Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/Archive 3

message: I would like to know more about the Revere case from which NAMBLA developed. Corax's original version of this article presented the 24 men arrested in Revere as innocent victims of a homophobic prosecutor, and much was made of the fact that 21 of the men were acquitted. The article has been considerably modified since then, but it still conveys the view that the prosecutions were in some way unjust. The first question therefore is, what about the three who were not acquitted? What were they convicted of? What do these convictions tell us about the innocent victims theory? 
Secondly, this article's opening section makes it clear that the house in Revere was being used as a venue for men to have sex with underage boys, so that while the allegations of a "sex ring" may have been exaggerated, they were not completely unfounded. The question then is - what were the men charged with? What defence did they offer? Why were they acquitted? Were they acquitted on grounds of fact - ie, that they had not been at the house or had not had sex with boys under the age of consent? Or where they acquitted on some technicality or other? Someone who has access to contemporary accounts or records might like to do some research on this. Adam 12:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Revere case

message: To the first point: the three convictions tell us NOTHING about the other twenty-one men, regardless of what they were convicted of. But I agree: the information should be included. 
To the second: The house was indeed used for sex with underage boys. there were two documented cases of 15-year-old hustlers paid for sex. I'm sorry I can't find the article right now to cite this. 
So I suppose, yes, declaring that 24 arrests are just the "tip of the iceberg" of a "sex ring" was not completely unfounded. Similarly, calling me an "unpredictable driver" with a "documented history of reckless behavior" would not be completely unfounded -- since I have two moving violations on my record. And since I was passenger once in a DUI arrest, what does that say about me? 68.229.240.32 15:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More revere

message: Hi, there are a lot of embedded links in this article that are not in the reference section at the bottom. They need to be as per the policy on citations. It is overall very well cited, as I guess I would expect articles on controversial topics like this to be. But I thought I'd mention the links. --DanielCD 21:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: To Willmcw:  Um.  How do I say this?  You just read how counterproductive and improvident it is to make substantive alterations to the content of the article without first discussing it on the talk page.  Then two seconds later, you make a substantive alteration to the article without first discussing it on the talk page.  What am I missing here? Corax 01:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have several articles on organizations that promote pedophilia. It seems logical to have a category for them. -Willmcw 01:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: According to Wikipedia:categorization, we should not put an article (or a category) in both a mother and daughter category. Most of the categories attached to this article are already categorized under the :category:pedophile organizations or :category:pedophilia. Only categories that are specific to NAMBLA that aren't already covered whould be added (like US organizations). -Willmcw 02:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh huh.  And I suppose that the reason you removed "LGBT organizations" is that it is a mother or daughter category of "Pedophialia Groups"?  Let's be honest here.  What you're trying to do is months in the making, judging from the other discussions on this talk page.  You don't want NAMBLA "affiliated" with LGBT organizations, despite the fact that it is one.Corax 04:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. NAMBLA is explicitly homosexual while pedophilia in general is not. -Willmcw 07:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Messing around with the categorization now?

message: :::MSTCrow, what is the source for saying the NAMBLA calls itself an LGBT organization? I looked on their website and didn't see it. -Will Beback 18:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Freakofnurture provides a source in the section above. Natgoo 21:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having trouble tracking it down. Can you please copy it here? Thanks, -Will Beback 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it's two sections above, at . The reference is from Gamson, Joshua. 1997. Messages of Exclusion: Gender, Movements, and Symbolic Boundaries. Gender and Society 11(2):178-199. Natgoo 22:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies if I mistakenly deleted your comment. Thanks for the info, but I can't view that reference. Does anyone here have access to that article who can give us the quotation and context so that we can verifty it? As I mentioned, they don't seem to call themselves a gay organization on their website, and were expelled from the ILGA. -Will Beback 22:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see that someone from NAMBLA once claimed to be a part of the gay community, while others claim that it is not a part of that community. So it is a disputed claim, even in that source. -Will Beback 22:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is NAMBLA's (wavering) acceptance by the gay community germane to how we categorise the article? If you believe it is the criterion for inclusion, please tell us why. Natgoo 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: I see Homey has requested protection, claiming that the term "absolute age of consent law" is POV.  Of course this is ludicrous, as "absolute age of consent law," "graduated age of consent law," and other such things are the names of kinds of age of consent laws, not opinions about those laws.
The current text, that NAMBLA seeks "revision of age of consent laws," is fine.  I'm not going to request unprotection, as I'm quite happy with the current wording of the article, and the protection will prevent Homey from going on and on about something he calls "the right of adults to have sex with children," which has nothing to do with anything NAMBLA advocates, and is definitely his POV. :) Hermitian 22:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that page protection is not an endorsement of any certain version. It would be advisable for everyone involved in this edit war to try to come to a solution that is acceptable to all. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I'd change in the current article is "sexual relationships" in the opening paragraph to "mutually consensual, non-exploitative sexual relationships," since clearly, as has been pointed out numerous times before, NAMBLA isn't talking about removing all criminal penalties for any kind of sex with any age child.  I really don't see anything else in dispute, except the continuing "LGBT Organization" category war.  Given that NAMBLA was formed in the gay community, written about in gay publications as a gay organization, and its literature was carried in gay bookstores, I think it qualifies as LGBT for encyclopedic purposes, regardless of whether it would win a vote on that topic amongst gays today.  Let's hear what everyone else thinks about the current article. Hermitian 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Mutually consensual, non-exploitative sexual relationships" is clearly POV too, since many opponents claim that there is no such thing as consent from a minor, and that sexual relationships with minors are exploitative simply by being sexual. I would rephrase it to "what they hold are mutually consensual, non-exploitative sexual relationships", or something similar. Clayboy 22:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If opponents hold that there is no such thing as sexual consent by someone as much as one day under the age of 18, which I believe to be the current definition of "minor," I doubt they are very credible opponents.  One way of looking at consent is that it is a balance between the risk of harm, and a person's ability to take responsibility for that risk.  A 3 year old can consent to a hug from Grandma, because the risk is infinitesimal that he will be harmed.  Clearly, activities society considers to be sexual span the complete spectrum of risk from relatively harmless to life-threatening, just as capacity to understand and take responsibilty spans the complete spectrum from clueless to cunning.  While ones ability to take risk may have some correlation with ones chronological age, minors are owed greater respect for their civil liberties by society than rubber stamp legislative criminalization based solely on age provides.  Are minors asked if they "consent" to being beaten, slapped, religiously indoctrinated, forced to attend school, drafted, or vaccinated?  Do the people outraged over the suggestion that minors can consent sexually ever fight over whether minors can consent to anything else that is forced upon them?  Can a child consent to spinach?  In any case, since we have a second paragraph which states what critics of NAMBLA believe, I don't think it is necessary to dirty the first paragraph on what NAMBLA supports with specious qualifiers like "what they hold" or "what they claim to be."  Putting NAMBLA's words in quotes should suffice. Hermitian 23:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not "ludicrous" given the fact that NAMBLA calls for the repeal of *all* age of consent laws, not just "absolute" ones. Therefore, the adjective absolute was meant as a comment on age of consent laws, not as a categorization of them. The current sentence "The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a US-based organization that promotes revision of age-of-consent laws" is misleading. NAMBLA isn't in favour of revising age of consent laws (say by lowering them or graduating them), it opposed age of consent laws and calls for their repeal, full stop. As the Boston Magazine article made clear attempts within NAMBLA to pass a resolution calling for simply lowering the age of consent have been unsuccessful. The paragraph, as it now stands, does not reflect this. Homey 06:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An absolute age of consent law with a lowered age is still an absolute age of consent law.  If one opposes absolute age of consent laws on principle as regressive laws, then of course one opposes simply plugging in a different age.  This is like plugging in a different hatsize into "hatsize of consent."  It doesn't address the fact that hatsize of consent is not a smart idea to begin with.  NAMBLA has stated it would not oppose an age of consent law like the Dutch have, which balances a minor's right to sexual privacy against the need to prevent victimization.  Because of this, saying that NAMBLA opposes absolute age of consent laws is the correct wording.  "Revision of age of consent laws" is an acceptable substitute.  Why you think "absolute" is some sort of horrible pejorative is unclear to me.  It means the laws criminalize "absolutely", and there are no exceptions permitted. Hermitian 07:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are all of these statements? Can we post the links here so that we can be, literally, on the same page? Thanks? -Will Beback 07:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I am wonder how HOTR arrived at the conclusion that there's a consensus to remove the NAMBLA article from the "LGBT organizations" category.  If anything, the majority of people participating on this talk page seem to think that NAMBLA belongs in the category.  Corax 21:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus?

message: This poll is closed. Voting has been merged into Poll #2 below.
Comments
*If you think a vote will work, fine.  All it will show is that there are a number of people who have given up on making an argument that NAMBLA isn't LGBT, and who have instead resorted to trying to force the issue through by virtue of numerical superiority -- generated, of course, by advertising this "poll" on boards where the majority of people have not been participating and probably have not read the debate on this issue. Corax 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, a consensus is a decision reached by a group as a whole, not just a vocal and strident majority which, in this case anyway, has no logical basis for its claims. I suppose we could also hold a poll on whether NAMBLA belongs in a category called "sicko organizations," and the vote would pass overwhelmingly. But that doesn't say much for neutrality. And neither does attempting to remove NAMBLA from the LGBT organizations category just because most modern-day homosexuals hate the fact that the group is used by the right-wing to attack gay rights. Corax 22:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is defined by the opinions wikipedia community as a whole. Not just advocates of one position on one talk page. Homey 22:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  Not just advocates of your position, and not just advocates of my position.  But by everybody as a whole, not just half or even a bare majority. I believe that was my point. Corax 22:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *And yet there's still no consensus. I guess then you could also say that the reasons NAMBLA isn't and never has been a gay organization have been discussed many times. Hrm. Funny how that works. Dave 22:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (A pedophile is someone whose principal sexual attraction is to PRE-PUBESCENT chidren.  NAMBLA is not exclusively pedophile, nor was pedophilia the reason which drove its creation.  Attraction to sexually mature teens under the age of consent just makes one a "Fag with Good Taste," not a pedophile. Hermitian 22:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the article, NAMBLA advocates the repeal of all age-of-consent laws. So what's this about "sexually mature teens"? They're NAMBLA, not NAMTLA. As for your "Fags with Good Taste", I imagine even a lot of LGBT people would find this rather offensive. Camillus (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one advocates the repeal of age-based laws that cancel drivers licenses after a certain age, it doesn't mean that one is in favor of unconscious old people speeding down the road at 100 MPH.  If one advocates the repeal of laws which force airline pilots to retire after a certain age, it doesn't mean one advocates unsafe air travel.  If one advocates the repeal of absolute age-based consent laws, it doesn't mean one favors very young children engaging in harmful age-innapropriate sex acts.  NAMBLA advocates getting rid of absolute age of consent laws because they are regressive, criminalize absolutely with no possibillity of making reasonable exceptions, allow the minor partner no due process or even the right to have their opinion stated in the judicial record.  This has little to do with pedophilia.  It's about due process, and the right of everyone not to be invisibilized by the system.  Whether or not pedophilia is a good or bad thing is a separate discussion. Hermitian 00:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not in :Category:Pederasty organizations anymore, if you'd notice, and does not breach any MoS rules I know of. Elaborate. // paroxysm (n) 22:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Is it not a pederast organization? In any case, being in :category:pederasty and :category:U.S. organizations has the same effect. -Will Beback 23:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the category is going to be deleted soon per WP:CFD, for the reasons cited there. Adding it to Cat:Pederasty and Cat:U.S. organizations is obviously not the same as adding it to cat:Pederasty organizations, since neither of those are a subcat of cat:LGBT organizations. I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of categories entirely, and, at any rate, your last reply was non sequitur to your claims that it violates WP:MoS -- as it clearly doesn't. // paroxysm (n) 23:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting to have serious doubts about your ability to comprehend written text, Will. How many times have we discussed a potential categorization of NAMBLA into a "Pederasty organizations" category? Three or four, I think. And each time, I made it perfectly clear -- and you did not disagree with this -- that placing NAMBLA in a "pederasty organizations" category is okay only if Pederasty organizations is a subcat of LGBT organizations, and only if other LGBT organizations are similarly subcategorized. Yet you continue to persist as if these discussions never happened. Corax 23:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pederasty is categorized under LGBT. I have no problem with other organizations having similar categories. I've communicated both points before.  -Will Beback 23:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see only one subcategory under [Category:LGBT organizations].  And it's not pederasty. Corax 23:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Is everything clearly devided into "little boys" and "fully adult men"? What is a 15 years old then? People should know that most of these "famous homosexuals in history" the gay community is so proud of were rather attracted to boys between 13 and 19 than having any interest in fully adult men. Fulcher 20:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Homosexuality is the sexual attraction to someone of the same sex, full stop. That's it. Gay men can want to have sex with little boys, or teenagers under the age of consent, and pedophiles can want to have sex with adult men, too. Freakofnurture made a nice diagram above which nicely illustates NAMBLA's pedo/gay overlap. // paroxysm (n) 23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... so heterosexuality is the same -- i.e., adult men can run after little girls and still be legitimately straight? I'm not buying it. If we had an article on something like tkGL.net, I don't think anyone would be rushing to add it to a "straight-rights" category. Madame Sosostris 23:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. "Heterosexuality is the scientific name for sexual attraction and/or sexual behaviour between animals of the opposite characteristic sex." And tkGL is not a heterosexual community, it is a community for anyone, regardless of sex, who is attracted to little girls -- so no, no one would be rushing to do that. // paroxysm (n) 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Another self-appointed expert on sexuality who hasn't even done the basics of reading the discussion on this talk page. For the one millionth time, NAMBLA is not a pedophile organization, and it does not promote pedophilia.  It is an organization founded to decriminalize consensual sexual relationships between adult men and adolescent males.  This is a gay issue if there ever were one.  Corax 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll (closed) 

message: I think it's quite amusing that a number of people have manufactured an issue over the categorization of NAMBLA in LGBT organizations, in order for them to advance their political agenda of sweeping controversial gay issues like pederasty under the rug.  (Nevermind the fact that NAMBLA has been in this category for almost a year now, and nobody raised any objections until recently.)  What's amusing about it is that a gay online encyclopedia -- one where the uninformed and politically motivated masses aren't allowed to dictate content -- considers NAMBLA's classification as a "gay" group to be a closed issue.  It includes a lengthy and factual article about NAMBLA because it's obvious that NAMBLA is an LGBT group, albeit an unpopular one.  To make matters even more humorous, the name of the encyclopedia is -- what else? -- GLBTQ, literally one letter away from the very category in which many people now claim NAMBLA has no place.
It's instructive to compare a serious, well-vetted encyclopedia written by knowledgable professionals with the Oprah-esque mosaic of lies, sensationalism, and baseless accusations that has become the Nambla discussion page.  It really leads me to wonder why I bother.  Corax 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: Have any of yall seen this: Child sexual abuse and sexual orientation ?--DanielCD 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Have you read the Rind, et. al. studies which demonstrate that "child sex abuse" is a scientifically invalid concept? Corax 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not completely, but I will. My purpose in putting this here is just to let people know it exists, not to express opinons pro or con. --DanielCD 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child sex abuse and sexual orientation 

message: Am I the only one who realizes that pages can't have any slashes(/) in them? As it stands, right now, this article is /Boy Love Association, a subpage of North American Man, can this be renamed to something that doesn't have a slash in it's title?--64.12.116.199 05:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a backslash. KVenzke 06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We both know s/he meant forward slash. Dave 06:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? KVenzke 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no North American Man page. This isn't a problem with wiki titles. Dave 06:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is, look again, if you add /Boy_Love_Association to the talk page of North American Man, you get a redirect back here, try it--152.163.100.199 06:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The article used to be called "man-boy love," which is NOT the name of the organization.  I think it is more important for this encyclopedia to identify the group by its proper name than to prevent any confusion over some non-existent "Boy Love Association" subpage on the "North American Man" page.  Corax 15:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting?

message: ...everybody should strive for it.  Wikipedia:Civility. Please stop baiting folks with hateful comments, and this goes for everybody.  · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Camillus has now gone to the talk page of the math article I commented on, and followed up with comments about my "defending" NAMBLA.  Does Wikipedia:Civility address following someone to other parts of Wikipedia, and annoying them, because you don't like their position on one article? Hermitian 21:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: At the risk of once again being accused of sharing a brain with Hermitian, I echo his complaint.  Camillus' behavior here has been quite bad, and now seems to be getting worse.  After twisting people's positions around in discussion, and accusing people of being sock puppets, he has now moved on to wiki-stalking and vindictively posting to talk pages about unrelated subject matters.  I hope this situation is dealt with in an expeditious and fair manner. Corax 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either open a requests for comment at WP:RFC or an arbitration case at WP:RFAr.  Charges of stalking are beyond my simple powers as an administrator. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 22:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise for trolling Hermitian. I will not do it again. As for having my head stuck up Sean Connery's arse, I'll just forget it - "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me". Camillus (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for wanting to stick Camillus' head up Sean Connery's ass.  Does this mean we're all friends again? Hermitian 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility 

message: Since it seems that the people opposed to having NAMBLA in the LGBT organizations category are now not only rewriting the history of gay rights, but also the history of this article, I would like to remind everybody who is participating in this little mediation that NAMBLA was in LGBT organizations for a year.  NAMBLA's classificaition as an LGBT organization is the status quo.  It is the people seeking to remove NAMBLA from that category that need to build a consensus, not the other way around as some people like User:Willmcw seem to want to believe.  I will be reinstating NAMBLA's classification in the LGBT organizations category as soon as I am sure I will not be violating the 3RR. 
Oh, and by the way, there has been no decision by a mediator acting in an official capacity to remove NAMBLA from LGBT organizations.  The mediator assigned to this case is User:Guanaco.  And it appears he has yet to enter the fray.  Corax 18:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediators don't have the authority to make "decisions" overriding editorial consensus anyway. Let this discussion play itself out; there isn't any Authority here with the right to stifle it. --FOo 18:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re:"Status quo". The LGBT Org category was added and removed a few times in April 2005, then stayed until early December, when the controversy arose again. So it was only quietly present for 8 months, not a year. -Will Beback 20:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a friendly reminder 

message: Should North American Man/Boy Love Association be listed in "Category:Pederast organizations", (which might, in turn, be a subcategory of LGBT organizations)?
Yes
# It is the most logical category. -Will Beback 00:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference.  Masochists hurt only themselves. Durova 08:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Would you vote yes if it were a subcategory of LGBT orgs? -Will Beback 01:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have related to you many times before, I would be completely okay with NAMBLA being categorized in "Pederast organizations" if "Pederast organizations" were a subcategory of "LGBT organizations" (as in, linked under the LGBT organizations page), and if other LGBT groups were similarly categorized into subcategories.  Corax 01:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What if it were a subcat of :Category:Homosexual organizations? Dave 03:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a very good point.  Corax 01:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Young people attracted to adults have Teleiophilia.  We could categorize NAMBLA as a pederast and Teleiophile organization. The latter might apply to several organizations which seek to give children the right to have sex with adults. -Will Beback 01:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL, that's a paraphilia I didn't even know I had! I'll add it to the list :P ntennis 01:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pushing categories to such a detailed level defeats the purpose of the category itself. Anyone already knowledgeable to seek out a category titled "Pederast Organizations" or "Teleiophile Organizations" will have already discovered everything that could be contained within them. Categories must be a generalization to group information together that would not be obvious otherwise. (Radiomanlaughs 02:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Pederast is sex-specific. Dave 03:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pederast organizations

message: Should North American Man/Boy Love Association be listed in :Category:Pedophile organizations"?
Yes
# Durova 23:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedophile organizations

message: How can wikipedia resolve a conflict with opposing deeply held convictions? Even if we reach a consensus that NAMBLA are either in or out of the LGBT category, surely as new editors join they will just add or remove the classification they disagree with? Is there any hope of a stable resolution?  ntennis 01:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not.  That would require freezing the article from future edits after this mediation is concluded.  As long as the NAMBLA article exists, there will be a steady stream of new people who have never seen it before, whose only impression of NAMBLA is Infotainment programming and South Park, who will become irate and start making outrageous edits the minute they see the word "NAMBLA."  There's no permanent solution to this situation under current Wikipedia policy, as there is no such thing as a "finished" article which is no longer editable.Hermitian 01:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I read too deeply into ntennis' comment, but a looking at the title this thread was started with, a stable resolution can be accomplished if the mechanics of categorization are worked out. I agree the content of all articles, and especially of articles such as this, will never settle, but decisions on deciding how they can be classified do retain a glimmer of stabilization-hope. It just takes us looking past the actual subject at hand. (Radiomanlaughs 02:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. One of the points I was trying to make is that the body of the article has the scope to tease out all the opposing views, unlike the categorisation scheme. This makes the article itself more robust against the attentions of new opinionated editors than the category. From where I'm standing, there are two significant and seperate classifications for NAMBLA: Same-sex (yes or no) and intergenerational (yes or no). ntennis 02:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The binary logic of categories 

message: I wonder whether those who argue that gay = homosexual + ideology would welcome the classification of other gay organisations according to the same formula? Many people believe gays to be paedophiles, because in their "ideology", gayness is all about preying on young boys. Should we be adding Stonewall to :Category:Pedophile organizations because of that? Or should we be creating :Category:Organisations despised by God or similar? Personally, I think disapproving of paedophiles doesn't affect their gayness any more than disapproving of Osama bin Laden affects his Muslimness. Muslim organisations can queue up from here to China disapproving of Osama but Osama will still pray to Allah and he will, as I note he is now, still be in :Category:Muslims. Grace Note 02:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is OR. Durova 08:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't. It's an analogy between NAMBLA and Osama bin Laden. —Guanaco 16:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology 

message: Rather than getting involved in the idealogical in-fighting here, I'm merely going to point out that NAMBLA is an official member of groups such as New York's Council of Lesbian and Gay Organizations and the International Gay Association.  Rightly or wrongly, the American Psychiatric Association stopped classifying pedophilia as a sexual disorder in 1994, much as it similarly stopped classifying homosexuality as a disorder in 1973. Support for pedophilia has been argued by such mainstream gay-rights figures as Jim Kepner, former curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles. 
Wikipedia is not the place to resolve whether this is good or bad, but rather to report documented fact.
:This is not  true.  The APA classifies pedophilia (diagnostic code 302.2)  as a sexual disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR (Text Revision) (2000).  There was discussion of changing the classification in earlier years, but it was not done. However, the  criteria  for diagnosis indicates that the child  is prepubescent and the individual is at least 16 years old and five or more  years older than the child.  [AllPsych Online:  Disorders]  --Dorje 00:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "AllPsych Online" is not DSM IV, although it purports to have adapted some of its material from DSM IV.  DSM IV was changed from DSM III to state that pedophilia was only a psychiatric disorder if it "caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning."Hermitian 01:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a copy of the DSM?  I don't, so have relied on online versions.  [BehaveNet DSMIV: Pedophilia] is another online edition that says it is  reprinted from  the DSM.  My point was that it seems that pedophilia is still in the  DSM.  I don't see anything about remorse  being a criteria for diagnosis;  however, I read an article that indicated this terminology was changed between the DSMIV and the DSMIV TR.  --Dorje 20:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Pedophilia, the condition of having ones idealized image of a sexual partner be that of a pre or peri-pubescent minor, is only considered a mental illness in need of treatment IF the person is uncomfortable with the feelings, or the person is unable to conform their behavior to the requirements of the law.  Scapegoating law-abiding pedophiles for all the woes of children is just as much bigotry as scapegoating any other sexual minority.  Attraction to people in their middle to late teens, who are under the age-of-consent by virtue of arbitrary legislation, isn't pedophilia.  Advocacy of   revising laws with unreasonably harsh penalties which are applied like a rubber stamp to beneficial relationships isn't pedophilia either. Hermitian 20:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most reasonable thing I've read in a long time. Clayboy 21:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, see above - pedophilia (with a definition of prepubescent)  is classified as a sexual disorder by the American Psychiatric Association).  --Dorje 00:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty." That's from your source and it's clear enough. It's only a disorder if it meets the criteria. Can we move on? Grace Note 03:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Classification 

message: In case people have forgotten, we do not engage in original research. We find out if this group is considered homosexual/gay by looking at what the most reputable sources have said about them. We do not give our own opinions on the matter, because Wikipedians are not reputable sources. If it is found that "reputable sources disagree", then we say this in the article. Reputable sources in this case would probably be news outlets like the AP, or possibly research firms that deal specifically with pedophilia. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-22 00:06
:We're not trying to determine the value of Pi here.  For encyclopedic purposes, the "reputable sources" are the gays who formed NAMBLA, the gay people like Alan Ginsberg, Gore Vidal, and Pat Caflia who spoke about its issues as gay issues, the gay publications that wrote about it as a gay organization, the gay bookstores that carried its literature, at the time that NAMBLA was founded.  A gay organization that was a fundamental part of the gay rights movement does not become "un-Gay" if gays later decide it is extra baggage hanging off their new more moderate political goals and appeasement agenda.Hermitian 01:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly right. Consider the following argument: The Model T is not an "automobile", since no mainstream automobile manufacturer would try to sell it today. Even its own maker, Ford, has "disavowed" and "rejected" it: you can't buy a Model T from Ford at all! Calling the slow Model T an "automobile" is an insult to the automobile industry, which has come so far since the days when the Model T was (shamefully!) considered an "automobile" in the mainstream. --FOo 06:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBT or not

message: There's only a passing mention of "Zymurgy" in this article. Apparently it was an incorporated, non-profit arm of NAMBLA that was later shut down. It seems as if it is worth a paragraph.  Thoughts? -Will Beback 22:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was shut down because of criminal investigations. 84.59.76.132 19:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is NAMBLA making beer or something? --DanielCD 19:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It was set up by some members of NAMBLA as a non-profit educational foundation.  The usual critics made noise, and responding to public pressure, the NY state legislature passed an unprecendented law revoking its corporate charter.  There were never any substantiated allegations that it didn't conform to the rules for non-profits, or that it acted illegally.  People were simply uncomfortable with what it wished to educate people about, and it became tabloid fodder. Hermitian 00:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't we give it a paragraph, at least? It appears to have been closely connected with NAMBLA, and there are sources available. -Will Beback 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zymurgy 

message: As can be easily seen in the votes, this discussion is frequented by many users who have views that are very distinct from what would be the consensus among average wikipedians. This happens to be the case with many articles that are of particular interest to certain groups: military subjects and military personnel, political groups and their supporters, and pedophilia and pedophiles. Any idea how to deal with the resulting problem that wikipedia articles tend to show certain things in a different light from what would be the case if certain interest groups did not use wikipedia to make their point? 84.59.117.44 19:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might refer some of the material on systematic bias. Does that apply? --DanielCD 19:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia's articles should be about verifiable facts, not about how upset these verifiable facts might make some people, regardles of how large the number of upset people is.  In cases where some people feel the irresistible urge to include opinions in wiki articles, the interests of neutrality dictate that competing opinions should be included as well.  Contrary to what you believe, NAMBLA is in the LGBT category because it is a gay group.  Its presence there is not the result of some net-wide conspiracy by pedophiles or right-wing readers of the "Free Republic" to act out their political fantasies. Corax 21:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General problem with interest group articles 

message: There is no objection to the current categorization, so this mediation is tentatively closed. If anyone disputes this in the future, please avoid revert-warring, and notify me on my talk page. —Guanaco 01:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guanaco, thank you for steering this to an intelligent and equitable solution. Haiduc 02:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of mediation