Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Archive 1

message: There was at one time a few articles on search terms for KP. I put them up for RfC and they were apparently speedied into deletion. I won't reveal the terms here (I remember two of them) but that may have relevance and might want to refer to them. LMK if this is of any possible value. --DanielCD 21:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: this is now redirected to Child pornography. --DanielCD 00:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related deletions

message: Hi, Herostratus. DanielCD referred me to this user page. I'm very impressed with how detailed and thorough it is.  
I hope to contribute to the Pedophilia-related articles and have made a couple comments in their talk pages. Anyway, just wanted to introduce myself. Thanks.  Joey Q. McCartney 00:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still on the drawing board, as you can see, but at least I have good hopes for it. --DanielCD 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello

message: I'd like to throw something on the table and see how it goes.
Concerning wording/language: where is an appropriate division between appropriate response to crimes against children and unmerited demonizing. This line is an important part of the issue.  On one hand, we don't want to support or encourage, yet we also don't want to be overcritical where it's not called for. I don't want to enable, but I also don't want to demonize. As far as criminal acts go: to complicate matters, there may be yet another line to draw here. I think we can use the critical section in the advocacy article to allow some vehmenent/sharp wording to start. That's just a start. We do need some firmer language, so let's put the issue on the table. Someone cite wording that looks inappropriate/wrong/off or whatever.
In addition: Complaints about wording are rampant, but few make the effort to give details (which is highly frustrating). Are these people just making jabs to see if they can squeeze and opinion in, or is there a legitimate concern that's being ignored? 
To hightlight the issue, I think there's probably wording in the above paragraph that someone will have a problem with. And keep in mind that there will be two sides to the issue, and by all means, let's be civil. --DanielCD 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Daniel. I made a comment over at the P. talk with some examples. Also feel free to check my talk page for that rewrite, which may have been just for fun but oh well :). Have a good day. JM Joey Q. McCartney 23:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening discussion: Testing the water

message: Hello. I will soon have a very preliminary rewrite--of the Pedophilia article--that I'd kind of like to share somewhere. Substantively, it would not be very different from the current article, but I think it would be less POV, a little cleaner, and a little tighter. 
Also, is it possible to email each other through this site? THanks. -JM. Joey Q. McCartney 19:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea. Just go to the userpage and look for the "E-mail this user" in the list on the left hand side. --DanielCD 19:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! -JM Joey Q. McCartney 20:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, what DanielCD said, although I personally prefer to keep all discussion in public space. If you want to create a subpage (say, WikiProject Pedophilia/Pedophilia (draft or something, do that... remember to list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia#Subpages. Herostratus 08:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't mean that e-mail isn't OK, especially in this case considering that its such a fraught subject. However, perhaps a publicly-listed email list would be OK? Herostratus 16:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a valid email address on here anyway. But I don't mind just posting like this. THanks. Joey Q. McCartney 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedophilia article

message: This project must either cease to exist or exist under a new name. Try to imagine that Wikipedia actually exists in a world of humans with irrational emotions. WAS 4.250 05:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes sir General Sir!! I'll just get right on that! --DanielCD 02:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Potpourri

message: Several people have suggested Pedophilia Article Watch as a project name. That sounds good to me. I like the watch part. It takes away the idea the project is pro-pedophilia. The word article shows that we are watching articles not pedophiles. Since pedophiles are our main interest, maybe we should stick with it. FloNight talk  00:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedophilia Article Watch Several people have suggested Pedophilia Article Watch as a project name. That sounds good to me. I like the watch part. It takes away the idea the project is pro-pedophilia. The word article shows that we are watching articles not pedophiles. Since pedophilia is our main interest, maybe we should stick with it. FloNight talk  00:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support that. -Will Beback 02:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedophilia Article Watch

message: I'm going to remove it for now. It'll be in the edit history. --DanielCD 19:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: *I moved "nomenclature" to its own position on the main project page to make it more visible. More detailed discussion is still available on the /Nomenclature subpage. 
*I have tagged two articles and intend to work on them in coming weeks; assistance will of course be be welcome. The articles are Rind et al. (1998) and Child sexuality. The former needs to be researched to verify if it indeed has only been criticized mainly by conservative politicians and members of a questionable organization as the article implies, the latter needs verification of statements such as "Empirical knowledge about child sexual behaviour is not gathered by direct interviews of children... because the topic is taboo" and perhaps inclusion of other studies for balance, if such studies exist. Both of these will require visits to a major library and some time.
*Hmmm the "project participants" section is weird... it lists four people who don't seem to be very active right now, and doesn't list participants who have been more active recently.
*Lack of agreed-on project name is not so good because references have to made to the project in article tagging and at the parent project.
Herostratus 21:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this n' that