Talk:Anti-pedophile activism/Archive 1

message: I added links to stubs for several groups mentioned in the article so readers have nice clickies to find out more about the organizations mentioned.  Unfortunately, I only had time to attempt a limited rephrasing of the information presented on the group's own websites for use in the stubs.  I know they are stubs and I was not able to neutralize all POV but it is late so I will not be able to flesh them out into more useful articles tonight.  If people in possession of relevent information would help fill out those articles and bring them to a NPOV, I would appreciate it.  I think the stubs, presented in a more neutral POV, would be useful to readers.  The stubs are: Predator hunter, CorporateSexOffenders and Absolute Zero United.  Thanks Veriss 05:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-pedophile stubs

message: Too tired for now. Just a reminder for me to set them up! --Jim Burton 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what this page should be, SqueakBox 03:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should let the AfD process run its course, rather than blanking this article.  --Haemo 04:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep --Jim Burton 06:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects

message: We already have 2 for (Will B / Squeek) and 2 against (Me / Haemo), but lets wait for AfD to close before having this discussion --Jim Burton 06:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the AfD is closed, I want to add my own opinion on the merge.  Personally, I'm against it, because the resulting article would be about activism related to pedophilia as a whole, which I think would be very difficult to balance.  Also, both (Pro-)pedophile activism and anti-pedophile activism are much more interesting, coherent topics than the combined one.  Mangojuicetalk 21:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion

message: The criticism section appears to all be unsourced original research. -Will Beback · † · 07:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite secure in knowing that these are commonly stated positions. I also know of a group who are in the process of drafting an online petition that covers a lot of these points, so we should have some sources rather soon --Jim Burton 07:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A) We can only use reliable sources, not including forum postings and blogs. B) Complaints about Perverted Justice are not the same as complaints about the "movement". We already have a very complete article on PJ so we don't need to spend time rehashing it here at length. -Will Beback · † · 07:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are blog postings unreliable? --Jim Burton 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:Verifiability and WP:RS. -Will Beback · † · 19:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And please don't keep restoring unsourced assertion. Wait until you've found legitimate sources to add these back. -Will Beback · † · 19:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: *Those who attack pedophiles only (as opposed to child sex offenders) are targeting the wrong people, in what is either an unreasonable and inhumane outlet for their own hate or repressed pedophilia.  
To begin with, a comment posted on a website by an anonymous writer is not a reliable source. Secondly, only the last clause of this statement is supported by the source. Instead of writing an original-research essay and then scrambling for sources to support it, I recommend finding good sources then summarizing what they say. -Will Beback · † · 19:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please stop waging a war on this article. Deleting unsourced material within a matter of hours is totally unreasonable, especially when another user is active in sourcing that material. An not all material has to be sourced either. You are holding this article up to a ludicrous burden of proof, seemingly because of your general hostility to it as a whole. --Jim Burton 19:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am holding the article to the same standards as any Wikipedia article. We wouldn't allow blogs and forum postings as sources for pedophile activism either. Unsourced material may be removed at any time. -Will Beback · † · 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that wikis are not considered reliable sources either. Please stop adding patently inappropriate material. -Will Beback · † · 21:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inadequate material

message: Per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where to place ref tags
*When placed at the end of a clause or sentence the ref tag should be directly after the punctuation mark without an intervening space, in order to prevent the reference number wrapping to the next line.
I think that some editors of this article are following a standard we don't use on Wikipedia, that of adding the reference before the punctuation and after a space. -Will Beback  ·:·  18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Punctuation

message: Corrupted justice is a large and arguably powerful campaign against PJ's brand of antipedophile activism, taking them on from a position that is itself antipedophile. External links should not all advocate one position, they should merely concern the article. External links are not removable on the simple basis of another article that we link to being hosted on that site. If so, you should have also removed the PJ link. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reformatted EL to make it more like int he pro=pedophile article, which IMO demonstrtaes that both articles should be merged into one. Obviously the PJ link should be here as they are an excellent example of anti pedophile activists, SqueakBox 19:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any reasoning with you? You accuse me of promoting pedophilia by linking to a self-professed anti pedophile site which opposes PJ. The link clearly applies to this article, as it concerns its content. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an internal link to our PJ artilce is sufficient. We don't need to include an external link too.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 20:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree DPetersontalk 00:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why remove the CJ link?

message: Either merge it or redo the banner so both Pro-pedophile activism and Anti-pedophile activism have "merge" banners with a link to the same discussion area.  I'm removing the Merge, if someone wants to put it back please put it back on both boards.  Dfpc 03:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, let's merge the two...How do we do that? DPetersontalk 23:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it time to remove the Merge link?

message: I think this article puts too much emphasis on Anti-Childlove, without making it clear what they oppose. Anti-Childlove not only opposes child exploitation, but also social tolerance and fantasy-oriented activities, such as lolicon. They usually express the opinion that all Childlovers pose a danger to children, regardless of their "stated" views on abstinence. Abstinent Childlove opposes child pornography and sexual relationships between adults and children. Instead, they work towards social tolerance and repealing laws against fantasy-oriented activities. On the other hand, Non-Abstinent Childlove advocates "consensual" sexual relationships between adults and children. These topics may be difficult to research, as different groups use different terms.
:You've made the same comment twice, further evidence the pro and anti articles need merging, SqueakBox 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. How do we go about making that happen? DPetersontalk 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abstinent childlove, non-abstinent childlove and anti-childlove

message: Let's try to keep the discussion of the merger to one of the two Talk Pages. That way, editors don't have to repeat themselves, and it would be easier to see all the arguments and votes on a single page. So, which Talk Page should it be - the one for Anti-pedophile activism or the one for Pro-pedophile activism? In my opinion, the discussion should be continued on the latter, because more editors seem to be participating in the general editing of that article and in the process of discussing possible improvements to both of these articles. Besides, the poll and discussion in regards to the proposed merger have gone further on that Talk Page.Homologeo 07:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me. DPetersontalk 11:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pro article has existed for many years, while the anti article has existed for a month and a half. It's only natural the former would be longer, and there'd certainly be no reason for making it equal in size to the anti article. --Askild 21:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the prev. two thoughts completely.  DPetersontalk 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 3. Um, hi. DISAGREE. =D Mike D78 00:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion regarding Merging pro and anti pedophile activism articles

message: #AGREE Merge the two. DPetersontalk 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pro article has existed for many years, while the anti article has existed for a month and a half. It's only natural the former would be longer, and there'd certainly be no reason for making it equal in size to the anti article. --Askild 21:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the prev. two thoughts completely.  DPetersontalk 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 3. Um, hi. DISAGREE. =D Mike D78 00:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll regarding merger

message: Everyone, for the last time, please keep your discussions on article talk pages to discussion about the article itself.  Off-topic discussion should be taken to user talk pages or email.  In addition, keep your comments civil.  People will be blocked if they continue to flout these rules.  Thank you.  Exploding Boy 14:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page guidelines

message: Could someone explain to me why the definition provided for anti-pedophile activism in the intro includes "opposition to ... child pornography and child sexual abuse"? This seems to be misleading, since this movement is primarily concerned with opposition to pedophiles and pro-pedophile activism. It might be best to remove the terms "child pornography" and "child sexual abuse" from the definition, as not to mislead readers and editors alike. Homologeo 05:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of 'anti-pedophile activism'

message: Does anyone else think that the arrest and conviction of James Finn III are over-emphasized in the article as it currently stands? There's way too much detail for such a subtopic, and the huge block quote seems unnecessary. Can't we make all this information more concise? There's got to be more to be said about this site than that it had one "featured article" that facilitated some kind of change. If indeed only a single article has had an impact on the community, than maybe this site should not be discussed on Wikipedia for lack of notability. What do other editors think? Homologeo 15:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahahahaha. Typical. The article is about anti-pedophile activists. The account is about a almost-month old website that resulted in the arrest of one of the heavy-hitters when it comes to online pedophile activism. Of course, given your previous history of edits, I really can't say I'm shocked to see you wish to remove information that illustrates starkly the nature of the "We're pedophiles and our communities are designed to support each other" lie. That said, I'm admittedly POV so it would be nice if a neutral Wikipedian did wikify the account. XavierVE 16:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems appropriate to me, just the sort of material we do want here, SqueakBox 17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Er I think you are in the wrong article, we need to trim the pro article and expand this one so at the very least they are the same length and thus I dont agree with youur suggested deletions, SqueakBox 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And as far as conspiracies go we know there is a conspiracy to promote pedophilia through wikipedia, and indeed the results are the current state of the ped articles, so one can hardly blame him for feeling vitriolic because this isnt how it should be. Its not a vast conspiracy but it is one and remarkably effective so far, SqueakBox 23:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, I'll join you in that. Lets trash the blockquote. 86.131.37.130 13:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've downsized the quote to the bits that count. The article should evolve, and I suggest that future upsizing could justifiably lead to the removal of even more jimf3 information. 86.131.37.130 13:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus on conviction of James Finn III

message: Keeping all links in one section is fine, given the small number of external links. DPetersontalk 00:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but you keep removing the link to Corrupted Justice with no reason given. I'm going to restore it and add a brief description that notes that it professes an anti-vigilante point of view. I thought a categorization of the links was helpful, but if you're going to try to remove the CJ link again, you at least need to offer some explanation. In the interest of balance, I see no reason why one opposition link shouldn't be kept, considering the article has a criticism section. Mike D78 02:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: See discussion above and put your thoughts hereDPetersontalk 17:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Include or not the quote from the transcript?

message: This article seems to be very small compared to the Pro-pedophile activism page. I would think that their are a lot more anti-pedophile groups than pro-pedophile groups. I have also noticed that the whole article seems to be about US activism. I think this page could use more articles on anti-pedophile groups in other countries, particularly Europe where many of the pro-pedophile groups seem to operate. Jmm6f488 07:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote above, in the section "Recent additions":  "Perhaps understandably, the materials relating to 'Pro-Pedophile Activism' are plentiful (hence the amount of documentation in that article); but, those relating to 'Anti-Pedophile Activism' are extremely scarce. The materials I have included or linked to are about all there is." Welland R 10:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This problem has been discussed before but attempts to remedy it by trimming down the size oft he pro pedophile activism article or merging it with this article or deleting the pro pedophile articles (as an NPOV fork according to me the nominator) have all failed. Really this article should be 10 times longer than the pro pedophile article because it is a much more notale subject. Most people only know pro pedophile activism exists as an ideology thanks to anti pedophile activists, such as Ron Tebo who was explaining Jack McClellan's pro-pedophile beliefs on Lartry King Live earlier this week (certainly bits of it should eb repeated over the w/end), SqueakBox 22:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Size and scope of article?

message: Could someone please add some other reference(s) to the paragraph that talks about Benedict's arrest? The reference currently provided mentions nothing of this individual's supposed pro-pedophile activism, and does not contribute his arrest to the work of the Wikisposure Project. Unless more references are provided, I will remove this paragraph from the article within a few days. On another note, I would like to inquire why such information, even if properly cited, is being included in this article at all. Is the article going to incorporate every single arrest the Wikisposure Project helps to bring about? ~ Homologeo 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're an idiot per usual, but I'll oblige: MariniJ, CBS5 It's SO HARD to google, right? Anyways, I totally don't see why arrests of pedophile activists stemming from the activities of an anti-pedophile activism website would be covered in this article. It makes completely no sense that an article regarding anti-pedophile activism would cover the activities of anti-pedophile activists. No, all that information should be removed and more should be added to the criticism section! Yay! XavierVE 14:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and before anyone beats me to it... "Wah wah, don't be mean!" XavierVE 14:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you were leaving... :-/ Mike D78 09:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if you know what you're doing is inappropriate....  =)  Anyway, it's important to note that this is an encyclopedia, not a news source.  Not every anti-pedophile activity that occurs needs to be added to the article; it should provide a broad overview, not comprehensive detail.  Powers T 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've take tne source which does mention Wikisposure, and written that it has had some success. There's no need to list every arest.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LtPowers and Will Beback said pretty much all that needs to be said in response to your comment, XavierVE. Thank you for providing appropriate sources. Just so you know, it's not other editors' responsibility to google for sources for information that shouldn't be in an article in the first place. ~ Homologeo 07:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Info on the arrest of Remsen Benedict

message: A recent edit summary:
:who removed the  template without consensus. Someone who criticises me for being bold well just dont without expliecit permission of those of us who totally dispute tghis article
NPOV tags are not added and removed on the basis of mind reading. When there is no ongoing discussion that indicates a lack of consensus, they can be rightly removed, along with the category. ●Farenhorst 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: Perverted Justice could find themselves in legal trouble because what they are doing is encouraging people with pedophilic desires who would not otherwise act on them to do so.  Under the law, this is called entrapment and is illegal. Psyadam 15:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true and even if it were what relevance does it have here. See WP:NOR, SqueakBox 19:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about some references?  But then again, this focus's only on PJ, not the bigger pictures, and hey look at reference 29, the criticism is already there. FAIL. 75.16.108.217 18:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Entrapment

message: I have removed all comments by Mike D78 who was the sock of an already banned suer, SqueakBox 19:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SqueakBox, this is not funny anymore - you cannot go around removing people's comments without agreement from the other involved editors. Even though Mike D78 is now banned, there is validity in numerous observations and comments made by him. Unless you're going to be selective and only remove disruptive commentary, please don't take such unilateral action. Seriously, I thought you would know better by now. ~ Homologeo 20:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike is the reincarnation of a banned suer. Me know better, well yes, I wish you would read policy as restoring the comments of a banned sock is unacceptable, SqueakBox 20:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly advise users not to restore these comments as meatpuppeting is a banneable offence, and clearly contrary to the wikipedia spirit. We have no need to discuss the removal of cheating sock comments, SqueakBox 20:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please direct me to the policy that states that ALL commentary, whether disruptive or not, by a banned user has to be removed, and that undoing an edit that constitutes unilateral removal of non-disruptive commentary is a "bannable offense." Thanks, ~ Homologeo 20:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Likewise, even if you were justified in your actions, why would you remove only parts of someone's commentary, especially the ones with the signatures, and not the whole thing? As the text reads right now, you can no longer tell who's saying what in instances where Mike D78 was involved. In fact, it now looks like you were talking to and arguing with yourself on a number of occasions. This kind of removal of commentary cannot be deemed as helpful to the project. ~ Homologeo 21:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the comments of banned users who have no right to edit here and who diss everyone else with their cheating ways. Zero tolerance towards these users is the only solution, any casual reader would get a distorted view of how the debate here really is because someone or more than one person have decided to cheat by using socks when already banned. Restoring the comments of known socks of banned suers is called meatpuppetry and can result in the person facilitating the banned users to be blocked and if this serious disruption continues (ie reverting the comments of banned users) the meatpuppets will be reported. Do not attempt to blame me for any rhetorical issues involved in this as the fault is clearly with the puppet master(s) of Mike D78 and Farenhorst, SqueakBox 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Banned user