Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/Archive 4

message: Okay, I know there's a discussion down there but I can't seem to add to it for some reason, but it really offends me that they're listed as LGBT; when they clearly are not.  LGBT activists and LGBT groups have opposed them, and have stated they are in no way related to the gay community, and being gay myself I must say I agree one-hundred percent.  Look it up.
:I also feel that this needs to be re-catagorized. Acts of sexuality with the same sex aren't necessarily classified as homosexual in every instance. Instances such as these are driven by entirely different factors -- likely psychological ones. And as you mentioned, the general consensus of the GLBT community has flat-out denied any association with this group. Grendel 22:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, NAMbLA was part of the LGBT movement, but they were effectively ostracised because of their focus on adult/child sexual relations advocacy, and the surrounding controversy of doing so. Perhaps it could be listed as "former LGBT" instead? Silent War 02:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be technical, I think pedophilia should be classified in a whole other sphere of sexual orientation. If, for example, a man has sexual attractions to a pre-adolescent girl, this should not effectively reflect on heterosexuality in general. There is a clear difference here. As much, NAMBLA really cannot identify with the GBLT community simply because their relationships can be viewed in the context of homosexual, and I'm positive that they're simply trying to piggyback this community in order to reap the support it has legitimately garnered for itself. Can we simply leave the GBLT community out of this once and for all? Grendel 03:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this completely.  Most psychologists have agreed it is less about the gender of the child and more about the fact that it is a child, and in fact most pedophiles are heterosexual, or at least bisexual but mostly oriented towards heterosexuality.  It is confusing and misleading to continue to list it as GLBT, and will no doubt lead to more people assuming pedophiles are homosexual.  iwanttobeasleep 03:44, 04 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with the request to remove the LGBT category.  This group is a pederasty/pedophilia advocacy organization, not an LGBT organization.  --Robb0995 00:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the offence at this group indeed does warrant consideration.  NAMBLA is not an LGBT organisation.  The term LGBT categorises a group of people, a community.  NAMBLA and what they stand for fall outside of that community and everything that queer pepole have fought for, and they stand in the face of the credibility that we have sought so hard to achieve. Homosexual is attraction to the same sex, but children are not sexual creatures.  If a man is only sexually attracted to men, he is homosexual.  If a man is only sexually attracted to boys, he is a paedophile and, quite frankly, needs to be placed outside of society and given treatment.  Men who sleep with little girls also cannot be said to be indulging in an aspect of heterosexuality.  Saying that NAMBLA automatically qualifies as being part of the LGBT is the same as saying that men who sneak off behind their wives backs to indulge in risky sex acts in public toilets with men are likewise part of our community.Enzedbrit 10:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with most of the above posts.  It's an umbrella name for a community of people.  A lot of it is made up by homosexual people.  NAMBLA obviously would like to engage in homosexual behaviour (even if it is paedophilia).  Which ever way you look at it they are gay right?  So why can't they be categorised as such?  It's like saying "No, a Woman shouldn't be in the Woman group if she's homsexual.  You can't be both!". CHSoarer 10:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBT?

message: Ask Rebecca Mae Solokar, who contributed a chapter titled "Beyond Gay Rights Litigation" to the edited volume Sexual Identities, Queer Politics (2001, Princeton University Press).  She writes:
:"Within the larger LGBT movement, we have witnessed the development of a number of interest groups that fit the stricter classical sense of the term in that they are organized, have readily identifiable leaders and memberships, and are specifically seeking political change either through litigation, legislation, administrative policy change, or grassroots activity.  Many of the well-known interest groups have taken on broad-based policy agendas -- Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), or the Log Cabin Republicans -- but there are other organizations that are more specific in their policy focus.  The People With AIDs Coalition (PWAC), North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association direct their political efforts at more narrow policy arenas, but are still part and parcel of the larger movement." (Pages 260-261)
So much for the idea that only pedophiles or The New Republic readers believe this. Corax 05:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've pointed out on other pages recently, there are two ways to look at categories: as classifying the article or the topic. The article North American Man/Boy Love Association seems to me to belong in the LGBT category because people reading it might gain further insight on the many topics in the article by browsing the category. The singular topic, "North American Man/Boy Love Association", can be classified under LGBT as you point out, but it's a debatable point. As long as people insist on viewing categories as classification of the topic, we'll continue to have these pointless debates, and we will continue to ignore the needs of our audience (a sin no encyclopedia should commit). -Harmil 02:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, definitely does not belong in the LGBT category. First, on an abstract level, NAMBLA supports the recission of age of consent laws for everyone, whether the activity involved is homosexual or heterosexual. Second, to include this organization would be to include CATO, Amnesty International and other groups under the LGBT category,  and they do not belong there. I will remove the category link if no one objects within the week.  Gibbsale 04:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, had to remove it temporarily after looking at the talk pages. Pederasty, yes, pedophilia, yes, but LGBT? That is highly misleading. I await comments. Gibbsale 04:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your objection - can you please clarify? I've reverted your removal of the category. Natgoo 09:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LGBT, as a category, simply does not involve NAMBLA. First, with respect to age of consent laws, NAMBLA appears to support this for everyone, whether the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual in nature. Second, support for specific aims of the gay rights movement (and this is why I included the Cato Institute and Amnesty International) is not equivalent to being part of the LGBT category. Similarly, it would be inappropriate to include NAMBLA under the category of Pacifism or similar areas, even though they support pacifism. The mission of NAMBLA may include pederasty and/or pedophilia, but that link is not exclusively homosexual in nature. NAMBLA does not discriminate between males and females when it comes to laws regarding consent to sexual activity. If you include NAMBLA in that category, it must be added to a variety of categories, including pacifism, love, etc. There is no picking and choosing. Gibbsale 12:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel that the articles on Amnesty International and the Cato Institute belong in the category: LGBT organizations then you should discuss the categorisation on the talk pages of those articles; this page is for discussion of the article on NAMBLA. Have you read through much of the discussion on this page (including the archived pages)? Please do so - but to summarise, an article on an organisation advocating for the rights of "men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships" and contains the title 'North American Man/ Boy Love Association' belongs in the category:LGBT organizations by default. Contrary to your statement above, NAMBLA do not advocate for people who aren't men or boys in gay relationships - if you have evidence otherwise please discuss it here. If you feel that NAMBLA's activities and aims warrant inclusion of the article in other categories of Wikipedia, please feel free to also discuss those here on the talk page. Have you considered Creating an account for Wikipedia? If you're a new user, you might also find the Help page useful. (Oops - please sign your contributions using four tildes (~~~~) - thanks!) Natgoo 14:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Natgoo gives a good statement of one viewpoint on the issue. Others believe that a better category would be something like "pederasty organizations". There's been many discussions, so editors wishing to make changes should review the archives. -Will Beback 19:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been reading the archives, and I still cannot contemplate why this is considered LGBT. The male/male aspect of NAMBLA is not what makes the organization relevant or controversial, it is the age stance. NAMBLA's advocacy is limited to age-structured relationships. It is also unclear from their own website exactly what kind of relationships are advocated (pederasty and pedophilia being separate categories). But it is clearly POV to include them within the LGBT category. It is equally absurd, as I noted above, to include Amnesty International or the Cato Institute under the LGBT banner, even though they advocate for LGBT rights. Why? Because that is not the aim of either organization. NAMBLA advocates for pederasts and perhaps pedophiles, so there should be a category there, but not LGBT. NAMBLA also purports to be a feminist organization; should it be included under that banner? What about Children's Rights as a category? NAMBLA claims to support the rights of children, so that should make it an organization under that category. The possibilities are truly endless, once you open up one controversial categorization. --Gibbsale 21:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can automatically sign with a datestamp by typing four tildes in a row. (~~~~) JayW 01:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAMBLA is LGBT (Don't ask me) 

message: I removed a bunch of red links from that long list of guys. If there are any important ones, replace them, but I'd rather see them linked as the articles appear (if they ever do) as it is easier on the eyes. --DanielCD 02:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Red links

message: The comments of the attorneys in the Curley case belong in that section, and so have been moved.  The intro should note that the organization is controversial, but we have a section on that subject.  The current introduction primarily decribes (but does not endorse) the organization's views and mission statement.  This factual basis is the appropriate content for any organization's introduction.  I mostly just rearranged existing content -- it can still be edited for style and improved.  Tomyumgoong 02:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: Hi.  This is the talk page.  Two subsections above this one, you will find the dispute that is currently taking place regarding proposed changes to the categorization of this article.  Any attempts to insert the changes without first building a consensus run counter not only to the instructions of this talk page, but all those of the mediator who dealt with this case.  If you insist on ignoring these instructions, I will contact Guanaco to remedy the situation.  Furhtermore, making the changes while blantantly lying about the presence of a dispute here is not only immature, it is clearly an attempt by you to contravene the mutual, good-faith efforts being made by the Wikipedia community. In one word, STOP. Corax 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is additional info regarding NAMLBA as a pedophile organization, including the a comment by the co-founder, and official minutes from an umbrella organization with "pedophile" in their name, calling NAMBLA their largest member. Please respect the fact that there are numerous sources which call NAMBLA a pedophile organization.  -Will Beback 02:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NAMBLA has also been described as a "psychotic child rapist organization" and a "youth rights organization." I'm not seeing how that makes it either. 24.224.153.40 17:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: We've already established that there are sources calling NAMBLA a gay organization, and sources calling NAMBLA a pedophile organization.  While this might be accurately represented in the article itself ("According to Source A, NAMBLA is a pedophile organization."), this is not how categorization works.  The Wikipedia community ultimately decides how things are classified, not third-party sources.  So we editors need to define what a pedophile organization is, what a gay organization is, then start classifying organizations accordingly. Corax 02:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have just as many sources, and of similar relevance, that call NAMBLA a pedohile organization as call if a gay organization. If you want to remove the "gay organization" category while you decide what that means feel free. But please don't keep removing the "pedophile organization" category unless you can refute the sources which identify it as one.  -Will Beback 03:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we remove the "gay organizations" category, but allow the "pedophile organizations" category, if both have sources? Corax 03:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't removed the "gay organizations" category. Flip the question around. -Will Beback 03:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAMBLA as a pedophile organization 

message: It is wrong to give them an forum to express thier point of view like this. It is wrong for children to hear about them on TV and then have a place to go on the Internet to learn about them. These people are sick criminals and should not be treated like humans. If we had an orginazation that kidnapped people and roasted them alive and ate thier flesh... would you give them a forum to come and tell the world thier justification for it or would you hunt down the bastards and kill them. Same here! This Talk Makes Me sick! I was molested at age 7 by a guy who had piles of ponography all over his house and a Nazi flag in his den. It was SICK, SICK, SICK, Dont come off and tell me its harmless as long as ITS CONSENTUAL. Your  Sick! Normal Pornography, when in the hands of these bastards... "infatuated with children" can cause them to do "EVIL" things that they might not have done otherwise. These buttholes are criminals should be "CASTRATED" while awake, "REAMED" and then sent to jail with tattos on thier heads that say "Child Molester!" There is a conection between pornography and child molestation... wake up and see it! --merlinus 16:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand your opinion, it cannot be the basis upon which Wikipedia decides the content or the existence of articles.  Please see WP:NPOV for further explanation of this. Corax 19:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How amusing.  Are you familiar with any organizations promoting kidnapping and cannibalism that we have failed to document on the wiki?  If so, please point them out and we'll be glad to write an article.  Tomyumgoong 19:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: An excellent example of how molestation, imagined or real, causes people to lose touch with reality, and project upon other people and things events that never occurred, and words that were never uttered.  We ought to put the number of a mental health professional at the end of the NAMBLA article, so nutters will have someone to call after they read it. Hermitian 20:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that's a respectful comment to somebody who claims to have been molested? So maybe he just made it up, but you don't know so where are your fucking manners. Mackan 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, Hermitian. Although I can't stand behind NAMBLA's goals, I have to say that Merlinus' comments are a prime example of the nature of the continuing problem of child abuse present-day. Although such deep resentment is understandable, the public at large seems quite satisfied with simply shaming pedophiles and treating them as badly as possible as a consequence to the deeds they've committed, apparently doing nothing to alter the future behavior of many offenders. The rehabilitation of pedophiles, especially those prone to violence, is one of the most under-funded research areas in psychology today. As a result, the treatment options available are either quite ineffective or barbaric to say the least. I also believe it quite presumptuous that one could claim "pedophiles can never be cured and should be killed/locked away forever", as this would require complete knowledge of the psychological mechanisms involved in the attraction towards children, elements which probably vary on a case-by-case basis, and then proof that they are inalterable. At present, we have too limited a knowledge of the human mind and even the brain itself to be making such assertions. But to assume that we have reached the pinnacle of human achievement in this area of treatment is simply to be misinformed and/or extraordinarily unfaithful in humanity's ability to progress, something which is ever-constant in this world. My point being that pedophiles will always exist, and only when we are able to be humane, rational, and scientific about the problem can it really be addressed on any meaningful level. If it's a disease, treat it like any other disease that we seek to cure, otherwise get out of the picture because you're just detracting from future solutions. 
Kst447 (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  We document them solely for the reason that they exist.  There are many, many other examples of repulsive topics in Wikipedia that are in the encyclopedia because of similar reasons.  We don't remove the "child molestation" article, for example.  These are not forums for pedophiles to congregate; these are academic discussions to aid in, say, a college student doing a paper for his or her psychology class.  Also, this talk page is used for discussion about matters pertaining to the maintenance of the article, not an actual discussion of opinions on the topic.  If you look at the talk pages of other controversial subjects, you'll find editorial discussions.  Remember, an article documenting an organization in a neutral point of view does not endorse the organization or its goals.  Please respect Wikipedia for what it is, an encyclopedia. Dtemp 15:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete NAMBLA's Entire Category

message: Will Beback explained above that the criteria for listing a page under Pedophile organizations was on the Category Page, which defines pedophile organizations as "organizations that promote pedophilia or the removal of legal inhibitions towards adult-child sex" (notice the "or" indicating that only one of these criteria must be met for classification to obtain).  Because NAMBLA has called for the elimination of age-of-consent laws, and the elimination of age-of-consent laws represents a removal of one of the potential inhibitions (or prohibitions, which I think is what the author of the category meant) against adult-child sex, it would appear that NAMBLA belongs in the category.
However, other organizations also call for the removal of age-of-consent laws, meaning that they also meet one of the criteria set down by the category's page.  One such organization, ASFAR, was added to the category accordingly.  For some inexplicable reason User:Will Beback reversed this addition to the category, advising the editor not to use Wikipedia to prove a point.  Yet the only point the editor was making was that, according to the criteria set down on the Pedophile organizations category page, ASFAR belongs in that category.
It seems that the only person making a point in regards to the categories is User:Will Beback.  And that point is that the criteria listed on the category page is irrelevant.  The only thing that matters, it seems, is whether Will Beback thinks an organization is a pedophile organization.  Perhaps he should add "Will Beback must agree with the categorization" on the category page so that it reflects the content of the category.
In any event, I have removed NAMBLA from the category until Will can straighten out what criteria we are supposed to be using to determine what organizations/articles belong.  Until that is clarified, re-adding it while excluding others which meet the existing criteria is tantamount to vandalism. Corax 03:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the category "Pedophile Organizations" should be nuked.  We should make a new category for organizations that advocate reform of age of consent laws, which all such organizations, including ASFAR and the socialist folks, may happily occupy without feeling that they are being accused of promoting rape and murder. Hermitian 04:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Pedophile Orgs category from page

message: *The Whole Catagory must be deleted or modified to show the damage that pedoplelia can do to children and its lifelong affects on people.  
*Some jerks that believe that consentual child rape is OK would say that the "VICTIMS" are at fault! This is not so. It is these same people who kept denying that Catholic priests fondled children over the years. It is self evidenly wrong and corrupt and evil and Wikipedia should not give forum to these people. I say delete or put it under the category of Child Predators That would be acceptable. --[[User:Merlinus  15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've just stated the Neoconservative notion that truth should be defined by whether it advances ones cause, rather than by what the facts are. I am not aware of NAMBLA denying (some) Catholic priests molest kids. You may not be aware that one of the two "sex predators" located in an online registry, and killed by a vigilante in Maine, was a man who at 19 had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. Something that would be perfectly legal in Canada, but gets one (incorrectly) called a "pedophile" in the United States. Yet, you would advocate that anyone suggesting that age of consent laws need some changes be called a "pedoplele"(sic), be listed under "Child Predators," and be denied a voice to state their opinion, because you think their views are "wrong and corrupt and evil." Well, I think YOUR views are wrong and corrupt and evil. Should you be denied a forum to express them? Hermitian 16:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Discusion Proves my point 

message: Canada, US, France its all the Same. I will not get into name calling with a pederast. OVER AND OUT! --172.153.88.61 18:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you're mistaken that sex laws are the same in Canada, the US, and France.  Calling someone who corrects your mistakes a pederast is a bit of a stretch as well. Hermitian 18:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That makes no sense? 

message: Legality has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of moral issues. Frankly I would oppose it just as much if there were no laws in any country that forbade it!--merlinus 20:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So Canada is a country of pedophiles, because the age of consent is 14? Hermitian 21:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to most definitions, pedophiles would be those who are attracted to those well under the age of 14. I don't think anyone is proposing that Canada is a country of pedophiles. -Will Beback 22:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was responding to Merlinus, who just stated that attraction by a 35 year old to a 15 year old is pedophilia. Please try to pay attention. Hermitian 17:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see Merlinus making any such statement, though an anon did a couple of sections ago. Are the anon and Merlinus the same user? -Will Beback 21:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws different/Immorality same 

message: Since the template in use didn't explain what the dispute was over, especially as it was placed at the part of the page where the categories were listed when editing but not where shown, and given that there are other controversies over categories, I have created a new dispute notice specifically for categories that can be displayed directly under them and which allows the reader to know what the dispute is actually about. It is now in place. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  It looks really nice. Corax 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  categories template 

message: In the event that information in an article comes from an unexpected or otherwise indirect source, an editor may want to include information about that source in the text.  The way to do this is to include information that relates to its reliability -- which is, after all, the reason the source is being identified in the text.  So, for example, when describing Larry Frisoli's accusations against NAMBLA, the appropriate information to include is Frisoli's role as an advocate on behalf of parents suing the organization for millions of dollars.  After all, Frisoli's role as an interested party creates an incentive for him to distort the truth -- or at least to mislead.
If one wants to identify the source of some of the material in "Platforms and Positions," the appropriate information to include should similarly have some bearing on the reliability of the source.  How would Roy Radow know the positions cited in the text?  Why should we believe him?  Identifying Radow as a "self-identified pedophile," does as much to answer these questions as dubbing Frisoli "a self-identified heterosexual" informs readres about the reliability of his accusations.  Rather, it is clearly an example of disrupting Wikipedia (hypocritically) to make a WP:POINT.  If somebody wants to identify Radow to place a source in its proper context, the appropriate identification should be "a former NAMBLA spokesperson." Corax 15:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this instance, it would appear to increase Radow's credibility, since it shows he's one of them. It is certainly important to explain that the source is an email, which we generally do not consider a relaible source. I don't know what the source would be to call Radow a "former NAMBLA spokesperson." Do you have that source? In the context of that sentence, where NAMLBA purportedly, "opposed corporal punishment, rape, and kidnapping,", it is important to note that the writer is being sued on behalf of NAMBLA for condoning just those behaviors. It certainly calls the whole matter into a different light. -Will Beback 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the fact that the person asserting the position is being sued is important to note, the colorful "self-identified pedophile" nonsense is not.  Insisting on including it is a violation of WP:POINT, and is clear evidence that you are editing in bad faith. Corax 18:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corax, you are pushing the limit of good faith editing yourself with statements such as these. Please stop. Given that NAMBLA tries to distance itself from pedophilia (couching instead in terms of age of consent laws), it is imminently relevant that a former NAMBLA officer identifies himself as a pedophile. I will revert you, again. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 18:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense.  It is inherently POV on your part to think that a NAMBLA spokesperson who happens to be a pedophile discloses some great insight as to NAMBLA's inner motivations, as opposed to, for instance, a spokesperson who happened to be a foot fetishist or tulip gardener.  This is the time worn anti-NAMBLA propaganda that NAMBLA's only real interest is in obliterating age of consent laws to enable old perverts to bugger young children, and every other thing NAMBLA stands for is some sort of clever smokescreen to conceal their real motives.  Roy Radow was a NAMBLA Spokesperson on Usenet for years, and has been interviewed on CNN speaking for NAMBLA, and NAMBLA's history and its wide variety of other members and supporters, speak to the organization's origins and motives.  Cheap innuendo about how Dr. Radow chooses to describe his own sexual orientation can go in his article, not in the NAMBLA article. Hermitian 21:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid we'll likely never see eye to eye on this. It seems entirely relevant to me to mention someone's self-identification in this instance. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 21:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, given that the Curley thing is a crackpot lawsuit, against people who had no knowlege of the events, based solely on the notion that polite advocacy of legal reform has some magic power to inflame others to commit rape and murder, I think it already gets far too much space in the article.  Bear in mind that "incitement" must always pass the "reasonable person test."  Namely, that it be so blatant that a reasonable person, suffering from no mental or other defect, would be at high risk of resorting to some action which puts others at risk or violates the law.  I see no evidence that scholarly discussions of the unfairness of absolute consent laws have the potential to cause an otherwise normal person to go nuts.  Anyone can sue anyone for anything.  So far, this lawsuit appears to be little more than a right wing publicity stunt. Hermitian 21:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identifying sources in the text 

message: Why did someone move this page to a temp page, move it back, and then delete the temp page?  Sounds like some sort of attempt to make modifications that didn't show up in the page's edit history.  It was done by someone named "Guettarda."  Enquiring minds wanna know. Hermitian 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guettarda apparently did that to remove a couple of revisions which contained personal information. JayW 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, exactly.  Probably should have explained in my edit summary.  Sorry about that. Guettarda 13:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd Edit

message: Notwithstanding that our views apropos of pornography and its relation to child sexual abuse are altogether contrary, notwithstanding that I oppose all age of consent laws and think that's one consent to sexual activity need only be de jure (cf., informed, de facto, or reflecting a meeting of the minds, and notwithstanding that it's likely gauche (if not plainly untoward) for me to query you apropos of your personal views (even as you make these views very plain here), whereupon I certainly will understand your failure to respond, I wonder if you might essay an explanation of how you simultaneously support Amnesty International (an organization with the aims of which I'm generally in accord and of which I'm a member, even as I certainly don't support the social justice activities increasingly undertaken by AI), to whom you otherwise ascribe the appellative sick criminals and whom you suggest should not be treated like humans; that sentiment seems, IMHO, to run contrary to those generally expressed by AI. Jahiegel Joe 23:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey everybody, we're not here to discuss NAMBLA or our opinions of NAMBLA. This page is only here to discuss the article and how to improve it. Discussions unrelated to that topic should be moved to user talk pages, email, the corner coffeeshop, or some other suitable venue. Thanks, -Will Beback 19:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defense of Criminals Rights 

message: In the "Criminal Cases" section, there is what MAY be some doubled information of sorts:
:John David Smith, of California, was arrested in 1996 for possession and distribution of child pornography. It was subsequently discovered that he had molested an 11-year old boy, for which Smith was convicted. Smith's membership in NAMBLA was raised at trial to prove his lascivious intent. [7] 
:...
:John David Smith, a San Francisco man convicted of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old boy he was babysitting, unwittingly spoke of his crimes to an undercover investigator who had infiltrated NAMBLA. Upon obtaining a warrant, the investigator also found child pornography in Smith's apartment [10] [11].''
Same exact name, San Fran is in California, convicted of molesting an 11-year-old boy... sounds like the same person to me (I imagine that the chances of TWO men with the EXACT same name of John David Smith, both living in California, both having been convicted of molesting an 11-year-old boy, and both being members of NAMBLA... are rather low, don't you?). Does this not seem like a single entry weirdly split in two? Shouldn't the second one be smooshed into the first as a continuation or elaboration? As it stands now, at least, they're seperated by another unrelated case's entry (about a Catholic preist who was a NAMBLA member and molested a kid, but who was NOT named John David Smith), which makes no sense at all, really. Runa27 07:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they're obviously the same case. I've merged the two entries. Thanks for mentioning it. -Will Beback 08:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Doubled information?

message: I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia.  I looked up NAMBLA in response to a discussion I'd had with a neighbor about the ACLU defending NAMBLA.  I have to say that the entry is very poorly organized at this point,e.g. citing the Curley lawsuit early on with no context coming until much later in the entry, and it does seem to include what are being referred to as POVs, which I believe do not belong in a reference work.
Also, it's dismaying to see what is largely a pissing match between a few people on this discussion page.4.238.253.159 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and placed these comments under their own heading, as they didn't seem to be a response to DanB DanD's statement above.  Feel free to remove the heading if I've misinterpreted.  As for your comments, it's a phenomenon seen on many controversial articles' talk pages.  It devolves to a push-pull between entrenched proponents of the sides of the dispute.  I'm not here because I care one way or another about NAMBLA.  I've looked at the arguments being advanced and reached some conclusions based on my interpretation of what Wikipedia is & is not.  In general, a reader of this article shouldn't come away with the impression that Wikipedia favors or disfavors pedophilia or NAMBLA.  Most of the time, that goal isn't completely achievable, but progress toward it must still be made.  --Ssbohio 18:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of the article 

message: I have read on more than one occasion a post-war over whether or not NAMbLA encourages non-consentual pederastic relationships. Officially, I am well-aware that the answer is "no", nowhere in its official stance does it encourage rape. And I also believe very firmly that the comparison between "pedophilia" and "child abuse" is about as valid as a comparison between "sex" and "rape". That said, it is important to note that such beliefs do exist for the purposes of an informative article.
My point is that a belief or ideology often espoused by members of an organization, and also associated with said organization by outside observers, is important enough to be discussed in this article. After all, the KKK has no "official" stance with regards to the mistreatment or degradation of black people, their official stance is merely "the promotion of white people". However, I doubt anyone would say that an association with anti-black sentiments on the KK article's page is invalid for Wikipedia.
Nambla works the same way. Even though it officially has no ties to non-consentual sex, it is associated with said action by the media, the public, and most importantly the actions and beliefs of a large number of its members. A disclaimer would be needed to specify that these are not OFFICIAL stances, of course, but it's bias to not include the vast amounts of information indicating the tie between NAMbLA and child molestation, even if it is NOT official.
:There's a huge problem with discussing informal "ties" like that, with any organization: they tend to be difficult to verify. Because, as you note, they are based on "associations" drawn by the media and the public -- rather than the definitive actions or statements of the people so accused -- they are inevitably bound up in hearsay and rumor.
:For a similar example, consider allegations today that a group is "linked with al-Qaeda", or in the 1950s that someone had "ties to the Communist Party". During the Red Scares, "ties" could mean that the person had a friend who was a Communist. And we all know about the Bushies' about-face on the subject of Saddam Hussein's supposed "links" with al-Qaeda.
:We really don't need to accept rumors and hearsay as evidence here. In fact, we have verifiability rules that say that we must not do so. --FOo 03:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, we should change the KKK page to remove all information linking them to the disparaging of black people Toxikator 15:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper/improper associations 

message: Hello there,
Is it possible to add a section about the most popular writer of Nambla who is Alan Horowitz  married with a child!:
http://theawarenesscenter.org/Horowitz_Alan.html
rgds
Hello
It seems to me that the awareness center does mean that the rabbi is married, and has one child and seven step-children. Otherwise, it would probably read "he is married to a child, and has seven step-children"
Regards
:Yes, it appears that this individual would fit under "Criminal cases". I don't know how we'd know that he is "the most popular writer of Nambla", but the info in your link appears reliable. -Will Beback 02:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writer Rabbi Alan Horowitz 

message: Hey, do you have any idea of what this guys are doing?
Man, making this article public, it´s like if you´re supporting them!
you should quit this article.
:Listing NMABLA members who have been prosecuted isn't really supporting them. -Will Beback 02:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why u have this here? 

message: oh dear,i first heard of it in south park.And i onestly thaut that it was part of the usual south park "political incorectness".Even,the name,i was convinst that some writer thaut of the name in 3 seconds :-O.--83.182.215.60 17:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As officer Barbrady said, "Wow, they've got activists for everything these days." And that's one of the wonders of democracy. Clayboy 17:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  south park