Talk:Girllover

message: There are no reliable sources for this article. The sources included in this version:  are all unreliable, mostly one wiki. If a reliable source covering the term makes it appear a notable term then we can revisit having an article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so I think notability would be hard to prove, and referenced material could be included in other articles such as pro pedophilia activism or pedophilia. In the meantime, anyway, I support redirecting the page04:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  eliminating an entire article like this is POV-pushing. Asserting that there are NO RELIABLE SOURCES ANYWHERE? Needs improvement? Yes. Immediate removal justified? Absolutely not. Many Wiki articles have no references or weak references. These articles are in need of attention and improvement just like this one. To redirect this article as it has been, though, is not entirely accurate either. Instead of snapping it back, how about working on the article or at least allowing others the chance to do it. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is simply not necessary. we don't have articles on slang terms for cannabis, eg weed (cannabis) etc and nor should we have one for this slang term for pedophiles. How is that POV. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because if you read the article, you'd see that there's a difference. If you read the references, you'd see there's a difference. Maybe a slender differentiation, but still a difference. I tagged the article for reference improvement as well, but that's not good enough? Tell me, what would be necessary for you to "allow" such an article? How many references? How much differentiation? (Oh yes, generally I have seen/would expect this to be talk-paged out before any continued reverts to redirect... that's how similar discussions have gone in the past... or would you assert that this page is different or undeserving in that respect?) VigilancePrime (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I read the article and I see it is nopt properly referenced (anarchopedia!) and is extremely POV in a way that tries to trivialise pedophilia anmd allow the pedophiles themselves to define the subject. We can and I believe dop discuss this at the PPA article, why would we need this when it isnt referenced properly and is POV? Thanks, SqueakBox 06:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then improve the article instead of removing it with the comment "please source properly instead of this unreferenced and pro girllover tract"! How can you expect improved and proper sourcing when you remove what needs to be sourced? I can see and understand that this could be (will be?) a topic of controversy, but the differentiation is important. One reference even pointed to an anti-girllover page as well, so I don't think that the case can be exclusively made that this page "allow the pedophiles themselves to define the subject". Still, my main contention is that you won't even allow the page to last a quarter of a day for other editors to improve. THAT is a form of POV-pushing, even if subtle (and I'm not alleging intentional). As with any article on Wikipedia, give it time. (Not only that, but I don't understand why you tag this with the PAW when there's no page here... How can a page that doesn't exist be part of any project?) VigilancePrime (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I tagged as PAW because this talk page was/is open, and as long as it remains so it should remain tagged. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remove all of the material taken from the "Anarchopedia" website. It isn't reliable and doesn't belong in a WP article. Likeswise the blog material.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ok. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarchopedia is about as unreliable as it gets but generally any wiki falls below our standards of verifiability. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Done. VigilancePrime (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: When you say that it's covered in the PPA article, are you referring to this one sentence? That's hardly covered. VigilancePrime (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I appreciate there are issues re that article being locked that should not affect whether we have an article here, if you think the coverage there of girl (and boy) lover is poor the obvious solution is to improve the coverage in that article. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covered? 

message: : I just went through the revision history. I must say, you two are obsessed. Every thing about this article must be removed because you don't like it? That's what I see here. In most articles on Wikipedia, content that is not directly sourced is tagged  first. Many articles have year-old reference-related tags. But here, you two will not even allow an article to have a chance at improvement?
: The quote that was definitive of the topic was removed because it was not relevant? How is it not relevant when it speaks to the core of the article's topic? Is it not relevant because you don't like it? I can't see any other reasoning.
: All websites are ultimately self-published. (Ever try to publish something on someone else's site? You can't do it.) I'm not quite sure that "self-published" is a good enough explanation (but it sounds good). As for the removal of the FBI link, I assume you're referring to #13 on Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided; I understand, but believe this to be a good example of Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules, as this link is clearly legitimate and adds significantly to the article (and even enhances your position anyway, if you would use it as a further reference instead of simply scalpel-ing the page).
: All I ask is all I have asked before: give the article the chance to grow, receive attention, and maybe even help it instead of constantly cutting anything in it you don't like. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
: Thank you for your continued diligence in enhancing and adding to the total Wikipedia project!
: VigilancePrime (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I ask is that you start with reliable sources.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Normally, articles don't START with sources at all... they gain sources as additional sources and editors come into the mix. I'm not asking for anything more than the average Wikipedia article gets. I've spent far too much time on this article already constantly trying to change it to meet your wishes (meaning I wouldn't have expected to spend much time on this article at all) when all I was originally after was de-redirecting it from an article that was not entirely a synonym. The most recent changes, I hope, will be to your threshhold of acceptance; I commented a lot through it to assist future editors. The references section is a cross of WP:EL and WP:IAR, among others. Give it a little time, eh? VigilancePrime (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Normally if new articles are disputed they get rapidly speedy deleted, and if not and no-one disputes them, hey what you say is true. But for you to start claiming that this article, whose lack of sources is strongly disputed by 2 editors, should be somehow treated like an article that nobody disputes is to assume that other editors have no rights to dispute your work, at least "for a little time" or some such thing. If you don't wish to make the article acceptable according to the standards of others there is a simple solution, ie we redirect again, but your time to improve it to an acceptable level is running out. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Most people try to make stubs into articles. You try to make articles into stubs. Wow. VigilancePrime (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, I was merely recognising it as the stub it was. You don't seriously have a problem with this do you? I would have thought you should be glad I am trying to improve the article after my disliki of edit warring led me to abandon my redirection strategy, at least until we can get some more agreement on the matter than just Will and I. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Marking it as a stub is fine, I was referring to cutting it from article-length to stub-length! But yes, I think and hope we can come to an end-state agreement on this, which is why I rolled back all the way to the beginning and added the only thing that we all can (sortof) agree on. Perfect? Not by a long shot. Good enough for all of us to get off the computer for the day? I hope so, cause I'm about to roll... Take care and Happy Christmas/Hannakkuh/Kwanza/Yuletide/etc.! VigilancePrime (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsession 

message: You comment your last change, SqueakBox, as "improve opening", when in fact is is nothing more than a revert to this version, retaining the now-referenced caption. You can do better than that. Did you look at the differences? One EL moved to an inline reference (your revert then put it in twice). The entire article was rephrased or removed/commented-out. You see why I'm skeptical? The appearance is that you are simply deleting all attemptes to introduce, enhance, fix, expand, or better the article. I do not believe that is the case, but it certainly appears that way. Two editors challenge the references. Yes. (Only two?) I do not buy in to the argument that the two-editor-dissent is grounds for tearing it apart. As I said before, that's what and  tags are for. At least don't try to make your reverts surruptitious like the last one... That's just pushing devious (not there yet, but certainly close). VigilancePrime (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah well that is what I meant, improving the article by reverting the opening to a more neutral version, and how do you know how well I can do? I can see why I am scepticval but am not entirely sure where you are coming from but let me assure you I am doing my best, as I always do. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yo Squeak, I finally remembered/discovered where I knew you from: We had worked together (sorta) on removing the girllover WikiCategory while helping Roman to remain civil. That category was probably a bad idea, mostly due to WP:BIO reasons. Anyway, I noticed/realized that tonight. (See, we can get along and agree!) I am curious, though, simply for edification, how Roman's note about a photo can be taken for "solicitation", which he was banned for. Ellis was a little over-the-top on her comments, and rightfully blocked indef., but I'm wondering if perhaps there was more than just this instance for Roman (cause it doesn't make sense from that one line). Anyway, just wanted to let you know where we "met" and have worked side-by-side before. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice Try 

message: Your comments even show you're not attempting to edit with NPOV. "fact tag but wont wait too long in this case"? That shows a clear intention to remove quickly because you don't like it. Try to seperate yourself from the article; that's what I do (and have done on other articles). Also, trying to "add some, remove some" See Also for neutrality? This article is about the ones you removed (and that's even in the article) and has no mention of the others. Are they related? Yes. Directly? No. That'd be like putting Star Wars in the See Also section of Star Trek. They are related, but Trek is not about SW. I know you're not working to be WP:NPOV here, but I am. Of course, I'm working, period. You're only un-working. How many times must I implore you to help and rereference instead of just removing everything? VigilancePrime (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I rolleed this back to the very first version, with our links and see also added (and images). I modified the EL section do differentiate references/footnotes from other EL of interest (potential references). Can we at least agree that this minimalist article is sufficient for the time being? We all have better things to be doing this week, I'm sure...   23:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I am more not less available for this voluntary work than normal and I dont really have anything better to do on wikipedia than this myself. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollback 

message: So much to cover... let's see...
# WB, the heading was references and it was the references that I thought you objected to. The content has now been removed as well (the copy-n-paste) and had been by the time you started in on your complaining about my attempts at article improvement, again. Quit yer whinin'.
# SqueakBox, thank you for trying to work in good faith on this. I would hope that Will has seen the last comments from yesterday and realizes that we have come to something of an understanding that is at least marginally accepted by both of us. Thanks for that.
# From everything I have managed to read, there is a significant difference between PPA and GL/BL. The former deals exclusively with children under the age of 12/13. The latter can deal with teenagers as well. The former is exclusively based in sexuality, where the latter not always is. If we are going to truly be NPOV about it, these differences warrant seperate articles.
# The quote that you continually refer to as self-published, blog, and POV is exactly what it is presented as: Self-description. Not only is it simply a self description, but it's been used by others to illustrate that self description (hence the double-reference). It is not being asserted as self-describing fact, but as the viewpoint that it is. That's exactly why it is important.
# You continue to point out that this article is too small. What is too small? Is a single sentence too small? There are one-sentence articles on Wikipedia. It sounds like you're trying to say that Wikipedia cannot have short articles, something that is both a poor attempt at using an Other Stuff Exists argument as well as a factual inaccuracy. As stated above and previously, the topics of PPA and GL have fundamental differences from all reports, both solid and, as you say, unreliable. Even so-called unreliable sources, when there's a lot of them and they are all in agreement, at the least must lend credence to their collective accuracy. These two articles appear to be fundamentally different.
# Redirecting this page to PPA would be just as innaccurate to directing to a Pro-ephebophilia activism page. A girllover, as has been demonstrated in many references of different "reliabilities", can be a term related to 12-and-under or 13-and-older. Better said, perhaps (though I'm not necessarily claiming this to be the case), all pedophiles (assuming toward females) are girllovers, but not all girllovers are pedophiles; all ephebophiles (assuming toward females) are girllovers, but not all girllovers are ephebophiles. See the big difference?
# Question: Would sites like these make for better references? (I'd like to get your views on their "reliability" before trying to use them and you getting all riled up again.) Innocence In Danger: International Child Protection Movement (note, this site has its own POV, clear in the manner of writing, and some subtle inaccuracies, but does back up that not all girllovers are pedophiles or law-breakers) and Annabel Leigh's FAQ (similarly not entirely NPOV, but in the other direction, and distinctly points out both sexual and nonsexual interests inherent in the term)?
: That's all I'm saying; these concepts clearly appear to be different enough that we do a disservice to our readers and researchers in grouping them together erroneously. I like to think that we can, through time and collaboration, improve this article significantly, and I am willing (and have been trying) to work with you and give it that time, compromise on content that is heatedly contested, and tweak the terminology and phraseology to be both NPOV and acceptable to you as well. Your help in improving this necessary standalone article is (would be) appreciated.
: VigilancePrime (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This site, http://www.innocenceindanger.org/index.php?id=230, appears to be the effort of a group, and would qualify as a reliable source. This iste, http://www.annabelleigh.net/faq.htm, is self-published and would not qualify.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: They have the same origination type and same intent, just in opposite directions (and not even opposite, just divergent). You see why I can be so exasperated? One set is okay, but another set is not, even though the actual core difference in their reliability-ishness is minimal (or even trivial). VigilancePrime (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read our policies.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed them again. The "boylove" logo is inappropriate because that's a different topic. The "glogo" image is a copyright violation, see []. I removed some of the external links which don't meet the standards of WP:EL. Please don't restore them.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differentiation 

message: * WP:SPS: "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." I have given plenty of rationale for the limited use here. To recap: The blogs quote a non-blog site that is no longer available. They back each other up, increasing the reliability of the quote's accuracy.
* WP:SELFPUB: "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as..." You stated that the one self-published source would be acceptable, and these others are of the same vein. They show differing perspectives. In fact, some are used to describe the opposite of what their sites promote. In this way especially the sites are "not unduly self-serving" and imperatively "is relevant to their notability".
* WP:PROVEIT: "Alternatively, you may tag a sentence by adding the  template, a section with , or the article with  or . Use the edit summary to give an explanation of your edit. You may also leave a note on the talk page or an invisible HTML comment on the article page." Though as I have been pushing for this, working to accomplisg this, you keep undoing and demanding the undoing of these very methods. I have tried to encourage you to use the tags that your WP:V policy recommends. I have put in hidden comments to assist other editors. Instead of working with the article and allowing these actions that are a direct adherance to policy, you deny them entirely. Additionally, you leave erroneous and intentionally misleading edit summaries. The latter of those could be considered bad faith.
* WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." The evidence in some instances, as mentioned many times, is to the contrary. (Still, I assume the good faith, though I'm not required to by guideline.)
* WP:DTTR: This is only an essay... but it states "When dealing with established users, it is generally more effective to write them a short personal message, than to apply a standardized template." I have not templated or even commented your Talk page regarding the indiscriminate blanking or indiscriminate reverts, as I usually would to anyone else who comes along and blanks pages, sections, or content for the sole reason of doing so, using inaccurate and false edit summaries. Most of the time I would have already gotten a  and a , if not even a  with a . But I'm not templating a regular because I believe in the good-faith concept that we can work this out and that you will hopefully stop being so indiscriminate about it. I hope.
* Finally, WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This article is improving, and even if you somehow cannot accept the application of policies and guidelines above, you must lastly apply this one. This page's topic is difficult to research (if you had made any attempts on your own you would know that) and thus IAR may apply here a little more than usual. Still, as I said, this is only if in your mind somehow the above-described, logically-following, specifically-aimed, on-target applications and explanations of policies and guidelines are not sufficient. I don't see how they can't be sufficient, but then again, I also don't remove images from pages when the image is clearly in the public domain and already accepted throughout Wikipedia as a public domain image. Maybe that's just me; I look before I leap (usually).
: And, actually, you state "removed" and "blanked" they mean the same thing: "deleted", but this isn't entirely correct. There are subtleties in the terms. Removed indicates an editor in good faith removing something from an article that should be removed. Deleted usually indicates an editor acting in good faith that takes content out of article, but may do so for reasons that are not valid or show an unintentional POV. Blanked refers to the bad-faith removal of large content, sometimes entire pages or entire sections, by either a vandal or an established editor that is POV-pushing, angry, or intentionally disruptive to Wikipedia. Generally, that is. These are typical usage and not 100% across-the-board. Subtlties. Remember subtleties.
: Have an awesome day, Will. I hope you have actually read this in its entirety and found it "helpful". VigilancePrime (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  policies specified 

message: When referencing from a single news article, but the article is split among two or more pages (each having different URLs), would you all prefer ONE reference, pointing to the first page, or a seperate reference line for each URL (and thus page)? I'd like to nail this one the first time instead of making others go through and fix it. Thanks! VigilancePrime (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most multipage news articles have a "print" link that will render the article as one page. That's the best solution if available.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions during Improvements 

message: It appears every time Vigilance edits the article it becomes more of a POV, ie non-neutral mess. It needs NPOVing urgently and I have tagged it as such though I have tom say we either see a dramataic improvement or the article will be put up for deletion. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific to the NPOV parts? My focus has been in non-POV-ing it based on what I have read on this recently (see references). VigilancePrime (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For instance, this edit changed the opening significantly and made it more POV, at least as it is contrary to the sources given. While the sources are not ironclad, they do (and most of them here doso collectively) indicate that a "girllover" is not necessarily sexually attracted to girls, though usually this is the case. By altering the lead to say that this is always the case, you have not only introduced a factual inaccuracy, but done so in what I believe is a POV way. This is why I have been working to multiple-reference as much as I can, including using pro- and con- references for these. So I'm confused about how it's POV when you're the only that pushes it in that direction. VigilancePrime (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More POV 

message: I haven't had enough time to go through all the revisions and read everything on this talk page so I don't know if it's already been mentioned, but would it make more sense to move this to Childlover that way we can include "Boylove" into the article? It seems strange to keep them separate because for example, a man's attraction to a woman and a woman's attraction to a man would both be discussed in Heterosexuality. Ospinad (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that page is locked. The only reason given was the original deletion: "15:03, 28 May 2007 Nick (Talk | contribs) deleted "Childlover" ‎ (content was: '#REDIRECT Pro-pedophile activism')" I'm not entirely sure what that means as this page once was as well. Perhaps it was an over-zealous but well-meaning admin who saw no future article. I think that would be a better place for this article and split it into two sections, one Girllover and one Boylover, and redirect this page and the Boylover page to their respective sections. This would also enhance notability and sourcability concerns. If someone can get the page creation block removed, I'll move the page over even and split up the sections. (After that, it's pretty much up to others to add and improve the total article; I'm tired of it by now!) VigilancePrime (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: On the protected titles page, the line is simply "Childlover · activity log · talk page - refer to ArbCom Nick 23:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested renaming 

message: :Serious question: Can a person be a Girllover without being a "self-described" girllover? I wonder because this term is not one that the media seems to use without the term "self-described" or similar preceeeding it.
: Naturally following this, though, I don't expect that many child molesters seriously try to assert "I'm not a child molester, I'm only a girllover." For instance, Jack McClellan would call himself (and has been called in the media at times) a girllover. He is not a child molester. But in a news story that same night, (awhile back, I'm being a little metaphorical here now with the "next news story") a man was arrested and later convicted of rape of a minor, which would be child sex abuse, but this man never was called, considered, or thought of as a girllover or childlover.
: So it begs the question, is there overlap in these categories or not? If so, the "one does not necessarily equal the other" needs to be very clear, along with "one may overlap with the other". If not, then the distinction should be made very clear.
: And lastly, suppose a girllover eventually did molest a child. Would that person still be considered a girllover? Or is the term construed to indicate someone who "never has and never would"?
: Just curious for others' thoughts. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is responding going to improve the article? How is your comment related to the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's the question of defining the term. I think the definition of the word is "related" to the article. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Sure this is the article on girllovers. What did you expect? This is wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's go with what the reliable sources say.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious Question 

message: Can this be used for a reference? Ospinad (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. It appears to be a one-person, self-published effort. On the opening screen is an email link, to Norbert de Jonge, the obvious webmaster and writer of most (if not all) of the material. I don't see any indication that it is a group effort with an editorial process. De Jonge is not an acknowledged expert on the topic.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clogo