Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/Archive 2

message: I'm asking for all parties involved in editing this article to please back up their statements with citations.  For example, I would like to see citations of people in the gay community privately supporting the goals of NAMBLA, but publically condeming them because their views are so repugant to mainstream Americans.  Actually, I'd just be happy with citations of gay activists supporting NAMBLA at all.  Samboy 02:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, I want to see solid citations of gay activists saying they despise NAMBLA before we say that most gay activists don't like NAMBLA.  Samboy 02:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere does the article state that gay groups have ever secretly supported NAMBLA.  Where are you reading this? Corax 02:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's what your poor reading abilities are leading you to think.  The article says that one theory regarding the ditching of NAMBLA proposes that political considerations, combined with indifference to NAMBLA's objectives, were responsible. Corax 02:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I am hardly going to honor the request of somebody who has dubbed me a pedophile apologist.  This is not a court of law, and I do not need to answer your questions as a defendant on a witness stand would.  Corax 02:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adam, I guess we're going to have to play revert wars.  Revert to a version you like, and if Corax revert's your revert, I'll revert back to your version.  Yeah, this is childish, but it is occassionally necessary.  Samboy 02:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only necessary for people who realize they don't have an argument, and choose instead to try to ram through their opinions by force instead of by reason.  The fact that you dislike that some people believe that gay groups ditched NAMBLA for political reasons does not mean that there are not people who believe this.  Some people do, and I am one of them.  The article does not coronate their theory as the truth, as Adam's version did for the alternative theory.  My version is neutral, which is why you are acting so vehemently to thwart it, I suppose.  Just don't be surprised when the "wrong version" is once again protected.  Corax 02:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More citations please 

message: Adam, regarding your earlier question on whether Daniel and David Thorstad are two different people:
FWIW, I did a Nexis search for all news sources as far back as they are archived; many hits on "David Thorstad" as a founder of NAMBLA; none for "Daniel Thorstad" period, whether associated with NAMBLA or not. 
David Thorstad was named in the Curley case (from a 2003 motion to dismiss on Curley v NAMBLA: On or about October 1, 1997, Charles Jaynes, allegedly a member of the defendant North American Man Boy Love Association ("NAMBLA"), abducted and ultimately murdered ten-year old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, [*3] Massachusetts. On May 16, 2000, the plaintiffs Barbara Curley and Robert Curley ("the Curleys"), as administrators of the estate of their deceased son, commenced this action to recover for his conscious suffering and wrongful death under Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 229, §§ 2 and 6, naming NAMBLA, Best Internet Communications, Inc., Verio, Inc., Roy Radow, Joe Power, David Thorstad, David Miller, Peter Herman, Max Hunter, and Arnold Schoen as defendants.
From the same motion, a paragraph establishing personal jurisdiction for the purposes of inclusion in the suit: David Thorstad has been a resident of St. Paul, Minnesota since approximately 1992. Thorstad has been a member of NAMBLA since 1978, and served as a member of the Steering Committee from some undetermined time until September 1996. He is listed as a member of the Bulletin Collective, though he claims he "had no role in producing" the publication. He did contribute letters and articles to the Bulletin, and one of his articles was also posted on NAMBLA's webpage. In 1995, he was nominated to be an official NAMBLA spokesman. As a member of NAMBLA's Steering Committee, he participated in controlling and directing the actions of Andriette, Reeves, Rhodes, and others as they purposefully engaged in public outreach activities conducted in or directed into Massachusetts on behalf of NAMBLA. Personal jurisdiction exists over David Thorstad. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:12, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. That makes it clear that there is no such person as Daniel Thorstad, and that the Thorstad who is (or was) a defendant in the Curley case is David Thorstad, as I said but which Corax denied (without telling us how he knew this). I will restore my original edit. Adam 14:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where exactly did I deny that David Thorstad is a defendant in the NAMBLA case?   You're just making things up as you go along now. Corax 16:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thorstad 

message: Following her reasoning, the Dade County law should be referred to as "pro-black" since it protects racial minorities; "pro-woman" since it includes women, and "pro-jew" because it protects religious freedom.
*Above by User:68.229.240.32, who I assume is Hermitian (can you please log in when making changes? -- if I'm mistaken then apologies in advance).  Also, please don't make personal attacks.  You may not have agreed with my revert, but that doesn't make it stupid.  Semantics of wording are one thing -- it's fine to re-word the phrase to clarify its meaning -- but what I reverted was a wholesale deletion of the information, not just the phrase "pro-gay." · Katefan0(scribble) 20:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
**No, I'm not Hermitian, and I didn't attack you personally. I said that your REVERT was stupid, but I did not say that YOU were stupid. You may not agree with my characterization of your revert, but that doesn't make it a personal attack. User:68.229.240.32
***Sure it does.  You characterized an action I personally took -- and therefore an opinion I personally held -- as stupid.  That is certainly a personal attack. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:54, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
****I've reviewed the Wikipedia definition of a personal attack. My comment, although it was rude, does not fit the description.68.229.240.32 16:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katefan's reverts 

message: It seems to me that some mention of the Prisoner Program should be included. One the one hand, it's a bitch being a child molester in prison, as is related in self-pitying "The Prison Experience: Some Psychosocial Comments," written by a Ph.D. Rabbi described as "a political prisoner in the United States." On the other hand, their active prisoner support program seems at odds with their declaration of opposing illegal activities. Would anyone like to take a crack at writing a paragraph about it? -Willmcw 10:28, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
----
I have deleted the section on the BMJ article. It is an argument about pedophilia or pederasty or whatever, not about NAMBLA, and belongs somewhere else. Adam 16:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is not a place to debate the merits of NAMBLA's policies, how inappropriate is it to have the article chockfull of instances of NAMBLA being described and condemned as a "front for criminal exploitation of children."  For that matter, how is it appropriate to have criminal allegations of ALLEGED members, acting independently of the group, appended to the end of the article in a section that is at least as long as the history?  If you want to make the article consist entirely of objective fact, and not other people opinions or NAMBLA's responses to those opinions, that is fine.  But do not think for a second that you can paste hundreds of attacks that people make on NAMBLA without having NAMBLA's responses to those attacks included in the article also.  Remember, this is called balance.  Corax 16:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NAMBLA's reference of Rind is not something that occurred in the distant past.  The study is referenced, along with many, many others here.
For the purposes of this article we should be quoting NAMBLA to the effect that the study  vindicates their views, if that's what they said. We should not be debating the study itself. This article is about NAMBLA, not about other people's views on pedophilia. Adam 16:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Here is a link of NAMBLA's web site in 1998 clearly indicating its use of the Rind study as vindication of its views.  Regards, Corax 18:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prisoner Program 

message: There is still a basic problem with these two paras:
:NAMBLA references a number of empirical studies that the group claims show that not all sex between adults and minors is harmful. One such study is a controversial 1998 [meta-analysis] published in the Psychological Bulletin that analyzed 59 other studies of college students, entitled An Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Based on Nonclinical Samples. Casting doubt on the view that sex with minors is pervasively harmful, the study asserts, "Only a minority of boys react negatively or feel harmed by these episodes [sexual contact with older individuals]...The results of our reviews clearly show that the assumptions of most mental health professionals, legislators, law enforcement personnel, media workers, and the lay public that sexual relations defined as CSA cause intense harm pervasively for both boys and girls are vastly exaggerated." .
:The study has been criticized by some in the mental health field as well as Christian and anti-sexual-assault groups. Dr. David Spiegel, the associate chair of the Psychiatry Department at Stanford University's medical school, said the paper was "a stacked deck of poor population and study selection, misreported data, and misrepresented findings that inevitably led to wrong conclusions."  Spiegel co-authored a critique  of the study along with researchers from Texas A&M University and The Leadership Council, a scientific non-profit whose stated mission is "the ethical application of psychological science to human welfare." The study's main author responded to these critics by saying, "Spiegel's point is a strawman argument; he attacked a misrepresented version of what we wrote" and suggested that The Leadership Council is composed mainly of mental health professionals who "are mainly concerned about the growing number of lawsuits that threaten their practices." 
It will be seen that apart from the opening sentence, these two paragraphs are not about NAMBLA at all, they are about the merits of the Rind study. This is all very interesting, but it belongs in another article. All that is relevant to this article is to say that NAMBLA quotes scientific research to support its contention that not all sex between adults and minors is harmful, although the conclusions of that research has been contested by other people, and give a source for where NAMBLA has done so. Adam 13:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with this section

message: Could be added: There's a song by The Wonder Stuff on their 1993 album Construction for the Modern Idiot which lyrics explicitely are adressed to the MBLA: "I wish them all dead". --78.52.142.220 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the popular media 

message: The sixth citation that is from the "Journal of Homosexuality" only lists the name of the journal and the page numbers but no further information. The complete info is Journal of Homosexuality, Volume 20, Issue 1 & 2 February 1990 , pages 251 - 274.
This should be edited to reflect the full citation information. Below is the link to a verification of this information.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a904834876~frm=abslink
:Thanks.   Chzz  ►  06:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction of citation

message: North American Man/Boy Love Association has been nominated for deletion. Please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/FAQ.  You are free to edit the content of North American Man/Boy Love Association during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion.  Thank you.
:In case interested editors did not notice the transcluded MfD warning above.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: MfD nomination of [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/FAQ]]

message: The article is in poor shape. Content is in the wrong sections, and there's redundancy throughout. I propose an overhaul, the first step being tweak the outline to encompass all sourced content, and then move items to their appropriate section, then delete redundancies. Looking at FA and GA articles for orgs, this outline should work well:
#Goals and positions
#Operations
#History
#Relations with LGBT organizations
##ILGA controversy
#Curley v NAMBLA
#Criticism and response
#Notable members and supporters
#In popular media
##Film
##Television
##Other
Founding, 1990s, Today would be absorbed into History. LGBT condemnations would go in Relations. Criticism would obviously go in Criticism per policy. There is an article for Curley now so that section needs a  I know this is a group for, well, pedophiles, but if we're going to have the article we should make it... decent (if you'll pardon the term).  Opinions? Lionel (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a workable plan. I'm all for it. Btw. I downgraded the article in its present state to C-class. After the proposed changes have been implemented, we'll yank it to 'B' and perhaps even attempt a GA nomination. Don't you think that could be achieved? __meco (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input and the re-assessment! And I'm not surprised about the 'C'. GA? What a hoot! It's certainly doable. Lionel (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that some material has been taken out of the article in the last day. Unreferenced material can and in some cases certainly also should be excised. However, if valuable information is being removed on the grounds that it is unreferenced, it would certainly be a good idea to try and look for the references as well. __meco (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Wolfsie & Oprah, don't know it it's valuable. "Notable members" is definitely valuable but due to BLP needs citations. "In pop culture" is an interesting read, but will inclusion get us to a B rating, and then GA? This might make an interesting entry since it's not trivial, i.e. the entire episode is devoted to NAMBLA. Lionel (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

text: No rationale for exclusion after 9 days. Reinserting the pic. Lionel (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To the editor who who keeps reverting the pic, you have offered a littany of reasons for exclusion, "this picture misrepresents these men as somehow with NAMBLA, the photo itself shows they were in a parade but not that they were with them," "...the ones who claim that there is a NAMBLA banner is NAMBLA," "it's actually a banner of the parade with some other banner behind it, but no source claims it's NAMBLA," and lastly "using images for decoration does not make them helpful." Decoration? What is that? Is that another way of saying WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? I'll repeat: the pic is the march that nambla attended. Harry Hay, nambla supporter, is in the pic. The pic is relevant just based on the fact that Hay was a huge, notable supporter. The parade  makes it doubly so. Do you have any legitimate WP policy you want to discuss? Lionel (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Multiple sources support relevance and significance of participation in the march and Hay's participation in nambla. The pic is appropriate.  Lionel (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for an overhaul 

message: It says in the article that the child absue group wants all child absuers freed expect in cases where vicitms were coerced. All cases of child abuse qualify as coercion due to the victims not being able to judge the situation. Pedophilia is immoral because it causes terrible life-destroynig harm. Whether coercion, using this group's definition, is involved does not change that fact as the scientific evidence clearly showsLink to Proof of Life-Destroying Effects of Paedophilia. Therefore the sentence should be changed as soon as possible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLehany (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Be more specific about what is wrong and how you would like it changed. __meco (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please stop spamming this request to all articles loosely related to child sexual abuse?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:INDENT? __meco (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that last was to the anon.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: EDIT NEEDED

message: FYI the disruptive user from a few months ago is really a sock of the indefinitely banned user Benjiboi.Lionel (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[user:Cat clean|Cat clean]] 

message: I don't see how "the power imbalance between adults and children makes any sexual relationship exploitative" does not apply equally to any heterosexual relationships - or to any relationships whatsoever. I'm not implying that children can give consent to sexual content - my point is that the argument against consensual sex with children (the sentence I quoted) is a bad argument since it is too general and far from being exclusive to adult-child sexual contact.R. Piskorski (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording 

message: *
The Institute for the Protection of Lesbian and Gay Youth in New York City which later became the Hetrick-Martin Institute was most likely the first LGBT group to oppose NAMBLA. Pjefts (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Coincidentally, the NAMBLA organization began by a small group of men living in Marin City, California facing San Francisco in 1977 and they claim to gather for their civil rights to pursue "consental" Pedophile relationships. The LGBT community rejected their ideas of legitimizing unconsental child sex offenses and child abductions, because anyone with a brain realized this is wrong as simple as that. The LGBT(A) movements includes "A"llies such as polyamory, BDSM, bondage, foot fetish and pregnancy fetishism communities. They are not illegal (of course polygamy, insect, necrophilia and bestiality are against the law in the US and every state of the union), these alternative lifestyles involve mutually agreeing/participant couples and lovers into the same fetish/desire, and they do not force sexual harrassing acts onto others uninvolved with the suspect. It is perfectly clear NAMBLA should be an organization about controlling psycho-pathological sexual urges on young children, and how to receive mental evaluation to help them overcome pedophiliac behaviors. It's good to see the contrasting moral relativity of Gay men sought adults not teenagers or children (anyone under adult age) and it's crystal clear on social acceptance and tolerance is never based on how pre-pubescent children wrongly lured to and are victimized. 71.102.26.168 (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest opposition by [[LGBT]] group to NAMBLA 

message: In the History section, affiliation is misspelled. Will someone fix it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekthegreat (talk • contribs) 14:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't see it. What is the entire sentence? – Lionel (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A minor edit I want to make but don't seem to have the authority to do... 

message: I think it's importnt for the article to note that Allen Ginsberg's defence was based on free speech grounds.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.118.30 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Needed

message: The article does not make it clear that Allen Ginsberg only joined the group out of principal, because it was a discussion group and not a dating group. It was in other words a matter of free speech to Ginsberg. Ginsberg is dead, but probably the article should make this distinction out per some general policy. The distinction is made elsewhere within Wikipedia and could be adapted. Ginsberg is mentioned in passing no less than 3 times on the page. Seems gratuitous. --99.197.224.57 (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Are there any reliable sources we can use for this?Millertime246 (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allen Ginsberg (biography guidelines) 

message: i don't know why, but when i copied and pasted the info-box to my sand-box, i got a message saying it was spam cause it linked to a site on wp's blacklist. just thought id mention it. Jake1993811 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That means it's been placed on either the local or global blacklist after it was entered into the infobox, There are logs that can be checked to see the process leading to the listing. (WP:BLACKLIST). According to the log the reason for its listing is "Per request on IRC, malicious site being spammed", so apparently the url has been posted inappropriately in other places than in this article.  __meco (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  blacklist 

message: Footnote [21] makes allusion to Media reports in 2006. 
But the link goes to Boston newspaper article "May 2001". Contradictory.
Since 10 years nothing new from NAMbLA ? Teodôra  217.81.149.24 (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote [21] 

message: Per the March 2012 Playboy Magazine interview with David Cross, Cross states that he is a dues-paying member of NAMBLA. Cross played Allen Ginsberg in the movie "I'm Not There".
Quote from the article: "But Ginsberg and I also both happen to be dues-paying members of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. That's where the similarity between us started. I tried to do my homework on him. I studied his videos and familiarized myself with his poems. But really, my performance was almost entirely based on the man/boy-loving part of him. I even picked up a copy of the NAMBLA newsletter from the magazine store over on St. Mark's Place."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.207.135 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cross is well know for his sarcasm, I seriously doubt it's serious.  We would need something more substantial as this could be a serious WP:BLP issue. Noformation Talk 23:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Cross - Associated Persons 

message: The section on NAMBLA's relationship with the LGBT movement needs quite a bit of improving. This section gives too much weight to politics as being part of the reason for all LGBT organisations condemning NAMBLA. LGBT people saw that NAMBLA had positions which, if implemented in law, would lead to the abuse of children. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.145.156 (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign all posts. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled