily be fixed during a merge, and especially with someone like you on board to keep us all on our toes. Your claims that self proclaiming as a pedophile is irrelevant is simply inaccurate as this project does indeed contain policies and rules, and this means that people of all views (when expressed here) are not welcome. Self identifying pedophiles get indefinitely blocked, SqueakBox 21:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

He was arguing against the grubby tabloid efforts of wiki admins in blocking users simply for what they are or what they believe in. I don't think that he was arguing that the policies do not exist. Samantha Pignez 22:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

He has edited this encyclopedia 10 tens now so I assume he has no knowledge of our policies. of course he is entitled to disagree with our policies as long as he doesnt break them. I certainly wouldnt call them grubby tabloid efforts and they aim at self proclaimed belief, pedophiles who dont self proclaim and especially those who edit dont proclaim and just edit non pedophile subjects are of course treated just like any other user because there is no way wikipedia could identify such people as pedophiles, SqueakBox 22:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"I think your concerns about the merge being done badly are unfounded..."

There is no way that this merge could be done except badly. The topics simply do not mesh. I appreciate that you don't mind me being here to keep you on your toes, tho =)

Thanks Samantha, yeah, I think it's a poor policy. I'm not really sure who on the Wikipedia totem pole decided this "don't ask, don't tell" stance, or how the Wikipedia totem pole even works, really. But I'm willing to drop the issue if you're willing to drop the pretense and admit that this policy is more intended to improve Wikipedia's P.R. than it is to uphold the same standards that would apply to anyone else who would self-identify in any other way.

Mike D78 07:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well its not just pedophiles self identifying who get blocked, for instance professing rascists get exactly the same treatment. Improving wikipedia's PR is IMO a good thing and I'd like to see us removed as a passive corporate offender from the perverted justice site, for instance, SqueakBox 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if a group of right-wing nuts started complaining that Wikipedia had been "infiltrated" by liberals spreading left-wing propaganda, would you start blocking everyone who self-identified as a Democrat in the name of improving Wikipedia's PR? (On second thought, the right-wing nuts in question would probably just go and start their own encyclopedia...)

PJ's not going to be satisfied until all information documenting pedophile activism is censored from Wikipedia, that much should be obvious. They've already succeeded in convincing administrators to adopt this ridiculous policy against users who weren't even causing disruption, but had in fact made many contributions to this project, and yet they still label this site as a "corporate offender." And apparently, now that they've gotten all the "infiltrators" blocked, Xavier thinks he can strut in here and push through a proposal that is obviously intended to eliminate the information in this article.

Lest I seem like I'm just here to bitch and moan, I appreciate the fact that Wikipedia users thus far have apparently seen the usefulness in keeping this kind of notable, historical information on Wikipedia, and have repeatedly voted to preserve this article. The hard work of many individuals has gone into improving this entry. I hope that Wikipedians continue to see the wisdom in preserving this information, in an NPOV manner, instead of kowtowing to the demands of PJ. I also hope that the administrators reconsider this stance of blocking contributing users simply for their self-identification on Wikipedia. Maintaining integrity by upholding the policies of assumption of good faith and fairness toward all users should be more important than trying to improve Wikipedia's image among a small, self-righteous group of mostly zealous lunatics.

Mike D78 09:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to share your views. However you are mistaken on several points. The discussions about merging/splitting these articles predates Von Erck's involvement. He has no special clout as an editor. Second, many groups have decided that Wikipedia priorities and methods are not the same as their own, and have started their own wikis. For example, the Star Trek fans have a very complete wiki at "Alpha One", or something like that. And the "Boylovers" have one at BoyWiki. These are wikis that encourage the kinds of contributions that are discouraged at Wikipedia. Everyone has the right to "fork", in other words to make a copy of the encyclopedia or parts in a different setting where it can be changed independently. There could even be a "Mike D78wiki". WP:FORK. Third, the list of rights is very short and many editors are surprised that being treated fairly is not among them. This is not a free speech forum, it is not a soapbox where everyone gets five minutes, it is not a social experiment. WP:NOT. This is an encyclopedia project. Whatever our personal goals or interests, when we're editing here we should follow the goals and norms of this project. The goal of WP is to create a reputable reference work. Those who disrupt that effort are banned by the hundreds every day. Those who bring disrepute on the project are just as problematic, and just as unwelcome. Disruption can take many forms, including drawn-out debates. Finally, let's get back to discussing this article. There's a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch‎ in progress. We can carry on with this there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Disruption can take many forms, including drawn-out debates."

I would hope that simple, civilized talk on an article's talk page would not be construed as disruptive. And this subject seems very relevant to this article to me, but if you know how to transplant this discussion to another place, I'll join you there.

"The discussions about merging/splitting these articles predates Von Erck's involvement."

I realize that; it just seems to me that this idea has been strategically reproposed after the pressured blocking of several users who had previously voted to preserve this entry. Thankfully, though, it would seem that there are also many other users who see the value in keeping this article.

And whether fair treatment of editors is a value specifically stated as a right or not, assumption of good faith clearly is. To assume that someone is incapable of contributing and preemptively block them simply for their identity is clearly a violation of this policy. A project that claims to be inclusive in allowing anyone to edit should not be promoting an atmosphere that forces people to hide their identities for fear of retribution. Nor should users who are willing to play by the rules and make constructive contributions be encouraged to scurry off and edit their own encyclopedias, especially when a topic as controversial as this is involved. If creating an extensive, accurate and reputable reference work is truly important, then the interest of accepting the valuable contributions of everyone should outweigh concerns some people have over users who "bring disrepute."

Mike D78 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We arent here to discuss the right or wrongs of blocking pedophile editors, that should take place on your talk page if anywhere, SqueakBox 22:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're the one who made these inflammatory, off-topic accusations of alleged vote seeking on this talk page, and you're the one who brought up discussion about pedophile editors when you posted "one who self proclaims pedophilia is subject to blockiong. That much is clear." So perhaps you should've followed your own advice?

Don't expect to open up a can of worms like that and then criticize others for the discussion that naturally follows.

Mike D78 22:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Claims of vote stacking re this article are absolutely on topic, complaints about aour pedophile policies are completely off topic. Hope this is clear? If there are a can of wroms re this article pleaswe can you specify what they are, SqueakBox 23:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia was intended to be kept as open and democratic as possible, therefore this discussion is important and needs to take place, where ever that happens. I see no need to make an issue over such a minor thing as where this discussion happens, and again, if someone more experienced with Wikipedia than I knows how to move it elsewhere, I'll let them take care of that.

Regardless, I don't see how any of this is keeping anyone else from discussing the article if they want to.

Mike D78 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

While I here your opinion about how wikipedia was intended to be I dont agree with it, SqueakBox 00:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not trying to force anyone into accepting my way of thinking here; I just felt it necessary to respond to this discussion, which had been going on before I even joined in. No hard feelings? =)

Mike D78 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Samantha! Like her, I see absolutely no reason to be suspicious of new accounts that only post on one contentious topic! In order to assume good faith, we must systematically overlook obvious bias! Femaleperson Notapedo 03:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a reflection of your level of experience oin this project but in certain controversial topics, eg La Rouche, it doesnt work like that, SqueakBox 23:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Femaleperson, anyone is free to feel as paranoid about other users as they wish. The debate is over whether preemptive action against such users is permissible and in the spirit of Wikipedia's rules, and it clearly is not. And as much as others keep criticizing "SPAs," the Wikipedia policy on single-purpose accounts only states that such users should be regarded with "gentle scrutiny." In many situations, users who wish to edit only a small group of articles are beneficial, as they can utilize their specialized knowledge to improve Wikipedia's content in specific areas.

Mike D78 03:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to delete this comment as trolling, but I'll leave the discussion for context. In fact, you will see that I started on the Queer article project, but moved over here because the former seems to be rather inactive, with a very low burden of referencing. Maybe it's just a thirst for polemic, but with some of the editors "making their mark" on this article, it seems like some degree of sanity is required. Samantha Pignez 23:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

DSM in "Pro" claims section

As can be seen from previous edits to the article, an editor is attempting to insert the unsupported, unsourced claim that the DSM implies pedophilia in almost every child molester. This claim has been inserted in different places, removed and then reinstated without any other justification but "deleted in error". Whats more, the DSM is adequately (and accurately) covered in the criticism section, yet the section which is being targeted concerns the claims of pedophile activists. This kind of annoys me - the creeping, malignant implantation of unsourced, subjective opinions, supposedly to prove ad nauseum that "we don't agree with them, REALLY". Very poor article construction. 213.239.218.176 01:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the DSM material belongs. It is important to provide balance and note that there is a difference in views between mainstream professionals and Pedophiles. I think it is important to let readers know that Pedophilia is a mental illness. However, rather than merely revert back and forth...why don't we see what other editors have to say? I'll leave this alone for now until we see what others think. DPeterson^talk 03:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep DSM in "Pro" claims section or delete the references that 213 wants deleted?

'Keep For the reasons I've stated above. DPeterson^talk 01:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete from the pro claims section, as per my justification. I modified the vote, since I do not oppose the DSM's mention in criticism 213.239.218.176 01:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per DPeterson, SqueakBox 03:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per DPeterson. If random IP's are going to vote, I might as well too. XavierVE 07:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete this reference; it is unsourced and inaccurate. The facts simply do not prove that "nearly all child molestors" are motivated by pedophilia in the strict DSM definition of the term. The reference is also slopily written, as well; an exact figure would be much more preferable, but this sentence probably doesn't belong in the various places that one user has been attempting to insert it, anyway. Mike D78 04:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep per XavierVE. This IP and Mike D78 is obviously a sock puppet. These editors have been here for some time, from their contribs. Its silly of Wikipedia policies to entertain sock puppets. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, first of all, you're completely off-topic in making this accusation here (not to mention the fact that you've already accused me of this in, I believe, two other places). Secondly, I would ask you to stop making these accusations against me without any proof whatsoever. Apparently editing some of the same articles that a previous user edited is enough to get me accused of being a sockpuppet? Bull. Please, stop with these unfounded accusations against me, or I will consider them to be personal attacks.

You were also out of line in deteling 213's vote based on mere speculation of his identity; I have restored it.

Mike D78 22:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - misinformative and out of context! Samantha Pignez 23:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mergefrom

The Pedophilia article contains far, far too much information that belongs on this page. I've proposed that the relevant sections be merged here. Exploding Boy 06:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is because this article (most of it) is duplicated in both places--a revert war is going on--merge this page into pedophilia, revert, lather, rinse, repeat. It's the same material. -Jmh123 06:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a request on Requested moves, but there's no good reason for duplication of material, and there's especially no good reason to stuff the main pedophilia article with activism information, whether pro- or anti-. If it becomes necessary, the relevant pages will be protected, and edit warrers will be blocked.. Exploding Boy 06:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Information removed from the main article can be found here

Move page

I've proposed that this page be renamed Pedophilia activism, to encompass both pro- and anti- views, as one would expect. Exploding Boy 06:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism#Agree_to_Merge.3F above you. -Jmh123 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, if there's really that much information I could see a need for two separate articles, but as it is there really isn't enough to warrant separate articles for each stance. That's why we have redirects. Exploding Boy 07:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think once the duplicate material is deleted, merging with Pedophilia will work best. DPeterson^talk 12:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, clearly it won't. That's the entire problem: There's so much pro-pedophilia activism stuff that placing it in the main article turns it into more or less a pro-pedophile article, makes it confusing, and reduces neutrality. The obvious solution is to combine all the activism-related information in one article, which can then be separated into two if it becomes necessary (at present there's not enough anti-pedophile information to warrant a split). Exploding Boy 16:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I am going to afd the article on Saturday so I suggest waiting till after that process has finished but if we decide to keep then indeed we should have one pedophile activism article fully balanced between anti and pro activists, SqueakBox 17:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean you're going to list the Pro-pedophile activism page for deletion? This is becoming confusing; can we do one thing at a time? Exploding Boy 17:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should do one thing at a time, hence my flagging of my intention. I'd do it now but the page is lockled till Saturday, SqueakBox 17:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is your policy reason for listing the article for deletion? -- Kesh 17:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a reason, which is why I advise SqueakBox not to do it. Exploding Boy 17:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you wait till I actually file the afd but the disputre is enough reason in itself, unless of course we revert the suspected sock of banned user kirbytime and leave it as a redirect, SqueakBox 17:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Squeak, one user's accusations that I am a sockpuppet do not warrant disregard of my edits. Please respect my presence here just as I respect yours.

Mike D78 23:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are a sock of a banned user your edits should be reverted according to banning policy, and if you arent I think they should be reverted anyway. If you arent a sock of a banned user you are, of course, as welcome here as anyone, SqueakBox 23:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, you were the one who was acting out of line in the first place by redirecting an article with no consensus to do so. That was not a "good faith" edit; it was an edit that flew in the face of extensive discussion beforehand. Don't point the blame at me for reverting your disruptive edits.

Mike D78 23:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You are assuming that if the dispute is locked that means do nothing, which no policy nor common sense supports. If I had done the move in the face of overwhelming opposition that would have been in bad faith but given the debate was locked my move cannot be considered bad faith, and indeed it was a good faith edit that did not fly in the face of the discussion but did signifying that those opposing the move dont have special rights or greater influence on the project than those supporting it, as your comments imply that they should have, SqueakBox 23:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not implying that those who opposed the move have more influence, Squeak. We were simply for maintaining the status quo; you were the one who was attempting to impose a major edit on an article, and unfortunately, to do that you need more support than a discussion that ended in "no consensus."

Mike D78 00:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, a dispute is not valid reason to delete an article. You may want to read the deletion policy. Exploding Boy 18:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is when the dispute is about getting rid of the article!c SqueakBox 23:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Er dont make assumptions and do just wait for the afd, SqueakBox 18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's all wait and then comment on the afd. Frankly deleting the article, or finding some way to trim it and include the basics in the Pedophilia article are my preferences. Having the three articles just seems too much duplication...sure merging will require some radical trimming, but that can be accomplished, assuming no socks interfere. DPeterson^talk 23:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"sure merging will require some radical trimming, but that can be accomplished, assuming no socks interfere."

Translation: assuming no one who questions DPeterson's edits "interferes."

Mike D78 23:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He is actually talking about people like Voice of Britain, SqueakBox 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This section is for discussing the proposed merging of the pro and anti articles into a single article about activism. I would encourage users who seem obsessed with the idea of deleting/merging this article into the pedophilia article to drop the issue. The idea has been discussed to death, rejected, and even carried out in defiance of typical protocol, and the result was judged by an admin to be unacceptable. So please, let's move on.

As for merging the pro and anti articles, I think that is unnecessary at this time, as the anti article was still farily new and had plenty of room for expansion. Theoretically, an anti-pedophile activism article could include the history of anti-pedophile sentiment, such as the 80s daycare satanic abuse scandals, laws that have been passed and organizations that have been formed in response to high profile events, etc. Again, the anti-pedophile activism article was created fairly recently, and it was created for a purpose, so we should give interested users time to work on it before we scrap it.

Thoughts? Mike D78 23:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with everything you have just written, SqueakBox 23:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

At a min. the two article need to be merged as they are just two halfs of one topic. They then can be merged with the Pedophilia article of which they are just a subsection. DPeterson^talk 00:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

They are clearly separate topics, which was why the anti-pedophilia activism article was created recently to begin with. The anti article is newer, and simply hasn't been expanded yet as much as it could be. Mike D78 00:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, would you care to discuss what exactly it is you disagree with concerning what I have written? Also, I have restored the anti-pedophilia activism page to its former version, as there was no consensus to redirect it. I would encourage users to focus on how we can improve the anti-pedophilia activism article to make it just as long as this one. Again, it was created only recently, and to delete it now would be silly. I think it's a relevant article that deserves some work. Mike D78 00:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

This is currently listed at WP:RM, but there appears to be no poll as yet, and no prospect of consensus if one were to be taken. Feel free to set one up, but it's a waste of time IMO, especially in view of the failed proposal to merge with Anti-pedophile activism (currently a redirect, see Talk:Anti-pedophile activism#What happened to the article? and elsewhere in that talk page). Interesting discussion, and I commend the restraint of some editors! Hang in there. Andrewa 00:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Support merge we don't need two POV forks--Sefringle^Talk 05:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Per reasoning stated in numerous previous discussions, I once again oppose the proposed merger of the pro- and anti- articles. Not only are these two articles of different quality and length, but they deal with almost completely seperate movements. Unless enough sourced information is added to the anti- article to prove that it is the opposite of pro-pedophile activism, the two articles should remain seperate. If anyone is interested in reviewing the other reasons editors have listed for opposing this merge, please look through this Talk Page and its Archives. If someone knows how to provide links to the specific sections dealing with prior discussion of and voting on this particular merge, please list them here (I personally do not know how to correctly do that yet). Homologeo 00:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
3. I suggest we wait until after the afd as if the community decides to delete there will be no point to this debate, SqueakBox 00:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
4. 'Support merge' unless the vote is to delete. DPeterson^talk 02:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Not sure if this was intended to be a vote, but I oppose this merge, for reasons I have stated in various places. If this goes to a formal vote, I will expound upon my reasons. Mike D78 06:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose - are we allowed to paste these votes? It seems like a new one is being proposed every day for reasons possibly concerning monkeys and typewriters. Samantha Pignez 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

All editors: please use article talk pages for discussion of the relevant article(s) only. Take other discussion to user talk pages or email. Thank you. Exploding Boy 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why I am going to put this article up for afd

This article fails on notability grounds. While individuals such as Lindsay Ashford have shown notability on the project, and while certain groups also demonstarte notability (like NAMBLA) the concept of a Pro-pedophile activist movement does not, IMO, meet our notability guidelines (whereas the anti-pedophile activism movement actually does so much more) and what notabilty it has can easily be included in a short section in pedophile (as the movement does have enough notability to warrant mention there), SqueakBox 00:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, and I'm positive that the conclusion will be to keep, but I don't see why you have to wait for the current protection to expire before listing it, if you feel you must. If it's a concern about being able to tag the article, you can make an edit request to an already protected page via {{editprotected}}. Exploding Boy 00:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Exploding Boy. The previous discussion on the merge included the comments of several users who agreed that this article was notable. What's more, the article is extensively sourced, much more so than many other articles. Proposals have been made to delete this entry before, and each time users have decided that it is best to keep it.

Why not work on making constructive edits rather than merely proposing various ways to ultimately get rid of this article?

Mike D78 00:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would rather wait as I am happier with an afd when people can edit the article. We dont have a cannabis activism article or an Earth activism article (but we do have the Earth Liberation Front etc. We do have an animal rights activism article, the Animal liberation movement but animal rights are considerably more notable than pedophile activism is so whereas you are entitled to your opinion that it will result in keep I disagree with you, EB, there and think given a strong argument that the community will choose to decide that the movement is not notable. Mike, an afd is the most constructive eidt I can think of re this article in terms of the encyclopedia, SqueakBox 00:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

An AfD on this has zero chance of succeeding IMO, but it might help clear the air. Andrewa 00:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I think it should be done sooner rather than later. It makes no particular difference that people can't directly edit the article during an AFD, and if there's good reason to do so, they can use the template given above. Exploding Boy 00:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As important is the fact that this article, if you check the edit history, was mostly created and expanded by now banned accounts due to those accounts being SPA-pedophile. Vast majority of content in this article is non-notable and added by single-purpose users to promote their propaganda. And yes, I'm sure Mike D78 will now scurry around to give the BoyChat line in reply of why all the duplicated content in this article is important. Boring.

Neither pedophile activism NOR anti-pedophile activism is, at the end of the day, notable. I can count on ONE HAND the amount of media articles that have been done regarding pedophile activism and anti-pedophile activism. The vast majority of pedophile activist organizations who had articles created (by those in the organizations themselves, heh) were deleted for non-notability. See the successful BoyChat article AfD for an example. XavierVE 01:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"We dont have a cannabis activism article"

Yes we do.

"or an Earth activism article"

Again, we actually do, although it's not called that.

If you're going to bring up the discussion concerning notability again, though, I'll just restate my previous argument:

If you take a look at the article for Deafness, for instance, you will find that all of the medical-related information on the condition is in the "Deafness" article, while most of the socially-relevant information is in the "Deaf culture" article. As should be obvious, the scope of information related to the medical definition of deafness and the sociology associated with the condition are vastly different, thus separate articles are necessary. The same concept can also be observed with the separate articles for "Autism" and the "Autistic rights movement," and the same would logically apply with pedophilia. Others' view of the legitimacy of the movement is irrelevant toward deciding whether a separate article on it should exist or not. The movement exists, and is well-documented, thus the article on it exists.

Many other articles may likewise seem "non-notable" to the general public but still provide quality information that is highly relevant to certain groups of people. As controversial of a topic as this is, quality information is scarce, so Wikipedia has good reason to ensure that this information remains available.

The pro-pedophile movement emerged as a splinter-movement of gay rights during the sexual revolution, thus the connection. Among many, this WAS considered an LGBT issue (and by a few it still is). This article documents a relevant and interesting series of historical events. I realize many likely find the subject of this article highly distasteful. Most are horrified to discover that such a thing as "pro-pedophile activism" exists, but the truth is, it DOES exist, so we have an interest in documenting it within Wikipedia as we would with any other subject, as distasteful as some may find it. This information is relevent to both those who share the point of view of the activists and those who wish to combat it.

Mike D78 01:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Afd to discuss Merger issues is just a big no way. I would suggest that your only option is a balanced merger. If you take it to Afd i think it could be quickly dismissed as WP:SNOW and you have wasted everyones time. Anti-Pedophilia activism of course attracts worldwide attention for the simple reason that Pedophiles are the least likely group to expound their views. Most pedophile attacks on children are sadistic crimes and very few of them are what NAMBLA says its members are engaged in. Pro-Pedophilia has a notability because it is so against the mainstream. In Wikipedia we have articles on Trotskyists clandestine groups that only number a hundred people, I think it comes into the same kind of category. Afd is not to discuss mergers. And I would advise everyone pushing the issue to avoid it IMHO ;-) Mike33 01:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to Xavier's comments:

"due to those accounts being SPA-pedophile"

Again, if you will read Wikipedia's policy on single-purpose accounts, you will see that such accounts are intended to be handled only with "gentle scrutiny." Simply the fact that articles are edited by SPAs is not reason enough to disregard them as non-notable. I would imagine highly-technical science-related articles are also mostly edited by SPAs interested in specific topics, as well. Such articles are, likewise, likely not notable to many people in the general public but are highly-notable to certain groups of people.

"And yes, I'm sure Mike D78 will now scurry around to give the BoyChat line in reply of why all the duplicated content in this article is important"

First of all, the content in this article is not "duplicated:" for the most part, it exists only in this article and belongs only in this article. Secondly, you can continue to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as "giving the BoyChat line" if you wish, but you're not going to win over most users with your paranoid conspiracy nonsense. I guess every user who has voted in favor of keeping this article in the past is a "BoyChat" member as well?

The truth is, most users, in the past and now, see that this information is notable and that this article is worthy of keeping.

Mike D78 01:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so you don't wish to self-identify. You joined on June 26th, the day a call for vote seeking regarding this article was issued on BoyChat, this is the only article you've shown an interest in and members have already pointed out your sock-puppet status. How long are you willing to keep up the charade? XavierVE 07:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks on good editors. Roman Czyborra 08:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Several things, Xavier:

1. No one has "pointed out" my "sock-puppet status." I am not a sockpuppet of any other user, there is no fair evidence to label me as such, and just because some random user decides to accuse me of being a sock doesn't make it so.
2. I am not a user of "BoyChat," but even if I were, as Samantha previously pointed out, that would be irrelevant. My identify outside of Wikipedia, should I choose to disclose it or not, is of no concern to you, although you seem intent on making an issue of it. Other users have no less business being here because of their identities than you do because of yours.
3. Before you criticise me for previously pointing out your bias: yes, I have my opinions regarding various topics just as you and everyone else do. The difference is, I'm not the one suggesting that people who simply have opinions different than mine should be banned from this project.

Apologies to other users, as this discussion has been drug off-topic; I simply felt the need to defend myself here.

Mike D78 09:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have zero interest in your identity outside wikipedia but am concerned about other identities of yours witrhin wikipedia and what you wouild do were you to be banned from here (ie just create another identity etc), SqueakBox 23:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You know the process to check if I am a sock or not; either do it or quit making accusations against me. You've been warned about this before. Mike D78 21:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. Let's develop a new strategy. Ignore these multiple proposals (bar the vote) and concentrate on building this article. Hopefully at least 50% of the editors will have some semblence of neutrality. Samantha Pignez 23:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well lets deal with the afd first. if the community decides it wants this POV fork we can figure out what to do next though I imagine it would be to merge with the anti article. I fully agree we need more neutral editors like myself involved in the article, SqueakBox 23:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

lol Mike D78 21:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Sources" for this article

If one would note, a few of the sources for this "article" have been removed from the internet period, notably the "debate guide" blog (And everyone knows blogs don't meet Sourcing standards here) and a few of the other weird blogs that banned SPA's put into this article. But more importantly... about 60% of this article is sourced to one source... IPCE.info. Each IPCE reference was also implanted into this article by banned SPA accounts as well. If you don't believe me, check the edit history.

Please do explain how IPCE.info is a valid source by Wikipedian standards. It's a poorly coded website whose content is propagated by one person. Even the articles IPCE hosts that they claim come from specific newsletters, there's no actual evidence that these newsletters A. Existed and B. contained the content claimed. Should this article survive the pending AfD, I would think Wikipedian editors should examine the material laid down by now-banned SPA's and especially anything sourced to IPCE... or any of the sources in general, a few of them don't even exist anymore. XavierVE 01:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the sources, and not even close to 60% of them link to that site. From what I understand, this site is maintained by a group of people and mostly serves as a repository for scientific studies and scholarly articles, which certainly are valid sources by Wikipedia's standards.

One would expect an article about activism to reference websites that, likewise, concern activism. But if you have a problem with the subject of this article to begin with, then of course you're going to question its sources.

Mike D78 02:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, this site is maintained by a group of people and mostly serves as a repository for scientific studies and scholarly articles, which certainly are valid sources by Wikipedia's standards. And there's the BoyChat line. In reality, there is no staff, it's maintained by one guy. It's certainly not by any definition a "scholarly" website. XavierVE 07:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to know more about this website than I do. Nevertheless, it seems to me that you are attempting to apply unnecessary scrutiny toward the sources of this article in order to further undermine it. This kind of excessive scrutiny is not applied to other articles, and it seems like it is not enough for you that this article already has far more sources than many other articles of similar length do.

Links to mirrors of studies and professional articles are certainly suitible sources for articles on Wikipedia. Now, do you have some relevant issues you'd like to discuss, or do you simply wish to continue to undermine my contributions via ad hominem attacks?

Mike D78 08:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The veracity of a source is an important factor. I don't see ad hominem attacks here. Let's stay civil please. DPeterson^talk 00:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If constantly accusing me of giving the "boy chat line" after each comment I make is not an ad hominem attack, it certainly isn't helpful to our editing of this article. Mike D78 21:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixing the anti-pedophile activism article

A previous discussion only half a month ago concerning the merging of the pro and anti pedophile activism articles resulted in no consensus, with the majority of users disaproving of the idea. Rather than putting our efforts into further debate over this proposal so soon, why not discuss how we can improve the anti-pedophile activism article so that it can become just as comprehensive as this one? I have proposed some ideas at the talk page for that article concerning how we can do just that.

It seems to me that activism regarding these topics represents two different subjects that deserve their own articles. We need criticism and controversy regarding pro-pedophile activism to be kept in this article, but anti-pedophile activism consists of more than simply criticism of pro-pedophile activism. Anti-pedophile sentiment is not generally in response to pro-pedophile activism, but is often in response to high-profile events that provoke public reaction and new laws. The anti-pedophile activism article should document the history of anti-pedophile sentiment, just as this article documents the history of its topic.

The fact is, organisations like PJ were not formed in response to NAMBLA, etc. Anti-pedophile activism has its own, generally unrelated history which should be kept seperate from this article and documented in its own entry. Mike D78 10:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are on the wrong page, this is the pro and not the anti article, butt he reality is activism in relation to pedophilia is a tiny activism dominated by anti pedophile activists and with a tiny number of pro pedophile activists. A pedophile activism that concentrated 90% on the anti pedophile activists movement, PJ, Crisp Thinking et al, and 10% on the much less notable pro pedophilia movement. After all we arent here to promote pedophilia, SqueakBox 23:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not on the wrong page; I was directing people to a relevant discussion and discussing why I don't believe a proposed merging of these articles is proper.

If you think anti-pedophile activism is so notable, why not go expand that article!? You instead seem determined to support proposal after proposal that will force us to focus on voting for things rather than making edits.

Finally, documenting information is not the same as "promoting pedophilia;" do I need to give you another lecture on how we need to document encyclopedic information even if we find it distasteful?

Mike D78 21:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No more lectures. Plesae, SqueakBox 22:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Jmh

You certainly made a lot of little changes to this article, including the removal of an entire section. Why don't we discuss things things first; particularly, if you felt that paragraph needs to be integrated elsewhere, let's figure out how to do that before deleting the information. Mike D78 21:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert her good work? SqueakBox 22:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not necessarily consider outright deletion of information to be "good work," or "work" at all, really. I would've preferred if she would've discussed strategies to reword or reintegrate the information elsewhere in the article first. Mike D78 22:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The changes were excellent and well prepared. Please do on revert good work...at the very least, if you object, please state your objections here. DPeterson^talk 22:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, Peterson, you blatantly butter up to everyone who makes edits you agree with without ever backing up your opinions. Why were these changes "excellent?" Mike D78 22:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Mike D78, normally I would do that, but I see very little constructive discussion taking place here, and I've no interest in endlessly bickering. The entry is not perfect, as I explained on your talk page, and no article should remain so unchanged as this one has for three years. Some of it is fine, in my opinion, but there are areas that need work, and there's no need to overdo the special pleading. -Jmh123 22:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"I see very little constructive discussion taking place here"

So start some. =D I'd be more than willing to engage in some constructive discussion if others could address me without calling me a sockpuppet or a troll for once (not directed at you, you've been kind to me). Mike D78 22:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And deleting entire subsections is pretty significant; I don't consider this to be "special pleading." Mike D78 22:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree, but I see no point in debating. I don't think constructive discussion is possible on these topics, as I've rarely seen a point conceded by either "side", only endless, endless arguing. And in that spirit, I'm going to step away for now. -Jmh123 22:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the edits were clearly problematic, especially the removal of a section that dares to admit that some official research supports some activist positions. As for Peterson, he has to learn that we discuss before reverting to a new version that someone is contesting on a talk page. That is the done thing here. Samantha Pignez 23:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Samantyah, I advise you to make some serious contributions to the project before starting to lecture other more experienced users about how things work here. You have less thasn 50 edits so should be learning from others not claiming you know how this project works, as you clearly do not, SqueakBox 18:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No one's lecturing anyone, Squeak. The number of edits a user has made do not determine the worth of their contributions and opinions. Simply the fact that you have been here longer than others does not make you better than them, as you imply, and your attitude is completely against Wikipedia's policy toward newcomers and the intended spirit of Wikipedia in general.

In short, you're treating Samantha just like you treated me. If you're truly as experienced regarding Wikipedia as you say, you should know by now that this kind of conduct is inexcusable. Mike D78 00:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The additions and deletions by Jmh123 were excellent because they improved the article by adding relevant material and deleting material that has no authentic support. The "official research" is quite flawed and some of the material was not even empirical research, merely opinions. DPeterson^talk 13:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Today I have edited through to the end of the "decline" section. I have been careful to change no meaning, and removed only a few words that I considered to be POV, and one unsourced statement that seemed to me to be of no vital importance. My main concern was to correct the formatting, and to improve the style of writing, which was, though well done, apparently not the work of a native speaker of English. I'd appreciate it if this work was not reverted wholesale, as it was tedious and detailed work. In my mind, this is the heart of the article, and is a NPOV history of the movement. The remainder of the article is more problematic, but I'm not going there today. -Jmh123 19:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a thanks to SqueakBox who has followed up with many excellent small edits that improve the quality of the article. -Jmh123 20:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Individual advocates and opponents

Jmh recently deleted a section listing individuals that supported and opposed pedophile activism. This was probably a good move; I would imagine these individuals probably have nuanced views and might not wish to be identified in this particular way. However, I think some of this information could be integrated elsewhere within the article. Individuals who explicitly identify themselves as opponents or supporters, such as Ashford, should certainly be mentioned, and I think we can find places for some of the quotes of people like Califia, Green, Levine, Paglia, Schlessinger, Echols, etc. Directly quoting individuals would eliminate most of the problem of alledgedly POV wording, as long as the quotes are placed in the proper context. Mike D78 06:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The list was a bad idea but obviously individuals can be nmentioned in the text, SqueakBox 18:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Some quotations might be of use, but please avoid simply stringing them together without some sort of integral quality that improves the article. Post "decline", there are simply too many lists, in my opinion. Lists should not be a substitute for well-written content. -Jmh123 20:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Last two paragraphs in "decline"

These two paragraphs are not sourced and do not appear to be related to the notion of decline. They appear to me to be somewhat random insertions made after the main section was written. May I delete them? I have no objection to a subsequent restatement or a new section including this information, if sourced. -Jmh123 18:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Pedophile advocacy turned in the mid-90s to the Internet. In 1995, BoyChat, a message board for "boylovers", was established. In 1997, participants on BoyChat and other online resources formed Free Spirits, an umbrella organization with the mission of raising money and providing secure Internet hosting services. The Montreal Ganymede Collective was formed in Montreal by Free Spirits members in 1998 as a forum for "boylovers" to meet in the real world. In early 2001, the first "boylove" broadcast media source, Sure Quality Internet Radio, was founded by Jeffrey Gold in Florida, USA.^{[citation needed]} In Germany, the Krumme 13 organization, founded in 1993 and dissolved in 2003, stirred up massive and mostly negative press coverage in the years 2001 through 2005. In 2005, krumme13.org won a penal court case that a textual depiction of a love relationship between an eleven-year-old boy and a thirty-year-old man in the Pedosexual Resources Directory was not child pornography.^{[citation needed]}

Yeah, the bit about the radio station and the other group don't seem very important. Mike D78 03:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Which other group? Also, the theme of the internet paragraph and the rest isn't decline, so it doesn't fit. BTW, of course I agree about the concise intro, but your edit implying that change in the DSM would occur in future required a response. Looks OK now. -Jmh123 05:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Which other group?"

Krumme 13; the reference to the penal case didn't seem important enough to be included in the history overview, and I believe the organization is mentioned elsewhere. The reference to the radio station doesn't seem very important either, although we could perhaps reinsert the reference to it if we can find a source.

A better title for the final subsection under "History" might be "Decline and recent developments." Or maybe we could break off a new section called "Recent developments;" the last section is pretty long. And not every event from a certain point on has to be considered as part of a "decline." Discussion of the shift to Internet activism seems relevant in the context of the history of the movement.

"your edit implying that change in the DSM would occur in future required a response"

Yeah, I thought I would mention the movement's stated response to the DSM classification, but I realize it's kinda mentioned in the first paragraph (and discussed in more detail later on in the article). That level of detail isn't necessary for the introduction. I agree, it's best to just leave it as it is now. Mike D78 05:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Study by Mary de Young

Is totally POV as it describes sonme very POV beliefs with none of the opposition to contrast. We need more criticism of pro pedophile activist beliefs if this article is to become NPOV and this is a classic example of it not beiong here. lets make an effort to source those who debunk the unusual claims of the pro ped activists, SqueakBox 19:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the de Young section and the section following should be merged together, and the two reworked into a shorter form. The introduction needs to be more clear, and the possibility of these sections sounding like a manifesto should be avoided. Just an FYI to our friends, overstating one's point can actually diminish its effectiveness. This article protests too much. -Jmh123 20:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not POV, nearly, yet. DPeterson^talk 20:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Media sources

I deleted this section as it appeared to me to be overkill. There are already lists of organizations, external links, references, and footnotes. These were simply links to more articles about the subject, none particularly definitive or making points that were different from the main article as far as I could tell. They appeared to me to be lazy additions rather than thoughtful incorporations. If they contain information not otherwise present, they can be worked into the text and footnoted. -Jmh123 20:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But those specific links are not in those other sections and the links appear relevant to me. DPeterson^talk 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the specific links are not present, and if you feel that they make important points not otherwise made, could they not be better used as references to additional material? -Jmh123 20:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you have reverted me. I won't edit war with you, but I still say these links are a lazy alternative to distilling and incorporating information into the text. Several have said there is a need for more criticism of the movement; why not take the opportunity to do something about it? -Jmh123 20:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I just think that listing the links in a separately labeled section is most appropriate since these are external links. DPeterson^talk 21:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. These are simply links to articles on the topic which should be incorporated into the article itself. There's absolutely nothing significant or special about them in comparison to any other reference in the notes. They are references without a referrant. External links are typically for major websites on a topic, not random articles. -Jmh123 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you'd like to try to incorporate them into the article, that would work for me. In the alternative, I'm happy to leave them where they are until a better alternative ir offered. DPeterson^talk 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your generosity. -Jmh123 22:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits, and other thoughts:

Feel free to respond to each of these seperately:

• Good work with the grammatical and syntax improvements, as well as the edits that moved passages to more appropriate places.

• The complete removal of information regarding the goals of pedophile activists in the introduction seems unnecessary. To me, this seems like a logical place to summarize these goals, with reasoning for them expanded upon later in the article. I understand that the format of the information as a list was disapproved of, however, so I have reinserted the information in non-list form. Let me know if you think this information could be worded more efficiently.

• For the introductory section, can we come up with a more high-profile person than the Kansas attorney general who can be quoted as opposing pedophile activism?

• Titling a section "Fritz Bernard" seems to put undue weight on the actions of one person, to me. I have renamed this section "Early developments."

• I realize the list in the "Dutch petition" section was a problem, but we don't need to eliminate that information completely. Two sentences doesn't seem like enough information for an entire subsection, and the removal of information makes the exact nature of the petition mentioned unclear. Also, the last sentence notes that an organization was "apparently alarmed by the success of the petition," but the removal of the previous information makes the level of success unclear and makes the quote seem out of place. I have restored the info in non-list form and have tried to integrate it as clearly and briefly as possible.

• We need to show that the allegations against the Netherlands concerning pedophilia were questioned; letting the statement that children were publically auctioned off for prostitution go uncontested is ridiculous.

• We need to leave in the part about the distinction between pedophiles and child molesters. This is an important part of what many pedophile activists argue and believe, and the quoted study demonstrates the scientific dispute over the exact nature of the condition of pedophilia.

• We could have perhaps a sentence or two more about NAMBLA in the "decline of the movement" section (I might work on this within the next few days). For English readers, NAMBLA is probably the organization most clearly associated with pedophile activism, and it's barely mentioned.

• The long "references" section at the end of the article makes it seem longer than it is. Just an observation.

• Let me know if you have any other comments on my changes.

Mike D78 03:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"The complete removal of information regarding the goals of pedophile activists in the introduction" was done because the info was unsourced. "We need to leave in the part about the distinction between pedophiles and child molesters" shouldnt be here but in pedophilia, IMO. Lots of refs is no bad thing, SqueakBox 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"'The complete removal of information regarding the goals of pedophile activists in the introduction' was done because the info was unsourced."

I may see if I can add some sources to the statement, then; other sourced claims later in the article pretty much state the same thing. A brief summary of many activists common goals in the intro seems helpful.

"'We need to leave in the part about the distinction between pedophiles and child molesters' shouldnt be here but in pedophilia, IMO."

Eh, yeah, but activists argue this point, too.

"Lots of refs is no bad thing,"

Agreed, it's a good thing; it just makes the article's page longer. There's not any way to make the references at the bottom take up less room, is there? Perhaps a three column organization, if that's possible, or a scroll box? Mike D78 21:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) re your last point, I have a feeling this is the smallest we can get, SqueakBox 21:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What about something along these lines (assuming the "jump to" links in the main article work correctly with a scroll box):

Mike D78 22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, SqueakBox 22:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll work on implementing it then. Mike D78 22:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, that got rid of the horizontal scrollbar for the page. Some of the references still need fixing to prevent the scrollbox from having a horizontal scrollbar, though. In particular, there are some cited websites that need to be formatted in the proper way for a referenced website instead of simply having the url cited. I'll work on tweaking this later. Mike D78 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. I dont think any technical innovations are likely to prove controversial, SqueakBox 22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully not ;-) Mike D78 22:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I think the recent edits by Mike D78 and Jmh123 are really quite good and are improvements...to the point, well sourced, all seem within Wikipedia policies. Great work. DPeterson^talk 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no prob =) Mike D78 07:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Questioning assumptions about pedophilia as a mental illness

Recent edits to and other statements in the "questioning science" sections refer to studies that activists "may cite," but provide no reference. "May cite" is...not encyclopedic. Beyond the pages of Wikipedia, where are these arguments/citations made? -Jmh123 21:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The scientific studies mentioned are mirrored on the "Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors Information Center" site, which most would probably consider to be related to activism. Is this suitible enough to establish the connection?

"May cite" was used simply to convey the idea that, obviously, not all activists argue the same ideas and some may cite certain studies while others don't. That wording wasn't selected to skirt any encyclopedic requirements. Mike D78 21:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I realize that, but there's a difference between doing activism, and writing an encyclopedia article about it. You should cite examples of activists actively engaging this issue, and referring to these studies as they do so, in reliable, published, preferably scientific or academic sources. Otherwise it looks like just another excuse to mention these studies in Wikipedia, and they are already referenced elsewhere. -Jmh123 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll work on adding some sources that involve activists engaging those issues; probably can't get around to it until a bit later, tho. Mike D78 21:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are no sources, the material should be deleted, if there are verifiable and reliable sources, then the material belongs. DPeterson^talk 23:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Lindsay Ashford's self-published materials aren't reliable, published, scientific, or academic; maybe you can rework the language accordingly when he's your only cite?? -Jmh123 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, weren't we just trying to establish that some activists make those arguments? Wouldn't a citation of a prominent activist website be suitable for that purpose?

I also cited some pages from the "Myths and Facts" section of the MHAMic website, which is maintained by Richard Kramer, M.S. and David White, B.Ed., M.A., and is probably more scholarly. The pages referenced actually cite Okami & Goldberg and Langevin. Mike D78 21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did state, "You should cite examples of activists actively engaging this issue, and referring to these studies as they do so, in reliable, published, preferably scientific or academic sources." All I suggested is that the language be reworked so as to reflect the nature of the sources you are citing. The impression is also given that there are "many" individuals making these arguments, when the sources cited indicated that there are only a few. -Jmh123 21:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to dicuss the FACT that Pedophila is a mental illness, then the material should have some scientific basis...at least be published in a professional peer reviewed publication. DPeterson^talk 00:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean the question is over the assumed characteristics of pedophiles by the layperson, and particularly how activists respond to those assumptions. But the real issue is backing up that questioning of those assumptions is done by "many activists;" I would think it would be a common argument, and I referred to a couple of references, but the best thing to do might be to simply replace "many" with "some" or something like that. Mike D78 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Perspectives

"To counter developmental arguments that children cannot give informed consent, for example, David L. Riegel (2000) stated in his book Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers, 'Anyone who holds to the idea that a young boy cannot give or withhold informed consent has never taken such a boy shopping for new sneakers' (p. 38)." How does this illustrate informed consent? Because they are eager to spend your money to get something they want, and have a preference as to the brand? I don't get it. It's a loooooong way from choosing sneakers to choosing sex. Proferring gifts is a known method of obtaining consent, but I don't think that's the intended meaning here. -Jmh123 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is enshrined in our legal system that young children cannot give consent; period. Wanting sneakers has nothing to do with informed consent. A want is not consent. DPeterson^talk 22:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That quote does come off as a little confusing, but it's valuable because of the fact that it's from a published book on the subject. So I dunno, it would be a lot easier if someone owned the book and could maybe provide a better, more self-explanatory quote. Or maybe we just need to find another quote from another source altogether to illustrate this idea? Mike D78 22:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not valuable if it doesn't make the point. -Jmh123 22:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

For sure! DPeterson^talk 00:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the sneakers quote. -Jmh123 02:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see if I can find a better quote. Mike D78 02:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits tonight

I rearranged the sections in order to put the perspectives and scientific claims sections together, as I believe they are related. I also think there's a lot of duplication between the two, and it's easier to see when arranged this way. Although they are themed differently, which makes doing this more difficult, I think the article as a piece of writing and as an encyclopedia article would be much stronger if these two sections were shorter and more compact, with repetition of points/studies eliminated.

I deleted the short section on "the movement's use of scientific papers" as the entire section is about scientific claims, and this paragraph simply states what the entire section demonstrates. The Fagan et. al. study is cited earlier.

I have reduced the "Questioning assumptions" to actual examples of scientific studies. Whereas the insertion of reference to Ashford articles was well-meaning, in response to a criticism, the citations do not meet the criticism, as stated above.

I integrated the articles listed under "media and academic articles" into the reference list, except for one dead link. -Jmh123 02:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Everything looks good so far. Mike D78 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--I just made a couple of changes in the lead to tighten it up. Naming a couple of internet groups as examples wouldn't hurt. I just thought the Ipce sentence didn't flow right with the rest. -Jmh123 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Because of the sensitivity regarding editing this entry, I don't want to get into those two sections I mentioned with a heavy hand, but I wish you would look it over, Mike D78, and see if you can see any way to consolidate or shorten these sections. I realize that each is different, and each has a different theme, but there is a lot of similarity and repetition nonetheless, especially when some of the points are also made in other parts of the article. Thanks. -Jmh123 03:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on maybe finding a prominent Internet site or two to mention in the lead, and on eliminating any redundancy in the sections you mentioned when I get a chance. I agree that conciseness is important, and thanks for the consideration. Mike D78 03:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you a little time, but I haven't forgotten. If you don't do it, I will. -Jmh123 14:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, been away from my comp a bit lately. Still interested in shortening it where possible. Mike D78 19:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here are some thoughts I have regarding the improvement of this article. My apologies again for not being able to devote time to the agreed upon changes to this article recently. l haven't begun implementing any of the following ideas in earnest yet, but I'll create a temp page demonstrating any major edits I consider so others can provide input.

• The history section currently documents the history of Dutch activism extensively, but leaves out details about non-Dutch activism and some modern events. I intend to try to shift the history section to represent a wider worldview. By the seventies, notable activism took place in other countries besides Holland, but the history section currently kinda glosses over much of this information. I also may see if we can remove a few of the more minor details related to Dutch activism from the history section while still maintaining a logical flow of events.

• A consolidation of the "perspectives" and "scientific claims" sections may be possible to create a single "perspectives and scientific claims of pedophile activists" section, but there could be some drawbacks to this. The best way to implement this idea is probably to keep a heading for each perspective, followed immediately by a summary of the perspective and relevant quotes from activists, as the "perspectives" section is now. We then could include a subsection for "related studies" under each perspective. We would in effect be keeping the categories the "perspectives" section is currently divided into and moving different pieces of information from the former "scientific claims" section under the relevant perspectives to describe scientific and academic sources appealed to by activists. This would allow us to eliminate redundancies in restating similar claims between the "perspectives" and "scientific claims" sections and in some ways would probably improve the flow of things. This would also allow us to see where information could be more efficiently summarized and where more sources might be necessary to more fully explain a stated "perspective."

One merit of the current organization of things, though, is that the "perspectives" section provides more of a summary of claims by the movement before the "scientific claims" section gets more into the meat of the subject matter. Interrupting the "perpectives" section with studies cited by the movement might also make this section, which is currently organized into views recorded by Mary de Young and other views, feel less cohesive. Ultimately, however, I think combining the "perspectives" and "scientific claims" sections in the manner described above could improve the article if done right. From an inclusionist point of view, I'm interested in retaining the current breadth and comprehensiveness of this article. However, if done right, combining these two sections could remove some unnecessary redundancy in this article while still retaining its current nuance.

I'll see about getting some of these things started in the next few days. Mike D78 08:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

One problem I see is within the perspectives section. I'd consolidate de Young and "other significant views" for sure. I don't see the reason for anchoring the section with de Young; just present the perspectives. As for further consolidation, your suggestions might work and sound reasonable. Worth a try. A temp page is a good idea. Some of the problem (as I see it) is in the "defense" of the perspective or scientific study, which in some cases is redundant and veers towards overdoing a point. The goal is to avoid making the same arguments over and over. Thanks. -Jmh123 14:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently making good progress on a draft version of the article that combines the "perspectives" and "scientific claims" sections. I also removed the distinction between the claims noted by de Young and the other claims, as you suggested, and have consolidated the descriptions of similar perspectives under broader headings. I'll share the temp page I'm working on once I've refined things a bit more. Mike D78 09:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Good! I have limited access this week, but I'll check in when I can. Look forward to seeing it. -Jmh123 14:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had as much time to devote to Wikipedia in the past few days, either, but I'll let you know when I'm about done with the draft (shouldn't be more than another day or two). Mike D78 10:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

cutting opponent groups

I take issue with the inclusion of anti-gay groups such as NARTH and CWA among the opponents of pedophile activism. In fact, such groups do not at all direct their energies or their rhetoric toward opposing the legislative or social goals of pedophile activists (you don't hear a peep out of them about the age of consent or what-have-you -- on the contrary many religious conservatives support early marriage for girls).

They simply use the spectre of pedophilia as a rhetorical weapon against gay-rights groups. In fact, in one sense their goals and NAMBLA's are exactly the same: they falsely portray pedophile activism as part of the gay-rights movement in order to further an unrelated agenda.

So, cutting them from the list.

DanB†DanD 18:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Joie de Vivre° 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

yep, SqueakBox 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. DPeterson^talk 21:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, in one sense their goals and NAMBLA's are exactly the same: they falsely portray pedophile activism as part of the gay-rights movement in order to further an unrelated agenda. Amen. The only groups that use the stupid old "pedophiles are like homosexuals smear" are extreme right-wing christian groups and pedophiles themselves. Makes you wonder, eh? XavierVE 15:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mm hm. So, when the declaration authored by gay rights advocates after the Stonewall Riots stated "we demand the removal of all restriction on sex between consenting persons of any sex, of any orientation, of any age," that was just a misprint?

Dan is partially right, though: there are many people who are misinformed (or pretend to be) about the relationship between pedophile activism and gay rights. But NAMBLA certainly is not.

Mike D78 06:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't address me or refer to me in that tone. Backhanded snideness is as rude as insult.

In the document you quote, "of any age" is immediately followed by "for money or not." This is not a good reason for putting an LGBT project banner on the prostitution page. DanB†DanD 07:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really aim for "cuteness" and "playful sarcasm" more than "backhanded snideness," but I guess that doesn't come off as well over the Internets. =D And the sarcasm of that comment was mostly directed toward Von Erck and also the modern LGBT establishment (groups who officially "pretend" that, historically, gay rights and pedophile activism have never been even tangentally related because it currently behooves them to do so in terms of P.R.). I didn't mean any ill will toward you, although I obviously disagree with your statement about the extent of groups like NAMBLA's "false portrayal" of an "unrelated agenda." I get much more of an impression of the rug being pulled out from under groups like NAMBLA, after some in the gay rights movement supported their goals and groups like the ILGA at least implicitely tolerated them by allowing them membership within their organization.

We're quickly getting off topic here, though, so I'll just end by pointing out that it's also ironic that, in the document I quoted, one of the very next demands of the Stonewall rioters after the one I mentioned was "We call upon the homophile movement to be more honestly concerned with youth rather than trying to promote a mythical, non-existent 'good public image.'" I would hope the modern LGBT establishment will address the subjects of gay youth, pederasty, and pedophilia more honestly and openly in the future. The ILGA once stated that it "calls on all members to treat all sexual minorities with respect and to engage in constructive dialogue with them," and the gay rights movement in general continues to support a diverse group of interests under its tent. But the establishment no longer seems interested in respecting those with a point of view similar to NAMBLA's or even engaging in constructive diologue with them, but only seems intent on denouncing their very existance in the harshest of terms. This is to say nothing of the historically close relation between homosexuality and minor attraction, but apparently the LGBT establishment has no problem with simply ignoring this history, as well.

And no, I don't think this particular page necessarily needs the LGBT project banner considering the current state of things (although the entry for pederasty and even the entry for NAMBLA do). I'm simply saying this article needs to objectively document the very real early relationship between gay rights, the debate over the age of consent, and pedophile activism, to an extent, despite what the official line on that subject may be. As far as the inclusion of organizations such as NARTH and CWA as opponent groups, I agree with your stated reasons for their removal. Though they have gone on the record as opposing pedophile activism, they don't make it one of the major issues of their existance.

Regards, Mike D78 08:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Without commenting on this history, which is obviously a sore point, conflating these two movements is problematic. The article at the time I first got involved seemed at times to be reducing pedophilia to a homosexual issue. It's one thing to discuss connections between the movements; another entirely to appear to be obscuring the scope of pedophilia by reducing it to an issue of consensual relations between same sex partners, one of whom is just a little below the age of consent. Some pedophiles are interested in children of the opposite sex. Some pedophiles are interested in very young children. The article needs to reflect that, as I believe it is now well on the way to doing. If pro-pedophile activism does not encompass all types of pedophilia, then the article needs to make that clear, and the title should be changed accordingly. -Jmh123 15:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for becoming involved in a back-and-forth. We could all write many pages of personal commentary about the topics we edit, but it's not very useful if it doesn't contain concrete suggestions for the article. DanB†DanD 17:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely easy to get sidetracked when discussing a topic such as the one this article is about. It's an interesting discussion, though, and I'd be glad to take it to my talk page or to e-mail if you're interested. And sorry again if I came off as an ass; I mean no ill will toward those who wish me none.

In response to Jmh, I don't believe there is much danger in any readers getting the idea that the two movements are currently related; the public stance of modern gay rights organizations towards pedophiles is pretty well known, and any accusations of current connections between the two are generally regarded as far-right defamation. I'll just state again that we need to objectively cover the historical truth. NAMBLA and similar groups didn't simply appear out of thin air; they emerged from the more radical ideas of the gay rights movement. So rather than discussing whether pedophilia (however it is defined) is a homosexual issue or not, we need to objectively document the facts and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions.

Mike D78 06:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding, and my experience, are that that gay rights groups have never supported pedophilia. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force had a discussion in my town once about starting a local chapter. Someone expressed concern that, at the time, NGLTF opposed age of consent laws, and he thought this might suggest support for pedophilia. The NGLTF representative made it clear that this wasn't the case. The idea was that these laws were being selectively enforced against same-sex couples. The difference in their ages was very small and wasn't the real reason for the arrests. Opposite-sex couples with similar age differences were "making out" in their cars and were routinely overlooked. The laws were being used to discriminate against gay people, not to curb pedophilia. Today, of course, gay groups disavow even the opposition to age of consent laws, and they vocally oppose pedophilia. But even historically, I'm not aware of any support for pedophilia on the part of gay rights groups. Valerius 02:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Article

This article is disgusting and needs to be deleted, this should not be given the time of day on wikipedia. It is just plain wrong and the sources are bottom of the barrel rubbish. 89.240.154.160 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I put it up for afd a week or two back and there was no consensus to delete or to not delete. There was also an attempt to redirect the article to Pedophilia which also failed, generally I do agree with you though, certainly about this article being a redundant POV fork, SqueakBox 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if there is any way to pursue this further: redirecting it to Pedophilia? Maybe Mediation? I don't know. DPeterson^talk 23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are concerns about the quality of this article, especially about POV, please feel free to contribute. Wikipedia always encourages editors to improve articles that they deem to be lacking in one way or another. As for the proposals to delete the entire article or to redirect it to Pedophilia, the overwhelming majority of participating editors have already voted against both of these proposals. Homologeo 05:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeaker, your proposal was whupped by 19 votes to 6. Fascinatingly enough, four of those who voted to delete have had recent involvement in the organisation of this article, while most of the keeps were from new faces. Seems like Xavier's "infiltration" theory may be working in reverse, eh? 86.131.41.244 13:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the last two editors are being very confusing given there was no consensus re the afd. Thus to claim there was overwhelming opposition to deletion/merging is being dishonest to say the least of it. There was no consensus and we must base our new decisions on this fact. As for the anon's reverse infiltration theory, please assume good faith which you clearly are not doing right now. We tried to merge both the pro and anti articles, i think to just merge the pro article would be the best bet right now, SqueakBox 17:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but where am I implying infiltration by that indiviual? I was just saying that it may be the case that there is more organised antiped activity, as the voters' involvement suggests. Anon was not a voter, as far as I know. 86.131.41.244 08:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this world coming to?

So now they have "pro-pedophile activism"? What's next, pro-ruining-some-poor-little-kids-whole-life-for-the-sake-of-my-perverted-sexual-desires-activism? Sick. This sort of crap shouldn't be on the internet. 63.245.145.113 10:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored because we do echo the world. By its very nature it is illegal worldwide, but Wikipedia should echo movements even if as individuals we class pro-paedophile activists as free thinkers or gross sexual perverts. The article pro-ruining-some-poor-little-kids-whole-life-for-the-sake-of-my-perverted-sexual-desires-activism could never exist in Wikipedia for the simple reason that it would only echo an individuals ideas see WP:OR. Mike33 - t@lk 11:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The deletion debate was unfortunately a no consensus, but find a source and add the bit about pro-ruining-some-poor-little-kids-whole-life-for-the-sake-of-my-perverted-sexual-desires-activism as that is, IMHO, a good description of your average pro-pedophile activist, SqueakBox 00:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, "no consensus" is the standard declaration for procedural votes that don't pass in a supportive manner. A 6-19 vote against deleting this article is about as much of a statement against an idea as you are going to encounter on Wikipedia. Mike D78 01:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We've told people that their rights are held high, that they can do what they want to do. In fact, the whole idea of free sexuality is ruining the world. Pro-abortion is ending a child's life, well before the child has a voice. Silencing a voice. Pro-pedophile activism is just as horrifying. -Yancyfry 04:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a wet blanket but I would like to suggest that we keep comments on this page directed toward the improvement of the article. :) — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag

Somebody removed the tag. Okayty, I've reduced excess content and its now the same length as anti pedophile activism. Please dont revert without readding the tag, ideally dont revert anyway as what is here now is sufficent, SqueakBox 00:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well at least you readded the tag but why revert my good edits. All this stuff is unnecessary and this article shopuld be shorter than the anti for notability reasons. Please give an explanmation for your revert here, SqueakBox 01:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason is self-evident, but here it is anyway: you simply had no grounds to make such a drastic edit. Being bold does not apply here; you've shown yourself to be antaganistic toward the very idea of this article in the past, therefore it's hard to believe that those kind of "good edits" are in any kind of good faith. The way to address NPOV is by getting your hands dirty and tweaking the wording of sentences that you take issue with rather than simply gutting an article.

I have stated several times that the anti article does indeed need to be expanded. Moreover, its scope probably needs to be refocused to cover activism against child sexual abuse in general; opposition to pro-pedophile activism, which some percieve to be actively promoting abuse, is a subtopic within that subject. But while the problems with the anti article are being addressed, it is by no means necessary to cut this article down.

If you had this kind of heavy hand in editing any other article on Wikipedia, removing 99% of its content without even consulting anyone else, you would be quickly reprimanded. The controversial nature of this subject and the paranoia about "infiltrators" allows you to demonstrate this kind of conduct with few people willing to forcefully refute you, but that doesn't make your actions any less out of line. In short, you had no more of a mandate to cut down this article than you previously did to delete it without consensus; if anything, you've clearly been shown now that you don't have that mandate. Users voted to keep this article 19-6, but your "good edits" reduce the content of this article by so much that you might as well have just deleted it. The time for discussion on this issue is over: we discussed the article, we decided to keep it, and the right course of action is to not to constantly revert the article to an essentially deleted state.

Now, I will kindly ask both you and DPeterson to refrain from reverting this article again, so that admin action against these kind of disruptive edits is not needed again as it was last time. Mike D78 02:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I do have grounds which I have explained. NPOV means balance not promoting the pro lobby as more important, etc. Reprimanded. That's for bad faith editors, people likle you try to get me reprimanded vfor attacking your precious corner of wikipedia and it dont work. What's new? Of course my actions arent out of linme and if that is the ebst you cvan come up with I think my edits should stand. There was no consensus to keep the article, stop terying to pretend there was, please, SqueakBox 03:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, the fact that you are encouraging me to have this kind of a discussion with you yet again is disruptive, and I clearly have better things I could be doing right now in relation to Wikipedia. Furthermore, the fact that you never even address 99% of the points I make in general makes me question the point of discussing anything with you. I guess others will see how unreasonable you're being, though. But really, you make snide comments toward me like "if that is the ebst you cvan come up with" as if you see this as some kind of a competition to be won or something. The evident emotion you bring to this discussion almost prevents you from typing a coherent sentence in response to me.

I'm not here to constantly engage in pointless arguments, Squeak, especially if you are not even going to consider and address most of the concerns I bring up. The reverting of significant deletions of information, like you are doing, without any kind of justification beforehand, only serves to provoke these kind of arguments. You insist that I should give an explanation for reverting this article back to its previous version, but you yourself failed to provide a legitimate reason or have any kind of a discussion before your massive edit. The fact that I'm the one that's being put on the defensive here, that I'm the one that is told to justify maintaining the previously agreed upon version of this article, is ludicrous. You are the one that needs significant support before you delete 99% of an article.

This isn't about preserving some "precious corner of wikipedia," it's about maintaining encyclopedic information, and if you have any delusions about making this into some kind of personal battleground for you against others then you seriously need to reconsider what Wikipedia is about.

There was indeed consensus to keep this article, Squeak; the official declaration of "no consensus" is in reference to the proposal to delete the article. I don't know how much more simply I can explain this to you, Squeak. There was no consensus to delete. So stop making edits that are essentially tantamount to the deletion of this article. If you do so again, I will have no choice but to consider admin action. Mike D78 03:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The article really does not need all that extra material. Let's just focus on content and not persons. NPOV requires balance. The article in its "slim" version does just that quite well. Other material can be found in other articles. Furthermore, I don't see consensus regarding the longer version. I do see disagreement. DPeterson^talk 00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is the bridge that links several other relevant articles together; it only makes sense that it be comprehensive enough to explain the connection. Comprehensiveness is a good thing, and Wikipedia should pride itself in maintaining relevant, in-depth information that is available in few other places. Please don't let distaste for the subject matter prevent you from appreciating the fact that several people have stepped up to make this a very informative article.

I've suggested ways to expand and improve the anti article, if that is your concern about balance. When you've got one article that is small and that's only been around for about two months, the obvious solution is to expand the smaller article rather than taking an axe to an article that has been evolving for much longer. There may be little consensus about this article at this time, but I think everyone can agree that the anti article needs some work, so why don't we focus on make constructive changes to that entry for now?

Mike D78 09:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing Procedures

As much as I don't want to be a part of this pointless confrontation that is being reignited yet again, I want to remind all editors participating in the editing of this article that drastic changes to an article usually need to be discussed on the Talk Page first. Considering that pro-pedophile activism has proved to be such a controversial topic on Wikipedia, discussion is definitely needed in order to reach consensus and avoid redundant edit warring. Deletion of almost everything but the intro can by no means be considered a "bold" or a "good" edit. It is tantamount to the deletion of the article itself. Although some might think that is indeed what should happen, Wikipedia prides itself on the collaborative effort that goes into making this such a successful and reliable project. Thus, because no consensus was reached on whether the majority of the text of the article should be completely deleted, I have reverted the last edit that did this. Please do not delete so much information without first providing sufficient reason for such an action and reaching consensus.

If the edit war does not cease, admin action will be called for, and this article may end up under full protection yet again. This is definitely not what most editors would probably want, for full protection often hinders constructive contribution to Wikipedia. At this point, I implore all participating editors to leave emotions and biases at the door, and to indulge in some good old-fashion quality editing. If something is not the way you think it should be, please feel free to contribute. If the change you would like to see happen is quite drastic, please discuss it on this Talk Page. However, please also remember that numerous proposals regarding this article have already been discussed before, some even a number of times. If strong consensus has already been reached on an issue, and no new arguments are presented, it might be best to review what responses and reasoning were given for the ending action in previous discussions.

I also want to emphasize that the Talk Page should focus on the topic of the article, and not be about personal disputes between editors. If someone feels that another editor really needs constructive criticism, please utilize the User Talk Pages that each and every registered Wikipedian has. My last point should go without saying – please always be civil. ~ Homologeo 04:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Paedophiles are banned from wikipedia so I donty what you are doing here but I am sure you shouldnt be here. I think deleting the whole article would be constructive, you sickies shouldnt be allowed near the internet and my guess is you are breaking your parole violations by being here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdhrfr (talk • contribs) 04:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I completely agree with Homologeo - and before you call me a pedophile, realize I'm 17 years old and therefore it would really be a pointless accusation... sure, I don't like rapists or serial killers either but I'm not about to go and blank those pages for no reason. ugen64 10:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Page blanking? That hasnt happened and yes 17 yr olds can be pedophiles, SqueakBox 23:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sdhrfr, please be civil and do not throw around groundless accusations. If you do not cease such disruptive behavior immediately, you will be promptly reported to an admin and will likely be blocked from editing. Also, you have yet to provide sufficient reasoning for the drastic change you would like to see happen to this particular article. Saying that you don't like and disapprove of a topic does not make it less Wikipedia-worthy. The proposal to delete the entire article has already been presented to the Wikipedia community, and the vote was to keep the article. Once again, you are encouraged to provide constructive edits and to propose controversial changes on the Talk Page. Who knows, some kind of consensus might be reached that incorporates a compromise between participating editors. Deleting so much information cannot be considered to be a help to Wikipedia. This is why I am reverting your previous edit. Please keep in mind Wikipedia’s Three Revert Rule. ~ Homologeo 04:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Sdhrfr repeated the deletion of the majority of the article yet again without legitimately justifying such an action, I have requested admin intervention on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. An admin has subsequently placed the article under full protection. I hope, at least now, we'll make some headway on constructively editing this article. ~ Homologeo 07:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This kind of non-consensual and significant doctoring of articles is happening far too often. Unfortunately, it would be most un-PC to significantly doctor those who are screwing up the articles. Samantha Pignez 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I dsiagree. The deletions seems reasonable. I recognize that others may disagree. In which case we have a content dispute that should be resolved using Wikipedia processes. Maybe an RfC would be in order. My view is that the artcile is better in the shortened version. DPeterson^talk 00:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, we've had this discussion before, several times. The majority of users didn't agree in a vote not to delete this article so it could shortened down to practically deleted status. Mike D78 01:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Mike, your inaccurate protrayal of how things are is distinctly unhelpful, there is no consensus on the issue of deletion so stop pretending there is. I suspect an Rfc is indeed needed because this issue isnt going to go away though it is very frustrating that banned users think they can just open a new account and everything is hunky dory. This is at the heart of the problem though unfortunately there are no easy solutions but given the anti article with a more notable subjectn we nmeed to remove the unnotable material from this article, which is what I did but uinfortunately editors dont hesistate to edit war in order to oppose this sensible solution and meanwhile the rest of the world thinks wikipedia suports pedophilaia which is very depressing and shows flaws in the basic model (ie anyone can edit means pedophiles (and not merely pedophiles but arrogant pedophiles who want to attack our children with their activism) can edit. How are we gouing to fix this? SqueakBox 23:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, I am not portraying things inaccurately: I agreed with you that there was no consensus to delete. Which is why I find it odd that you seem to think you have a mandate to reduce this article to an essentially deleted status, especially when 19 out of 24 editors disapproved of the idea. There's no dispute to be resolved on my part, though; all I've done is simply reversed major, unagreed upon edits. It's not as if I'm the one that's trying to shove some drastically altered version of this article down everyone's throats.

I will agree with you on one thing, though: this is frustrating, and it will continue to be frustrating until you stop constantly accusing me of being a sockpuppet and a troll and learn to get along. I respect your presence here; I don't intend to simply ignore disruptive and out-of-process edits, but I respect any genuine efforts to make collaborative improvements. I would again ask you to kindfully respect my presence here.

I agree with some of your concerns about the anti article, but there is no precedent that says we must take the axe the other related articles simply because another entry isn't as developed as it could be, especially when said entry hasn't even existed for very long.

There is much work that could be done to expand the anti article. There are individuals and organizations mentioned in the article that currently only have a sentence or two dedicated to them. More attention could be given to explaining the histories, views, and actions of these individuals and organizations. There are other notable individuals and organizations involved with anti-pedophile activism that could be mentioned, and an in-depth history section describing anti-pedophile activism and relating various individuals and organizations to each other could be interesting and would definitely be encyclopedic. We don't need extensive coverage of minute details, as I have mentioned, such as specific individuals that groups have "busted." But there is much relevant historical information that is currently not covered in that article.

So please don't act like I'm not trying to be helpful here; I've consistently offered suggestions to improve the anti article and I might even jump in and work on it myself if I get the time. Cutting massive amounts of information from this article might seem like an easier thing to do, but that is unnecessary, uncalled for, and is apparently opposed by a majority of users. So please try to steer clear of that route.

I can assure you, the rest of the world does not think Wikipedia supports pedophilia. Only one isolated group with clearly vested interests is making those accusations, and to let them alone dictate how articles should be edited would be no better than letting articles be "owned" by any other group. The majority of Wikipedia users realize that the potential for Wikipedia to document all kinds of encyclopedic information is great, and even controversial information should be maintained. If we all spent all of our time getting hung up on other users' different points of view or calling them "arrogant," little would be accomplished on Wikipedia. The most important thing is that we all follow the rules and work for the good of the encyclopedia rather than maintaining hostility toward other users. Mike D78 05:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mike, if I understand correctly, the very reason that SqueakBox is an editor on PAW dates back to a television appearance by user:XavierVE of Perverted-Justice - the vigilante group that you are referring to. I think his style may be very hard to neutralise, but regardless, all the best. 86.131.37.130 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's correct, anon. I think it was Larry King Live (we get US tv here) and it was discussing Dateline NBC's To catch a predator with interviews with Chris Hansen and Xavier made an appearance tot alk about PJ. I wasnt about to go and volunteer for PJ (I am no good at all that youth talk anyway) but I realised I am an established wikipedian and that I could make a difference here with these articles at wikipedia. The fact that I havent made a check user request re yourself, Mike, shows that I am tolerant of your presence here, SqueakBox 23:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your frequent unwarranted accusations against me hardly show any kind of "tolerance." Mike D78 20:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your prblem is, SqueakBox, that you are willing to check the users all by yourself... on multiple occasions. [as a personal discussion, please feel free to relocate to a user talk page]. 86.131.37.130 17:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No! I dont have check user abilities but it is true that I have made check user requersts re this subject which didnt appear on wikipedia itself, SqueakBox 18:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

By check, I was not referring to a software process, but a judgement of character. 86.131.37.130 23:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Not just that but Voice has a history of using serial sockpuppets to continue editing here. If that is continuing (which I believe it is) then I see banning the latest as unproductive because the user will just create another one and then claim to have a clean record instead of having to live with their contrib history. But, yeah, judging character is important both on and off wikipedia, dont you think? Also, I could be wrong and it is you who are Voice of Britain? Or BLueRibbon? SqueakBox 23:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but I think that the two were completely different animals ayway... and I'm sure that they know how to use a proxy. My IP is not a proxy. 86.131.37.130 13:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You think so? Most users dont as it happens, but yes even Microsoft have a system that allows for closed proxies, which are unpoliceable as a trend, SqueakBox 22:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Here you go... a username for 86.131... if that makes you happy. Farenhorst 13:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

But, but... you openly disagree with SqueakBox, you must be a sockpuppet! =D Mike D78 20:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, SPA is enough to nail you nowadays. If you know enough about the topic, you must have deep rooted personal reasons, etc. Farenhorst 22:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

These last comments read a bit like trolling and completely over-estimate any power I might have here (obvious as these ped articles would be so different if I had the influence you claim). But anyway what is needed in order to get this article unlocked? I expect your full c o-operation in achieving thios gaoal, SqueakBox 22:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)