Talk:Pro-pedophile activism/Archive 16

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.

← Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17 →

Contents 1 DSM V, Paraphilias & Diagnostic Criteria 2 Archiving 3 Very Scary 4 Recommendations of and Voting on Non-Controversial Edits 5 Memo on Archiving #2 6 Please Focus on Improving the Article 7 I know a lot about childlove 8 Moving Forward 9 First sentence seems not only biased but paradoxical 10 The other introduction for all to see 11 got POV? 12 Joke?

DSM V, Paraphilias & Diagnostic Criteria

Since the article already makes mention of some relevent DSM-IV information, I think it would be appropriate to make further mention (perhaps in the same vicinity of where DSM-IV is mentioned) that there is a strong possibility that the Paraphilia section (including pedophilia) may be removed entirely from DSM-V. As I mentioned in a related talk page:

It is important that we only relay, and not corroborate, the definitions held by DSM, ICD and related criteria on this subject, i.e: we should use objective statements such as "DSM-IV defines pedophilia as a mental disorder occuring when..." rather than "pedophilia is a mental disorder". It is important that Wikipedia not get into the habit of adopting as objective fact common-practice de facto standards that are highly subjected to interpretation and liable to immediate change (i.e. up until DSM-III homosexuality was listed as a "mental disorder" and DSM-V may quite literally no longer contain a section for "paraphilias" [1]).

In light of this, it might be informative to mention that one of the diagnostic criteria used to classify pedophilia as a paraphilic mental distorder in DSM-IV may very well be the cause of the symptom itself. Moser & Kleinplatz argue (in the paper linked above) that the labelling of pedophilia as a "mental disorder" and the ensuing social stigmatization and discrimination that goes along with that (much like how homosexuality was painted before the advent of adament supporters and its removal from DSM-III) is enough within its own right to cause the "marked distress" as described in the criteria: "... cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty." Thus it may very well be the case that the diagnosis is causing the condition, hence their justification for its removal. 70.53.129.124 09:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as the article doesn't assert that this is indeed the case, but states that "such and such researcher suggests that...", please feel free to add this information once page protection is lifted. Also, be sure to provide appropriate references, so that information can be corroborated, and readers know where further details on the mentioned research can be found. ~ Homologeo 18:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As another note, remember that verifiablility policy dicates: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". As the DSM IV currently is the standard in phychological diagnostics, I believe that noting that it is listed there as a mental disorder would make perfect sense. If other sources say that in DSM V it will probably not be listed, then those can be included aswell. Try not to give them undue weight though. I'm not an expert on this, and I don't know how the scales are balanced on this particular issue. (As an extra guideline to concider, do also take a look at WP:CRYSTAL). I don't know what the current line reads exactly, but I'm thinking something along the lines of:

"Pedophilia is listed as a mental disorder in the DSM IV, a/the current standard in psychological diagnostics.<ref to dsm IV/>. Some claim that it is not might not be included in the DSM V.<ref to those who claim that>".

Or something along those lines. (English is not my first language, and I fear my ability to generate briliant prose might not be what I wish it were) Martijn Hoekstra 19:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Er, I'm no good with archiving and such, but archiving discussions that had additions less then 24 hours ago seems a little rash. Could you restore the archive, and archive those discussions that haven't received any comments for, say, the last 7 days? Martijn Hoekstra 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You can do that as long as you do not restore the comments of banned socks, just bring the other htreads back here, a cut and paste not a copy and paste job, SqueakBox 21:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please bring back the open discussions? I don't think it was appropriate to just archive everything, especially when we're just getting started with mediation and many of the issues being discussed still have to be settled. Please don't archive stuff that's still relevant. I personally am not too savvy in these matters, so could someone who know how to bring back the relevant text do so? The length of the Talk Page as it was was not causing anyone problems, and I don't think it would be bad to even just bring the whole thing back as it was several days ago. If not that, then at least the main discussions that were at the center of the edit wars and the disputed issues. ~ Homologeo 22:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To restore the comments of banned socks to this page would be completely unacceptable and that was causing huge problems. I am happy for someone to follow Martijn's suggestion but not yours, SqueakBox 22:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 22:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My problem is with the fact that the article continues to be protected. When is it going to be lifted? The current introduction MUST be changed into something more neutral. It sounds like something John Walsh would say. Wikipedia must not be a mouthpiece for Walsh and his gang of child advocates. Fighting for Justice 21:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, no matter how sick some of these things might be, they still need to be covered with a NPOV, and many wikipedia readers start to tune out tags at the top of the page, no matter how bright and in your face they are. Balderdash707 (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you can always request page unprotection but IMO we should wait to allow the mediation to unfold as the issues that led to the locking have clearly not been resolved. And I would have issues about how we deal with any edits to the article by suspected sockpuppets (all suspicious edits should IMO be removed without discussion). There may also be issues re removing any pro-active edits or restoration of banned user comments by Mike D78 and Farenhorst as we appear not to be in agreement about removing them all, SqueakBox 21:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be next to impossible to do. Plus a good bulk of the edits were valid and made the article informative. If I have to take responsibility for them, then I will. It is not mandatory to remove them. Fighting for Justice 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits made by socks of banned suers and equally edits of banned users removed by legitimate editors and then restored by those banned editors' socks must be removed from the article or what is the point in banning disruptive editors. And it would be very easy to do. What is not acceptable is for you to say you would restore any new edits made by banned users, and indeed such a promise could be argued to be an encouragement of banned users to return. As long as editors here seem interested in restoring the edits of banned users these issues remain unresolved and based on your comment I would oppose page unprotection at this time, SqueakBox 21:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What you're saying sounds a lot like the article beign currently protected at the wrong version. Martijn Hoekstra 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Add to that, that the moment we restore, editwarring will break out again. Unfortunately, I think we're stuck with the current version (which I disagree with aswell, but it's labeled as totally disputed anyway), untill we gain some ground in the mediation. Martijn Hoekstra 21:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't at the wrong version though it is cl;early still way too in favour of PPAs to possibly be neutral, SqueakBox 21:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the intro is definitely not in favor of PPA. But yeah, we need to figure out the issues that have been causing the heated edit warring. Hopefully, formal mediation will achieve just that. An advantage of the formal process is that, upon completion, there will be more extensive methods available than there are right now to ensure the decision reached through mediation remains in effect. Only after editors are satisfied and/or a more permanent decision is made in regards to the disputed issues will edit warring become less likely. Otherwise, the same issues will keep on coming up again and again, and productive editing will continue to be hindered. ~ Homologeo 22:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO if we could agree on how to deal with banned editors editing here we would have made significant progress in being able to unlock the article without seeing outbursts of edit warring, SqueakBox 21:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about making banned editors come back. My concern is with making the article neutral and lifting this protection that has gone on long enough. Take for example, the David Westerfield article it was not changed back into it's original erroneous form just because a bulk of the edits were made by a user with an open proxy who was subsequently banned. The user with an open proxy corrected many mistakes, properly referenced things, but he had no business editing here since he was using an open proxy. The same can be said about this article. If the edits of the banned editors made the article better they should remain. click here and see my proof about that user.

Well if Mike has made edits in the past that are clearly innocuous and improving the article I would not remove them out of principle but many of Mike's edits were clearly pushing a pro-PPA agenda and would not have been appropriate or barely have been appropriate in a non-banned suer and are clearly not appropriate in a sock. We must not allow these banned PPA supporters to return to the project (or the PAW part of it). In fact editing from an open proxy is not a blockable offence re the editor solely re the proxy and Mike clearly was not banned for using an open proxy but for using an open proxy in order to evade a ban so a very different situation. How about trusting me to go through Mike's edits and remove those which I consider disruptive, and without being reverted? SqueakBox 21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, that the only solution you suggest, treating every new editor as a liky sock, untill they have proven otherwise, not allowing any edits by banned users to be restored, even if who restores them takes responibility for it, is not quite widely accepted. But let's get it all out in mediation, I'm sure that will be more effective then continuing to bicker here. We tried that - not to much avail.Martijn Hoekstra 22:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Believe me I'm sick of the bickering as much as you are. I'm not surprised that SqueakBox is happy leaving the article protected as the current introduction is something he was in favor of. Fighting for Justice 21:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am never happy with locked articles, Fighting, and especially not one whose neutrality I dispute. I don't think any new editors shouldn't be allowed to participate, only those who resemble banned suers. Mike, Farenhorst, Ludianka, Dyskolos and a host of others were obvious socks from the moment they arrived, as was Richard Laube and S***, SqueakBox 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What's obvious to you, might not be obvious to everybody. I didn't find it so obvious that S*** or Laube were socks. And Laube is not blocked (or investigated, as far as I know) for socking. The others, I really wouldn't know. There is evidence to say they would be. And since they are banned now, there is not much discussion about it. Martijn Hoekstra 22:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your proposal SqueakBox is that I think you'll find all of Mike's edits as disruptive and you'll just remove them all. I believe you let your own bias against pedophilia influence your edits in articles about them. Why else would you support the current introduction when it is clearly POV? You do support it, don't you? Fighting for Justice 22:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Err, I am not biased against pedophilia but nor am I biased in favour of it. I am biased against adults who sexually abuse children but that is something different, I am based against convicted murderers too, SqueakBox 22:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, do not tell me what, or what not to do. ("do not restore archived material"). The archiving of material was clearly premature, as you archived discussions with active edits less then 24 hours old. You stated yourself: "You can do that as long as you do not restore the comments of banned socks, just bring the other htreads back here, a cut and paste not a copy and paste job, SqueakBox 21:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)". My edit summory showed I was in progress of cleaning things up. I'll leave it for now, as I do not feel like edit warring over the talk page aswell, and leaving things to mediation. If you think we won't see an other outburst of editwarring, maybe you should ask yourself if your finger should be so fast at the revert button. Martijn Hoekstra 22:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am happy for you to restore any archives not containing the comments of Mike D78 and/or Farenhorst, SqueakBox 22:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So you basically did the archive in order to bury those comments away? Nice. Fighting for Justice 22:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That was certainly a motivation though obviously the pages were getting long and it was appropriate janitorial work. We dont want the comments of banned suers to surface on google et al, SqueakBox 23:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy if you treated your fellow editors with some civilty and respect, instead of telling them what to do, and instantly reverting edits made to correct your error. I'm battered out of editting for today. Martijn Hoekstra 22:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither Mike nor Farenhorst are fellow editors, they are banned socks and their comments do not deserve respect, they deserve deletion and salting. I haven't been telling anyone what to do, merely expressing what I want to see happen. Please do not interpret this as being uncivil and disrespectful, thought he reality is that you are asking for respect without giving it, certain editors seem to treat me as the problem rather than the banned users and jump over each other in their eagerness to restore banned suer comments. This cannot continue, SqueakBox 23:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Martijn is not being disrespectful to you SqueakBox. Barking out orders like "do not restore archived material", and removing the mediation cabal template without discussion with your fellow editors is disrespectful. You have done that today. When you speak you want people to bow down to you. May be that works for you where ever you live, but it doesn't here in wikipedia. Fighting for Justice 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to how you adressed me, and my edits, not Farenhorst or Mike. Since they are banned users, you don't have to communicate with them at all. However, you are telling me not to restore archived material, while you agree yourself you did this mainly in error. I will not say you are 'the problem', but I will admit that I find your discussion style and editing style problematic. Those points are my problem, but when you tell me flatout not to "restore archived material", when it I explained why on the talkpage, and you agree with it, I give another explantion on how I plan to accomodate your demands, and you go on instantly reverting it, I believe you are crossing the line of respect.

By the way, if you really want all banned comments to be gone for good, ask for WP:OVERSIGHT, then they can be cleared forever, from the history, and the archives.

Removing the MedCab template is fine though, the case is closed now anyway. Martijn Hoekstra 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous coward here again... Like the userbox at the top of your talk page reads you are not an admin, otherwise you could just wave your magic wand and make all the comments go away. It's obvious that there are several editors who disagree with your archival of topics with recent comments, relevant to the upcoming arbitration. It's obvious you never saw any of the banned editors as legitimate, what happened to "assuming good faith?" Like FfJ implies above, is this just a move to hide the comments of editors distasteful to you since you can't seen to remove them outright? And Martijn, if you're tired of Squeeky reverting, I'll do it for ya. 70.123.189.59 06:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate to take this out of context and ride the bash-wagon, but SqueakBox's user page has this to say about his motives: "I fully support the ban on pro-active pedophiles editing wikipedia...". Could you imagine if something similar were said about homosexuals? People would have a field-day with that sort of bigotry. Now, as I said, that was probably meant to refer to the context of "editing wikipedia articles on pedophilia", but for the very fact that this was not bothered to be clarified is temptingly indicative of the writer's current state of mind on the subject. Secondly, I am confident that there are many pro-<insert random libertarian cause here>s editing articles on <insert random modern libertarian cause here> (i.e. pro-abortionists/life editing pro-abortion/life articles), and wikipedia does not seek to ban these users simply because of their affiliation. No, instead, as with all users, it trusts that despite their personal beliefs, they will make neutral edits in good faith, and if this good faith is violated, it trusts that responsible users of the community will revert those edits for them, without ever having to resort to an outright ban simply because of beliefs. Intolerability of those who have different viewpoints than one's own is the very definition of bigotry. I think it is past the point of calling into question this user's neutrality on the subject of pedophilia, it is becoming ever more apparent that his standpoint on the issues is interfering with the ability to document fact (case-in-point the intro paragraph, dastardly archiving techniques, and the indiscriminatory and non-consensus deletion of relevant user talk). 74.12.86.73 01:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not support banning self-identifying gay people and nor would I support such a ban, obviousdly. But almoist everywhere homosexuality is legal and a perfectly respectable lkife choice whereas to actually enage in sexual activity with children is highly ilegal almost everywhere. I am certainly neutral re pedophilia, you have no evidence tot he contrary so please do not make empty accusations, SqueakBox 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

All of which has absolutely no bearing on Wikipedia's assumption of good faith. In any case, by now you should realize that "legal", "perfectly respectable", and "child" are not terms of objective fact, but rather opinion and cultural variances. Your expression of such opinion as if it were some unobjectable moral fact that we all must subscribe to again shows your bias on the subject (this, combined with your most awkward typo occurances is becoming increasingly frustrating to endure). Wikipedia is not a global opinion encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia of fact (which may or may not contain facts about global opinion). Thus its policies should be immune wherever possible to the manifestations of such opinion (i.e. banning policy should be based on fact, not opinion). Should global opinion on homosexuality change in the future would you then suggest that Wikipedia inturn ban those users who "outted" themselves previously to reflect political fickleness? Resist the temptation to become a PC tide-rider; politically fickle minds endanger the neutrality of Wikipedia and its ability to stand the test of time. 70.53.128.112 10:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Very Scary

This article is extremely frightening, but not nearly so much as the talk page. It's especially disturbing because most of the discussions are about "man-boy love." I used to put at least a little bit of faith in Wikipedia, but this crosses the line. You pedophiles will obviously not stand to have your precious article deleted, so that's off the table for now. [refactor]. Anyone who is in favor of pedophilia is very sick and needs to be removed from society. [refactor] I hope that everyone in favor of this disgusting behavior goes to prison. BadMojoDE 22:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with this one guys? This is so completely irrelevant to the issues at hand, and not contributory in any way at all. I'm sorry that you are frightened by modern issues in the real world, perhaps you should live else where? Article deletion and censure of fact is never an option and, contrary to what you may think, does not primarily hurt pedophiles; no, what it really hurts is the very nature of the principle of encyclopedic free knowledge, the very fundamentals of Wikipedia.

You do not belong here with your comments such as: "Anyone who is in favor of <insert minority view here> is very sick and needs to be <insert genocidic solution here>". You do not even save yourself from being clearly identified as a bigot by at least limiting your claim to only those practicing, no you abhorrently issue a blanket-statement that it is enough to simply believe it in order to receive your brand of dogmatic puritanical justice. Do yourself a favour, read Wikipedia then read pedophilia then read this article, and do us a favour by not subjecting us to your monster-under-the-bed, xenophobic, Final Solution juvenile mentalities. 74.12.81.191 00:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

2nd. 86.150.128.67 09:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

BadMojoDE, unless you're going to constructively contribute to the discussion of how the article can be improved, please keep your personal opinions to yourself and off this Talk Page. Furthermore, please do not advance legal threats against other editors, since this violates Wikipedia policy. ~ Homologeo 04:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

BadMojoDE has been blocked and until he rescinds his comments, will remain so. You can just ignore this comment now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

BadMojoDE was unblocked after rescinding his comments --Stephen 04:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the legal threats. And hey, BadMojo, if you want to help make the article more NPOV here is the place to start and I am at least glad that I am not alone in thinking this article is POV in favour of PPAs. Legal threats are pointless as nobody has broken the law, the worst we see here is the return of banned users as socks (which is against our policies but far from illegal) so lets stick tot he task at hand which is NPOVing this article, SqueakBox 17:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, SqueakBox, but I have absolutely no intention of contributing to this article. I already got myself banned once (granted, that was due to a stupid, knee-jerk reaction on my part), and I don't want to cause any more trouble. I have been identified as a "bigot" and inexplicitly, "xenophobic" (!) by someone who is apparently in favor of PPA. Furthermore, I have been compared to a Nazi (final solution comment) and apparently have a juvenile mentality. It appears that I'm not fit to edit Wikipedia, based on user 74.12.81.191's comments. Don't worry... I don't believe him or her. This article is full of POV. Simply put, but the article and the talk page makes me very worried about people questioning the legality of pedophilia. As an example, does WP have a "Pro-Murder Activism" article? Or even a "Pro-Arson" article? I hope we can agree that pedophilia has been classified by almost every government in the world as a crime. It's something that can hurt people, both physically and emotionally. Anyway, thanks again for your invitation to edit. BadMojoDE 21:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not fit to edit so long as you make threating comments such as the ones you made. Rescinding your comments restored your good faith (and with it your editing rights). However, you've carelessly gone again and expressed viewpoints that mirror that of your original comments. You're right, Wikipedia does not currently have a Pro-Murder Activism article, but guess what? if such a movement did exist and if it were becoming a notable topic then it would have an entry. I hope we can agree that you are still grossly mal-informed: even after asked to read pedophilia you still came back here to spread your own (incorrect) definition of it. For the sake of your laziness to read, I will summarize it here for you: pedophilia is defined as an attraction, nothing more. The legality of an attraction is a moot question - it is a collection of thoughts and as such cannot be "illegal" (notwithstanding thought police and nazi regime). If you wish to discuss the legality of behaviour on the other hand, then I would be more than happy to oblige you on the appropriate POV forums, but not here. 70.53.128.112 22:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You can argue until you're blue in the face. I don't care. You're apparently referring to PPA as a thought rather than an act. Nobody should be persecuted for their thoughts. My point is that this article is very POV when it comes to legalizing the act. That's definitely more than a thought. And invoking Nazism and/or “Thought Police” are the laziest forms of an argument. BadMojoDE 00:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed that your first reaction to my comment was "Not sure what to do with this one guys?" What "guys" do you have standing up as background for you? This is yet another example that this article is geared toward man-boy sex -- or possibly man-girl sex. Underage sex is a crime. What do you an your "guys" not understand about this? Hey, an article about underage sex is fine. But why are you advocating it? BadMojoDE 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you that contrived? Did you not read my remarks following that statement about your lack of contribution to the article. Thus to any sane person "guys" in this context is referring to those of us who are actually trying to make useful contributions to this article, unlike yourself and other banned users, thus my need for the distinction. And if I were referring to some other form of "guys" such as that of your delusional concotion, so what? Define "underage", "sex" and "crime? Are you truly that naive to believe your defintion is global? You give me any age that you define as "under" and I will show you a culture that defies it. Or is this all just supposed to be another one of your threats (threat by association)? Of course I should know better than to attempt to reason with you by now, given that you've probably already made up your mind long before into the first sentence. How is it that you so eloquently put it?.. oh yeah: "You can argue until you're blue in the face. I don't care". I guess that pretty much sums up your ability to reason logically. 70.53.129.218 02:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, anonymous user: I am THAT contrived! Please, just get a clue and check yourself into rehab. Whether you like it or not, pedophilia is a crime. I am NOT contacting law enforcement because it is against WP rules. Apparently, you get blocked if you report people who are pro-crime. If you want me to cite US laws, I'd be happy to do so. If you want some verification on Cambodian or Taiwanese laws, I'll research and get back to you. Again, please leave me alone. Either you are baiting me or you are just a pedophile on a mission. In either case, I don't want to engage any further with you. BadMojoDE 02:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia as a concept is as inherently illegal and morally wrong as homosexuality (or any other philia for that matter) is, and no amount of thought policed conservatism is going to change that. --82.182.210.37 (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the far more notable legalise cannabis activism movement does not merit an article here, one of the reasons I think this article should not exist either, SqueakBox 22:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey SqueakBox -- Believe it or not, I actually think that the pro-cannabis article has more of a place in WP than this article, simply because of the massive movement to get pot legalized. (And I'm actually allergic to marijuana.) There is massive notoriety for the pro-cannabis movement. On the other hand, I only heard about the pro-pedo movement when I stumbled upon this page. Whether it is just 'thoughts,' as one WP editor has told me, or acting upon those thoughts, I believe advocacy of pedophilia is not worthy of an encyclopedic entry. BadMojoDE 00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the irony, but SqueakBox, what are you smoking??:

420 (cannabis culture), Cannabis political parties, Emerald Triangle, Global Marijuana March, International Opium Convention, Legality of cannabis by country, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Proposition 215

Clearly, there are plenty of pages describing the "cannabis activism movement" on Wikipedia.

And BadMojo: "You can argue until you're blue in the face. I don't care." is the weakest possible excuse for an argument I've ever heard. The very fact that you (and everyone else here) "stumbled" upon this page is an attestament to its encyclopedic worthiness. If you truly felt this article did not deserve mention (and the only valid reason not to mention it is a lack of noteriety/interest), then you, along with everyone else, would simply ignore it, thus proving it obscure. 70.53.129.218 03:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, anonymous person who only provides his/her IP address: you're countering the fact that you have a weak argument by telling me I have a weak argument. That's very embarrassing on your part. Who are you, anyway? Why are you hiding behind a mask of anonymity? As to how I "stumbled" upon this page, I was watching an excerpt from The Daily Show and they brought up their frequent use of the acronym, NAMBLA. I looked it up in WP, and unfortunately it led me here. And don't try to make an example out of SqueakBox simply because we were using cannibis as an example. I believe that SqueakBox is trying to make this article less POV, and thank heavens for that. Now please leave me alone. Thanks. BadMojoDE 01:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but now I just have to ask the question that is obviously burning in everyone's mind by now after that statement: are you seriously that ignorant? Anyone capable of turning on a computer knows that by me displaying my IP address I am infact less anonymous than everyone else here (including you or any other user who has their IPs privately masked by Wikipedia). Hiding, how so? Quite the contrary, despite your threats of legal action I still openly respond to your comments with logic and signed IP, proving I have nothing to hide. 70.53.129.218 02:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not ask oif another editor is "that ignorant?" We are trying to create a pleasant, helpful atmosphere. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Emerald Triangle is no more, lol. Actually your other examples are like NAMBLA et al, there is no specific legalise culture activism article, and the opium convention is about opium, no? Anyway lets all stay on topic, SqueakBox 03:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I second the last part of SqueakBox's comment - let's stay on topic please. This article exists, and that's just the way things are. It has survived two nominations for deletion and has proven to be an extensive and controversial topic. If anyone wants to nominate this article for deletion again, he or she is free to do that. However, this is not what a Talk Page is for. So, please focus on how the article can be improved. Also, discussion of a possible "legalization of cannabis movement" definitely doesn't belong here... ~ Homologeo 03:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Afd might be a solution as might merging the article into pedophilia as it least then it would be editable content without the great debate on how to open this article, and the opening is the point which seems to be locking it, SqueakBox 03:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with a merging. PPA is activism for a certain sexual orientation so I propose that we keep it consistent with the pre-existing infrastructure of sexual orientation (to maintain ease of navigation). General structure is:

sexual orientation --> specific orientation --> activism for said orientation

Example: sexual orientation --> homosexuality --> gay pride

Example: sexual orientation --> (paraphilia) --> pedophilia --> pro-pedophile activism

Seems logical, no? 70.53.129.218 04:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Recommendations of and Voting on Non-Controversial Edits

While formal mediation will hopefully deal with the disputes over controversial aspects of this article, I think it's a good idea to start discussing what non-controversial edits should also be made. Although this page is currently under indefinite protection from editing, if there are legitimate non-controversial edits that all the involved editors can agree on, maybe an admin would be willing to make them for us. Please list the non-controversial edit you think should be made below, and everyone is encourages to vote on whether it is indeed non-controversial and should be carried out. Also, please keep in mind that the edits you propose should honestly be non-controversial. ~ Homologeo 20:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• In the "See also" section, change "Abolition of age of consent laws" to "Age of consent reform" - the title of the targeted article has been changed in this way, and this will make the wikilink in question lead directly to the appropriate page, instead of a redirect page. ~ Homologeo 20:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't essential as the new policy is to not fix redirects unless necessary though I have no objection to the edit as such myself, SqueakBox 20:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition to this edit, do you think we should request that an admin make it for us, while the page is still under protection? ~ Homologeo 02:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Image:FritsBernard2.jpg should be removed as its on a fair use image licence and it is not being used in a fair use way, SqueakBox 20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you please elaborate on why this is not a fair use image. ~ Homologeo 20:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • See Image talk:FritsBernard2.jpg, it wasn't me who realised this point, as a fair use image it should only be used to illustrate the biography of Bernard, its not essential to illustrate this article and personally I am wanting to build an encyclopedia with free images as much as possible, SqueakBox 20:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not versed in Wikipedia policies regarding fair use rationale. If the use of this image is against policy, then I agree it should be removed. If it is present here in fair use, then I say leave it, since it is relevant to the article and to one of the prominent figures of the pro-pedophile movement. ~ Homologeo 20:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I honestly believe it does violate our fair use policies, I don't have any ulterior motivation, hence my belief that this should not be controversial (in the way that so much is on this page), SqueakBox 20:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Seeing as I don't sufficiently know the relevant policy, I cannot agree or disagree with SqueakBox's take on the appropriateness of including this image in the article. As I stated above - if it's shown not to be against policy, then it should stay; if it violates policy, then it should be removed. Howbeit, I do see the image as being relevant to the section in which it appears. Still, I agree that this is not a controversial edit, and so I would not oppose it. ~ Homologeo 21:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
            • I would say the opposite, ie if it is proven to be within policy we should keep it but if we are in doubt we should remove it. We are trying to build a free content encyclopedia. Album covers as free use can only illustrate the album not the artist and this pic can be used to illustrate the Bernard article but not this one, SqueakBox 21:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
              • I think this one is pretty clear. Fair Use criterion 8: Significance Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function. as found here. I don't think it's arguable that the image of Frits Bernard would 'significantly increase readers' understanding of' Pro-pediophile activism. In short, there is no fair use rationale to use the image on this page (opposed to Frits Bernards page, there it would be acceptable). Martijn Hoekstra 19:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the Bernard article is the only place where it would be acceptable and while this issue isn't entirely uncontroversial it doesn't relate to the controversies re this article as our fair use policy is another issue entirely, and one on which I find myself increasingly conservative, SqueakBox 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I think this one is discussed enough here. I would like to request the removal of the image of Frits Bernard, on the basis that the use of this image does not satisfy Fair Use criterion 8, significance, as I indicated above. Martijn Hoekstra 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds good coming from you and I endorse, you might want to put a request in at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection, SqueakBox 19:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't have much faith in the stability of the page after protection is removed. This edit seems uncontroversial enough though. Martijn Hoekstra 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me, I meant Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current requests for significant edits to a protected page, SqueakBox 20:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, then indeed I misunderstood. I don't think it's needed though, this template lists this article in WP:PER, which is regularly patrolled by administrators aswell. Martijn Hoekstra 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove phrase definition. The phrase "pro-pedophile activism" is good for the title, as "origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal, but neither should have a definition, as they are inventions of editors of Wikipedia. Proposed intro: "This article encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that..." A.Z. 21:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image, which does seem to be uncontested and (I believe) doesn't change the content of the article. Removing the definition is a significant content change, though, and that is not the sort of thing that can be done with a simple editprotected request. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, CBM. However, the editprotected request was only for the image, the definition wasn't debated through yet. (Even if there was little debate going on - and I don't think you'll find a consesus will come on that one). Martijn Hoekstra 16:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the removal of the image of Edward Brongersma with the same rationale. Martijn Hoekstra 16:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC) {{editprotected}} Without any comments on the removal of this image for a little over a week, let's call it uncontroversial. I hereby request the removal of the image of Edward Brongersma, as it is a copyrighted image without proper fair use rationale (It fails FU criterion 8, significance). Martijn Hoekstra 19:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. We have our issues on this article but they do not concern our fair use image policies. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Support - the proposal is a fair non-controversial constructive edit. ~ Homologeo 21:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done, Image:EdwardBrongersma.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) removed. Sandstein 20:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose changing the introduction to this: User:Davidovic/ppa. There are absolutely no changes in content, I just fixed the formatting of the citations and fixed a link. Davidovic 07:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Memo on Archiving #2

If an editor would like to archive parts of this page, he or she is free to do that. However, please keep in mind that recent, active, and discussions relevant to current disputes and mediation should not be archived without due reason. This stance on archiving has already been expressed by several editors involved with editing this Talk Page, so please be respectful to them. ~ Homologeo 20:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to archive particular sections you must remove them from the archive page and bring them here, cut and paste. Not every thread since the beginning of August is still active and this looks like disruption, SqueakBox 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think no discussion after September 20 should be archived, as this was the time when SqueakBox started changing the introduction. A.Z. 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if you want to do that please remove them form the archive 15, don't leave a mess, SqueakBox 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I am not in agreement with restoring any of Mike D78's post Sep 20th comments, SqueakBox 21:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like what he has to say, shouldn't it be self-apparent that his words hold no value. I haven't even read him, but censoring him gives undue credit, no?

I think this is a bit petty, really. GrooV 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is he shouldn't edit here. I believe only when he sees that all his post-original-block messages are deleted will he perhaps stop editing here, though actually I ma not asking for his edits in archive space to be removed, merely those from active, google-searchable talk pages, SqueakBox 18:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that will encourage him to come back, to either re-post his opinions, or revert them back. We would have more people writing in articles that child rape advocates are "misunderstood". Do you want this article to be overridden with bias from both sides, or something? GrooV 19:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I want banned users to respect their bans. I don't wish to see bias from either side, SqueakBox 19:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

On paper, I agree with your sentiments. My problem is, where do you see looking backwards and censoring the hell out of self-apparently false ideas as being part of this? GrooV 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

While I was doing that I have compromised by archiving the material keeping Mike's comments, archiving should not be controversial or seen as censorship, SqueakBox 19:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is honourable. Although you did "cut the nail a bit close to the bed", and a few recent discussions went missing. However, we're well underway with a few new ones now, so no need to worry. GrooV 19:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And for the record I would act the same way with any proven socks of Xavier or DPetersen, both of whom are blocked right now, SqueakBox 19:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Xavier? No relation to Xavier von Erck?? GrooV 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh definitely the same person, see his contribs. As far as I am aware he has never returned since his indef block, and my point is that if he wanted to return to edit the paedophile articles the only way to do it is to persuade an admin to unblock, SqueakBox 19:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Von Erck is a recluse who spends countless hours online; it's altogether possible that he has several sock puppets.Agnapostate 16:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Focus on Improving the Article

It seems silly that this needs to be restated so many times - please keep discussions on this Talk Page centered around how the article on pro-pedophile activism can be improved. This is the only topic that should be discussed here. Please do not bait anyone or egg other editors on - this does not yield any progress, and is actually counterproductive to what we're trying to accomplish here. Likewise, if someone doesn't like the perspectives or opinions of another, and this preference has nothing to do with the article itself, please take ensuing discussions to the appropriate User Talk Pages. Same goes for declarations of personal sentiment. ~ Homologeo 04:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe we should just remove/archive the entire "Very Scary" section of this talk page (perhaps recovering whatever useful suggestions happened to get lost in the fray). Since the entire discussion ensued from banned/irrelevant commentary anyways, it has no business taking up so much real-estate in an otherwise civil discussion. 70.53.129.218 06:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Or we can just let it peter out, and archive it when things are archived. Martijn Hoekstra 10:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need yet to archive the "Very Scary" section, but still want to stress that disputes not relevant to the improvement of the article, along with declarations and critiques of personal perspectives, don't belong on this Talk Page. ~ Homologeo 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I know a lot about childlove

Please let me help you by editing this article with my specialist knowledge!!!

Why was this article locked on some sexofascist psalm to the hideous anti-pedophile haters at perverted justice? This is sick and an abomination against the truth! Ellis ♥▲ Raimbault 15:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody here hurts pedophiles, we are trying to write an article, nothing more. Please take your hatred elsewhere, anybody, wikipedia is not the place. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There is so many anti-pedophile Conservatives on this board, it makes me go and puke. You people are sickened with hate against homosexuals, pedophiles, and anybody different than you. This article is infested with hate and neutral point of view does not exist. Bosniak 00:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't put homosexuals in there with that point you're trying to make, as if hate for pedophilia is just about it "being different" and not understanding. Hatred toward pedophilia has nothing to do with being conservative. Flyer22 00:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The above editor will not be with us, as she was blocked after only five or so edits. Roman Czyborra was also blocked because he asked her for a photograph (she was fourteen). GrooV 07:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Proof? As much as I got, Roman was blocked for threatening legal action on other WP users as he personally felt verbally abused. It seems to have something to do with him quoting a brochure from our federal ministry of education, and when our ministry retracted it he was accused of "copryight infringement" as well as "original research" on ther English-language Wikipedia simply because that brochure had been retracted. It went so far that he's now even sued our federal minister of education, Ursula von der Leyen, on grounds of censorship for retraction of that brochure. --Tlatosmd 22:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Tlatosmd, I have no idea whether what you're saying is true or not, but the primary reason provided for the institution of the block was indeed the fact that Roman Czyborra asked Ellis Raimbault for her picture. ~ Homologeo 23:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The block log refers to "email abuse", and I suppose I've seen it because he's re-directed a lot of his mail correspondence to me via cc (I don't even know if he's aware of all the stuff he sent me that way, including his Wikipedia-related correspondence), and it was the lack of civil language he used in threatening legal action on people, such as Mike Godwin and Richard Stallman. Currently he and his colleagues from his nation-wide newspaper (TAZ) are preparing an online as well as print article on his suit against our minister. --Tlatosmd 23:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: Looks like Roman's ban seems in accordance with what another user has deemed "Krystallnacht" (spelling error) in the mediation process concerning this article. Some account appeared that was indefinitely banned after two posts without ever having edited one article, and Roman is simultaneously banned, allegedly due to an accuse of having contacted that account on grounds of "a" picture of unspecified nature (ID photo?), which, as has been said by somebody else, is definitely no reason to ban somebody even if this mysterious short-lived account was used by a minor, especially considering his profession as a journalist for a nation-wide newspaper. Plus, I saw no evidence of any such request for any picture in his Wikipedia-related correspondence he re-directed to me. Not sure if anybody, including me, should start an unbanning request, I just thought mentioning these facts here should be worthwile as an observation on editing politics here. --Tlatosmd 02:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, by what standards is Roman's behaviour not blockable. I bet you will not find a single admin who would unblock him, and there is clearly a lot of support of his block. The comparison of this situation to Krystalnacht (whose anniversary took place yesterday) is an insult to all the Jews who lost their lives on that terrible night. God knows even predatory peds are not treated like that by governmnets let alone on wikipedia. A hysterical reaction that insults the memory of real victims. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Note I used quotes on that term. Referring to lack of interest in unbanning him is moot and cheap as I say that's not my intention. Just mentioning that there seems plenty of critizism by others, and how fishy that two-post account seems to be, especially concerning what has happened to other users in the same debates. It seems like many people challenging you have been banned under mysterious circumstances, and it also seems I'm not the only one finding an odd pattern there. --Tlatosmd 02:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

While Roman Czyborra didn't exercise prudent judgment, considering all the controversy about allowing self-identifying pedophiles to edit PAW articles (and Wikipedia in general) and the supposed blocks that resulted from this debate, it is quite easy to question this block, because asking someone for a picture is not in itself a blockable offense. For instance, if I was to ask you, SqueakBox, for your picture, would I be blocked? However, the fact that the other user had stated that she was a minor and Roman knew this makes it somewhat easier to justify this block, because some may assume that the requested image was asked for with an illegal purpose in mind. Still, there was no inappropriate qualifier attached to the picture Roman requested, so this is not a foolproof block, as one may assume. At the same time, it is clear that admins want to be cautious, and obviously this was a precaution-driven step to prevent anything illegal from taking place. Nevertheless, this block can definitely be argued against. ~ Homologeo 06:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please mail your concerns to the arbitrastion committee, who are dealing with all the blocks related to pedophilia. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Admin - what do you want to see before this article can get back underway? -HolokittyNX 23:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The issues are being mediated. Looking at his or her comments in the thread here gives me little confidence that Holo wants to edit the article to promote NPOV. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is currently an official mediation process underway that is seeking to address the issues that have been bogging down progress of this article. Until this mediation is over, it is unlikely that indefinite protection will be lifted. However, if have any ideas in terms of uncontroversial edits, please feel free to list such edits in the appropriate section above. If other editors agree that the proposed edits are indeed constructive and uncontroversial, an admin can possibly incorporate them into the article. ~ Homologeo 02:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I do find it slightly ironic that you are happily flaunting a direct link to the exact same text that you blanked from the talk page for being "pro pedophile". I guess that the usage suits you on this occasion. GrooV 06:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No irony and certainly no flaunting. The community consensus was to keep those statements and I have accepted that and moved on. Just the wikipedia way. Thanks, SqueakBox 08:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed ironic that he would link to a page that displays his own irreconcilable bias on the subject: "They may not be the same thing but all the same one should assume adult-child sex a thing is harmful to the child is the more neutral approach" SqueakBox. This is deeply disturbing; that his approach is the more neutral approach because he says it so? Can we really trust somebody with such ego-centric views to be taking such an active role in editing this article? 74.12.80.54 08:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What sophistry? Is this your argument that it isn't harmful? And of course almost everyone agrees with you, the rest is a conspiracy. Thanks, SqueakBox 08:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith Squeaky. I was trying to correct the other person's statement typo. The content remained unchanged, and I did not omit yours. Fighting for Justice —Preceding comment was added at 08:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately not but I recognise it was a mistake to remove my comment, ie unintentional. You really shouldn't create a link to my user name in someone else's comments, you can do so in your own. And I was wrongly attributing that comment to you, sorry about that. Thanks, SqueakBox 08:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I was asking admin. All other opinions are irrelevant, ESPECIALLY personal opinions about other editors. -HolokittyNX 03:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Er what? All other opinions are most certainly not irrelevant, please do not try to marginalise other editors. We all need to express our personal opinions about how to take the article forward, that is not a matter exclusively for admins. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The matter of lifting the protection on the article is exclusively left to administrators. I for one can't wait for this to happen as the introduction is grossly POV. Fighting for Justice 03:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well apply for unprotection then but if the only reason you want to do so is to revert the opening to your preferred version you may find it difficult to persuade an admin to do it for you as admins are loath to unprotect an article to allow edit warring to continue - which is why it is in our hands as editors as to how we take this article forward and why waiting for mediation is probably the best solution given your recent comments about wanting to change the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And you are misunderstanding the role of admins, it takes an admin to lift a protection but it is certainly not a matter left exclusively to admins, that kind of perspective is simply inaccurate. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thought - this article does NOT need to be unprotected. Any further edits would probably best be approved by admin in advance. -HolokittyNX 00:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

First sentence seems not only biased but paradoxical

I'm probably going to regret jumping into this pool of sharks, but here goes:

This has likely been brought up before, but even the first sentence of the article, which currently reads (with references removed) "Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to sexually abuse children", seems not only biased against paedophiles, but also paradoxical. Child sexual abuse is currently defined in its own article as "an umbrella term describing criminal and civil offenses [...]". Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't any legal change allowing them to engage in sexual conduct with children by definition mean they would no longer be committing an offense in doing so. Would a change to the end of the sentence to something on the lines of "in order to allow pedophiles to engage in sexual conduct with children, which under current legislation counts as child sexual abuse" return the fickle balance of neutrality to the introductory sentence (which would be a good start), or be seen as pro-paedophile bias? Cohen the Bavarian 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Currently, a few editors are involved in oficial mediation for this article, and the introduction is one of the things that editors expressed concerns about. Mediation tends to be a bit of a slow process, and opinions on the introduction differ greatly, so it could be in this form for quite a while. Still, I'm fairly sure of an eventual good result. Martijn Hoekstra 16:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A neutral introduction of the sort that you're recommending was already in place before a couple editors began a revert quest to make it the way it is right now. As a result, the article was indef protected from editing yet again. As Martijn Hoekstra pointed out, currently, there is an official mediation process in progress on the MedCom's wiki, and the neutraliy of the introduction is one of the primary issues being addressed. Hopefully the editors involved will arrive at some sort of consensus in terms of what constitutes neutrality within this context, and the article can be unprotected. Until then, editors are encouraged to voice and discuss any concerns they have on this Talk Page, and hopefully proposed constructive edits will be incorporated into the article once it is re-opened to editing. Howbeit, if anyone has uncontroversial edits he or she would like to propose, please list them in the appropriate section above, and, pending approval by other members, an admin can possibly carry them out. ~ Homologeo 17:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive my curiosity, but what is the current progress at the mediation? What is the mediator(s) opinion on the current intro? Thanks, Albert Wincentz 00:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Cohen, IMO no, your edit makes lots of assumptions about the future and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Your suggested change would be pro pedophile as it would buy into how the pedophile activists see things. We can report how they see things but we cannot write our encyclopedia from a PPA perspective, but only a neutral one. If the laws of age of consent were one day changed in favour of the PPA demands we cannot speculate on how child sexual abuse would be seen in that day or nay make any assumptions of this kind. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Homologeo, I don't believe you can really claim that the previous version (the one that this current one and it are disputed) was neutral, I edited it precisely because it was a part of the neutrality problem that has been hanging over this article for a long time, and why it has been tagged since many months before the newer version was created, and recognised as such by many different editors. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It might take a while, Albert. We're still in the opening stages (opening statements). I do expect it will move a little faster after that, but it might take a while. It's just a slow process. Not something I want, but something we'll have to deal with. Martijn Hoekstra 12:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Albert Wincentz, you can witness the current state and contribute to the mediation process in this thread. And SqueakBox, decriminalizing an activity does automatically render it not a crime any longer. That's not a crystal ball, that's a simple legal definition. However I guess many, probably most Western legislations currently define the activity at hand not a crime but an offense, even the US lists child-adult sexual interactions under public order crimes, which makes them, by definition, victimless crimes (you can find AoC violations precisely named there), and the declared victim is abstract, in fact what is obviously feared is downfall of the state as it has often been a source of fear and panic in the history of persecuting obscenities at least since the Sodom myth created by Justinian I. You can actually find a quite similar approach to the abstract nature of AoC laws in informed consent where it reads, "A person below the age of consent may agree to sex, know all the consequences, but [...] Individual is barred from legally giving informed consent, despite what they may feel" precisely referring to AoC violations. --Tlatosmd 12:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I just read that thread, and although it is a good read, because it shows how sharp the differences are at the moment, it does not have much to do with the current status of the MedCom mediation. Martijn Hoekstra 13:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The other introduction for all to see

Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for specific changes to criminal laws and to cultural responses associated with pedophiles and adult/youth-minor sexual interactions. The movement consists of self-identifying pedophiles and other pro-pedophile activists located in various countries, including the United States, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, and Canada, sometimes allied to grassroots organizations such as North American Man/Boy Love Association (now virtually defunct) and the Dutch group Vereniging MARTIJN. Most current activism takes place on the Internet. Pro-pedophile activism stands in opposition to anti-pedophile activism, which claims to shield children from those it considers "predatory pedophiles" and which claims that pro-pedophile organizations and activities are merely attempts to legalize and legitimize the abuse of children. Some pro-pedophile groups are involved in opposing vigilante groups that target anyone with a sexual attraction to children.^{[1] [2]}

Some pro-pedophile activists advocate social acceptance of what they consider to be adult romantic love ^[3] and sexual attraction to minors, as well as the legalization of what they believe to be non-abusive and mutually consenting adult-minor sexual activity, activity that is currently defined in most legal contexts as child sexual abuse. Other goals of pro-pedophile activism may, but do not necessarily, include the redefinition of contemporary authority relations between adults and minors, and the changing of institutions of concern to pedophiles, such as age of consent laws and mental disorder classifications.^[4][5]

Increasing public focus and disapproval of pedophilia has motivated more stringent legislation and stricter criminal penalties regarding child pornography, child sexual abuse, and the use of the internet to facilitate these activities.^{[citation needed]} To consider pro-pedophile activism as a valid political or civil rights activist movement is also unpopular. The movement faces virulent opposition. ^[6] Camille Paglia said, "These days, especially in America, boy-love is not only scandalous and criminal but somehow in bad taste."^[7]

SqueakBox often opines that this is biased heavily in favour of the article's subject.

I challenge him to identify specific passages and then present to me, and all the other editors who prefer this version to the current editorial, a logical explanation of exactly why it is biased. GrooV 20:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed both intros before, and have made part of an alternative intro. (it's somewhere in the archives, I have a link to it somewhere, I'll add it in a moment). My main problem with both is that the far majority of the refs are really really bad. FYI, added a reflist: Martijn Hoekstra 22:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion. But in any case, it's not very relevant at all. This is part of the mediation, and history has proven we can't get it fixed here. Debating and/or arguing here will not accomplish much, but polarise even more. Whatever the outcome, it's still part of the mediation. Martijn Hoekstra 22:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you also post this at mediation. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's sad that I have to come to an article's talk page to read an unbiased intro (which can't be put up because of mediation!??). Lysis rationale (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unbiased in your opinion. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

One reason this intro is better - the pro-ped movement isn't united on the issue of adult-child sex, as most other intros have stated. There are three basic 'factions:'

Pro-contact: those who wish to abolish the age of consent and allow adult-child sex. Non-contact: anyone who has personally chosen never to attempt any illegal relationship with a child, whether they want the age of consent abolished or not. Anti-contact: those who want to change the cultural stigma against pedophiles, but don't think children are capable of consenting.

The pro-contact faction is probably the majority, but the only thing that really defines the movement is that they consider society's attitude towards pedophiles oppressive. They don't all consider the AoC oppressive. -HolokittyNX (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting and you are probably right about the inclusion of the latter 2 groups who aren't trying to legalise child sexual abuse, along with the first group which clearly is. Can we have some refs please in order tot ake this one a bit further forward. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Working on sources. -HolokittyNX (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a fair amount of people agree that some changes should be made to the lead paragraph. The need for NPOV is, of course, paramount in relation to such a controversial issue. I believe that some aspects of the current lead should remain, as it is important to mention the opposition to the movement not only from the anti-pedophilia movement, but from society in general. However, I think that, currently, the lead section is leaning a little towards the side of the anti-pedophilia movement, perhaps to compensate for some previous pro-pedophilia bias. I believe, and I think that all editors who work on this article would agree with me, that the lead should be completely neutral (ideally the entire article, but the lead is important at this period in time.) However, from what I've read I've found that many of us seem to have different ideas of what constitutes a NPOV. We're only going to achieve a truly neutral article through rational debate and respect of one another's views, so what I'd like to do is present to you two changes to the lead paragraph which I'm not even proposing right now; I'd simply like opinions on them.

• Change Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to sexually abuse children. to:

• Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for specific changes to criminal laws and to cultural responses associated with pedophiles and adult/youth-minor sexual interactions - interactions which are widely viewed as the sexual abuse of children by adults.

With this I've tried to incorporate what I think is the more neutral sentence with an important observation of the current lead - that the large majority of people believe that pedophilia amounts to sexual abuse.

• Change The obverse movement is anti-pedophile activism, which aims to protect children from predatory pedophiles. to:

• The opposing movement is anti-pedophile activism, which aims to protect children from pedophiles, whom they consider to be sexual predators.

I still have a problem with the word "protect" but as far as I can see, there's no one-word alternative. Perhaps "prevent the interaction of children with pedophiles, whom they ..." would work.

I'd really like some opinions on these changes. Thanks, Davidovic 08:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see that this article is being scrutinised under mediation, so I don't really expect much of an answer to these changes, as I'm sure those that are scrutinising it will do a far better job than myself, but I'd still like to leave my thoughts on the subject here. Thanks, Davidovic 10:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Opposing movements, such as Anti-pedophile activism and Child protection, aim to hinder pedophiles and shield children respectively, with the stated aim of protecting children."

As above, I would also avoid the word "pedophile", as it refers to an attraction only.

These comments will rightly be integrated into the new consensus after mediation. 82.45.15.121 (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty good, IMO. Although I wouldn't change the 'pedophile' part, because anti-peds (more so than the general public) consider all pedophiles predators regardless of their actions. As far as they're concerned any involvement with pro-ped activism constitutes child abuse, along with hosting pro-ped websites. -HolokittyNX (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My reaction to such an opening would be to edit it. It does seem biased against APAs and does not give a clear idea of what child sexual abuse is in relation to PPAs, I disagree that PPAs stand in opposition to APAs (which is unsourced anyway), PPAs stand in opposition to AoC laws, I also think that making out that APAs are the ones who describe pedophiles as dangerous predators is untrue, the great majority of people consider pedophiles to be dangerous predators. So it is an opening with lots of problems and certainly not acceptable in its current form as a stable opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you always claim that disputed versions "make out" something that only you could imagine they do? It is an extreme hinderance when someone removes a valid version because of their own imagination... assuming "implications" in unusually impartial treatments that are meant to be among the hallmarks of an encyclopedia, as opposed to what I can only imagine is their usual tabloid cattle feed. 82.45.15.121 (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from commenting on other's ideas of what constitutes NPOV in this part of the discussion, far too much of that occurs on this talk page and what I really want to do here is achieve a compromise with SqueakBox, as he seems to be an experienced contributor and a valuable part of the PAW. Really what I would like to see happen is a solution that both sides of this argument can agree on, and I understand that the mediation process will most likely achieve this, but I thought it was time for some calm debate on this rather heated talk page :)

Now then, SqueakBox. You dislike the change of "obverse" to "opposing." Really the only reason I changed that was to (in my mind, at least) make the sentence read a little better. In relation to your other problems, I'd like to put forward these alternatives:

• Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for specific changes to criminal laws and to cultural responses associated with pedophiles and adult/youth-minor sexual interactions - interactions which are viewed by the general population as the sexual abuse of children by adults.
• Pedophiles are considered by many to be sexual predators, and this view has led to the rise of movements such as anti-pedophile activism and child protection, which aim to protect children from pedophiles.

I hope everyone finds these satisfactory (both sides of the argument), but if you don't, raise your issues with these sentences ^^

I do agree that many people consider all pedophiles dangerous, regardless of their actions. I believe these sentences do outline the fact that many people consider pedophiles dangerous at all times, and that's why these groups have formed. I disagree strongly with the term "hinder pedophiles" because it implies that pedophiles should not be hindered.

As I said before, I'd really like to see some friendly discussion on this talk page, and I understand that this is a touchy issue and many (including myself) have strong feelings on it. I also understand that you, by no means, need to adhere to my wishes and can say whatever you like here ^^, that's the great thing about these discussion pages :). However, I do think that if we, all of us, put aside our differences and work as a team, we can protect this article against vandalism and can agree on a lead that will be acceptable not to a majority of us, but to all of us. Thanks a lot, Davidovic 07:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My input on this thread has so far been minimal - mainly because I don't think it's not very relevant to have this discussion here at this time. I do want to give some responses to a few proposals though: widely regarded is weasel wording, unless it is well referenced. I fully agree with squeek that anti-pedophile activism isn't exactly the movement that opposes pro-pedophile activism. This would imply that the whole anti-pedophile movement is in fact anti-(pro-pedophile activism), and although there are such groups, this is making things overly complicated. I don't quite like 'whith the stated aim to protect children' either, because to me this reads like 'yeah, that's what they call it', to me implying a 'but we all know better'. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, do not see any problem whith the stated aim to protect children, partly because Wikipedia in general has to attribute a particular claim to those who are making it, and not the least because we can't be absolutely certain that APA are truly motivated by child protection and not something else, or a combiantion of different motivations. For example, Xavier Von Erck stated in an interview that "protection of children" is only a "side benefit", and that he primarily enjoys busting the "pedos" just for the sake of it. Some APA activists might also be motivated by PR stunts, self-promotion and other political/personal agendas (just as may the PPA activists, BTW!) Albert Wincentz (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

got POV?

I'm sure Wikipedia has got a lot of POV to it. But this article is just an abhorrence. After all these years of using Wikipedia is it such a rocket science to make a section titled "controversy" or "criticism" and push varying POVs there?? not in the first sentence of the intro!

What it denounces as ABUSE might be consensual sex in Sweden or indeed a legal offense in California. Basically I didn't come here to read your commentary (which is of little to no authority) in the first sentences of the intro. I suggest you blog about it instead or something... Your blog might even become popular!! unlike stupid NPOV wikipedia entries. Lysis rationale (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV on wikipedia is not stupid. And who are you suggesting writes a blog? And what relations are legal in Sweden? Sigh. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

having consensual sex with a 15 year old. You might have missed my point it was a comparison of Swedish and California legislations - speaking in terms of the current intro a so called pro-pedophile organization advocating to lower the AoC would be advocating abuse? Sweden and California, for instance, have different POVs as of what constitutes abuse. What I wanted to say was that editors should take great care as not to push their opinions of what constitutes abuse, because unlike with Swedish and Californian legislators' POVs no one really gives a damn about editors' POVs. I'm actually having some sort of hivemind deja vu - I believe this has been discussed over and over a billion times already. The last sentence about blogging about it was intended to be sarcastic. Lysis rationale (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that no editor should be expressing their own POV in the article, minor differences ion legislation between countries don't really mean anything outside of the AoC articles but advocating sex between adults and pre-pubescent children, as PPAs do, is advocating the legalization of CSA. You show a remarkable understanding of policy for someone who has only been here for 10 days and only made a hndful of edits. Are you sure you haven't edited here before. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If the editor has, that would be fine (unless they are currently operating the same account, or were given a community enforced ban, i.e. a ban that no one objected to). digitalemotion 04:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess the whole POV issue surrounding this article is an example of systemic bias. I think it's reasonable to assume that most Wikipedians editing this article have made their minds up about how they judge it, and the mainstream view in the English-speaking world and most other countries (which probably most Wikipedia editors adhere to) happens to be regarding paedophiles in an if not disgusted, then still strongly negative way. Cohen the Bavarian (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Lysis rationale...the first paragraph desperately needs a neutral re-write. I'm pretty sure allowing "pedophiles to sexually abuse children" is not the goal of pro-pedophile activism. Something like "to allow consensual sexual relations between adults and children" would be more in the vein of the actual advocation. A follow-up sentence remarking that opposition groups contest the concept of "consensuality" and a section for it later on in the article would be appropriate, but the opening paragraph must remain descriptive in the plainest sense. Also, the cited works present an anti-pedophilia interpretation of the movement, rather than a non-biased survey of its goals. The presence of information on Wikipedia doesn't mean the editors advocate the stance of the group they are describing, simply that such a thing exists in the world (regardless of "should"). Neutrality is one of the most important assets an encyclopedia can have. - DevOhm ^Talk 11:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I had to do a double take when I read the intro to this article. Hard to believe that this blatant POV has remained for so long, even more surprising that this is all thanks in part to mostly one editor. Congrats, someone really knows how to game the system and stall progress via WP's excess bureaucracy. This will be my only comment on this talk page-- I've already taken the bait by posting here in the first place. 高 20:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why an administrator locked the article on a version that clearly violates a major official policy. Oh, wait. I do. 82.45.15.121 (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version". Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite think that the protection was an endorsement of the current version, but considering how long the article has been protected, the admin should have taken into consideration that the current version was an obvious violation of policy. The other version was disputed by one, at some times two editors, it seems. 82.45.15.121 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, as soon as an administrator chooses one version over another, instead of just protecting the version that is there when protection is granted, they effectively choose sides, and can no longer be neutral in the dispute. It does have a totaly disputed tag over it anyway, so although I prefer the other version, I'm not all too fuzzed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection is never an endorsement of either the current version or of any version being disputed, it is used solely to stop edit warring (or vandalism, not relevant here). The current version is not a vilation of policy either, it is one of 2 versions being disputed. This famous essay sums up the situation very well. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensual sex is not "abuse". It strikes me as odd that there's POV-pushing in the opening sentence of the first paragraph. --M.W. (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

All sex with pre-pubescent children is considered abusive because they are unable to consent, indeed most Age of Consent laws are based on when the authorities think young people can consent. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"...because it is widely believed they are unable to consent". When it comes to the cognitive capacity to give consent, one should defer to facts given by the pertinent science on the subject, in which case psychology (of human sexuality) has much to purport on the cognitive capacity for sexual relations, specifically that it is not simply dictated by age or pubescence, but rather a dynamic of cognitive, behavioural, and biological factors. Unfortunately, political, authoritative, and societal opinion need oft not be respective of scientific fact and should only be used when citing that context (explicitly or implicitly). Steady biased nuances such as those, when added up, merely contribute to the gross POV of this article. All users intending to edit the main article should at least seek to practice their NPOV writing skills on the talk page of said article (if in the least to strengthen others' assumption of their good-faith). 74.12.75.85 (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

All sex with pre-pubescent children is considered abusive because they are unable to consent.

Once again, you miss by an absolute mile. Hint: Start concentrating NOW. When it comes to neutrality, it doesn't matter a bit what society's trend of "consideration" is. Society tends to "consider" abortion to be murder, bumming off a sheep to be weird/immoral and dealing drugs to be a serious crime. The bottom line is that like most things, adult-child sex is ETHICALLY DISPUTED, and has been so over TIME AND PLACE. It is also extremely foolish to describe, with pretences of neutrality, an act that is wholly possible without nailing one partner down to the bed as universally abusive. Why? Because this is where we enter the psychological realm, where indefinite mental and social factors come into play. The concept is AMBIGUOUS! So drop the PREACHING and let the reader decide for themselves. It is also hideoously biased to use a term such as abuse in referring to a possible FUTURE SITUATION in which such acts would be by LEGAL DEFINITON... NOT ABUSIVE!!!

...indeed most Age of Consent laws are based on when the authorities think young people can consent.

Well, SHAKE YOURSELF AWAKE, then! Authorities differ in their judgement on this matter, meaning that the legalisation of the said diddling in one jurisdiction would equate to legal, non abusive "abuse" according to the code of another, but could be judged as valid liberationism in yet another. Nothing is DEFINITE where VARIATION persists! Leave ABSOLUTES the hell out of this, and stop PREACHING THE LAW of you preference in an encyclopedia! 82.45.15.121 (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I know this debate is getting heated very quickly again, so this is just a quick reminder for everyone to remain calm, level-headed, and civil. Thank you in advance, ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Children are unable to consent, if you have issues with this please do not bring them here as we are only interested in writing an encyclopedia not in ranting against authority. The internet is a big place and you'll find a hearing somewhere but not here. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As a psychology student and a person capable of free and critical thought, I do have issues with that statement and I will bring them here so long as you do. Grossly negligent percepts of opinion as fact[2] must not be allowed to seep into any future edits on this article, it has already suffered greatly from this sort of group-think. I suggest that if this is your line of thinking and the stance you have taken on the subject, you need to immediately relieve yourself from editing this article any further. 74.12.75.85 (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, to my eye it seems that only the opening section is in contention—the rest of the article looks fairly well-put-together, though I'd have to reread it a few times to be totally sure.

I think an important issue is that this article is not about whether or not children are able to give consent. It is not titled "Viewpoints on Pedophilia," or "Historical Interpretations of Pedophilia" or "Legal and Moral Implications of Pedophilia," though these may deserve a section in it. This is an article about Pro-pedophile Activism, and as such, should open with a discussion of the stated goals of the movement. Whether or not these are morally, psychologically, or socially valid should follow in a section dedicated to that topic, which must be well-cited (this probably shouldn't be a problem, because the citations in the "descriptive" first paragraph fall within purvey of a "criticism" section, essentially).

A first step would be to find an article about pro-pedophile activism or a website for pro-pedophile activists and extract a quote from it—a direct quote, no interpretations. The next sentence could be "Critics of the movement argue that children are incapable of giving consent, etc. etc." and cite the hell out of it, if we want. There's an extensive section of the article called Controversy and public reaction to the movement that could be expanded upon, if anyone felt the need.

Sure, the introductory section is the most important aspect of any article, but people understand that as an encyclopedic source of information, we do not advocate that which we describe. Imagine if Abortion's opening paragraph read, "Medical abortion is the murder of a fetal child and its expulsion from the reproductive uterus. The Pro-life movement strives to protect these innocent lives" or if God read, "God most often refers to the fictional deity posited by various monotheistic religions. The modern secularist movement is an attempt to shield the greater society from the effects of this delusion." That would be unacceptable. Those articles both have sections about disputes or controversy, but remain neutral in their initial descriptive presentation. I don't think that's impossible to achieve. - DevOhm ^Talk 12:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Abortion is a hugely disputed issue, at least in the US, pedophilia isnt a disputed issue other than a few fringe activists. That is a real difference. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No amount of "real difference" justifies documenting a topic in a POV fashion. If you want to emphasize the disparity in support, you are encouraged to weight the viewpoints accordingly, however what you must not do is write any part of the article from any viewpoint other than the factual one. 74.12.75.85 (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Paedophilia is wrong. I hope that clarifies some of the issues. 194.72.81.141 (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, a state of existence is wrong? Do you really believe that people can be illegal? I hope you realize that opinion gives way to final solutions of a physical nature, more precisely homicide and genocide. --Tlatosmd 16:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother wasting any reasoning on him, he's just a vandalizing troll, check his talk page. 74.12.75.85 23:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Joke?

this is a joke, right? it doesnt really exist?

suggest for deletion—Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.2.206 (talk • contribs)

No the content of this article is not a joke. There are quite a few references to reliable sources that indicate this article is real. Therefore, deletion would be inapropriate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification, and at risk of offending people who like to touch little children, i'll go lose my lunch somewhere quietly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.2.206 (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --76.213.169.164 (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)