Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 12

message: --DanielCD 00:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: READ BEFORE COMMENTING

message: I have attempted to begin editing your (IP 80.171.188.253) additions to the article under the "Brief History" section.  It is, however, much too detailed for a general encyclopedia article.  I request that you attempt to summarize it and do what you can to make it more readable.  It might have been better to do that here.  German writing style is considerably different than English and an encyclopedia is not an academic text.  Also, please avoid making broad generalizations such as "gaining support in the gay activist scene in New York."   The material needs a great deal more work before it will be acceptable.  I won't revert it if you will agree to simplify it and make it more readable.  Sunray 15:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point about the "gaining support" statement is that it really doesn't matter what Bernard thinks.  He is not a sociologist who has researched this particular issue.  He has a point of view that he wants to put forward.  However, there has been extensive discussion of the matter withiin the gay activist community and I would say that his view is not widely held.  Therefore one couldn't reasonably include his point of view unless it was clear that is marginal and given proper historical context.  This would need a section rather than a throw-away line. Meanwhile, it is a generalization that is not supportable as it is currently referenced.  If you are going to put up this kind of material, please understand that it will be edited.  Perhaps you should try to work with that.  Sunray 18:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing problems with recent additions

message: This article is becoming rather long and cumbersome.  For example, the section now titled "Overview of modern pedophile activism," with recent additions is now much more than a "brief history."  I propose that that section be moved to a new article (titled "History of pedophile activism") with a short summary and link to replace it in the "Overview..." section.  This is an accordance with the guidelines on Writing better articles (see subsection on "Size").  Sunray 19:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That section looks better now.  Major editing is still required to get this article down to a reasonable size. Sunray 19:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of article

message: I'd like whom recently categorized this article as containing unsourced statements to tell me which statements they'd like to be sourced, and I'll try to find sources for them. I suggest that if no-one will object within a week this article will be removed from that category. -TlatoSMD 17:54, 11 May 2006 (CEST)
:A week is quite generous to me. Skinnyweed 16:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a source, there are plenty of others as it's a well-known case. -Will Beback 20:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Once all of the [citation needed] tags are gone it is automatically out of the category "Articles with unsourced statements" or whatever they are calling it now. I might have missed one when I scanned the article though... time to Control F for them. Kotepho 15:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced statements?

message: I don't deny that Activism is an appropriate category for this article, however I also think that Support group that I'd categorized it as is just as appropriate, just see the statements
:"The primary activity of the movement is support for pedophiles. They attempt to provide support to others who would otherwise be reluctant to discuss their attractions for fear of being ostracized. To this end, some organizations provide online counselling and suicide prevention services."
in the Activities section. Apart from that, I think we're also dealing with a social movement in the classical sense (such as feminism, gay movement, Jewish emancipation, socialism, etc.), a term which I didn't find a literal category for but Social networking, and this movement certainly is a social network as well (see media coverage on pedophile networks, for example). -TlatoSMD 06:36, 13 May 2006 (CEST)
::This article is not about a group. It is about general activism. The support group category may apply to individual groups. Or, if you think it is the more apporpriate topic, we can move the article to "Pedophile support groups". As for social networking, that does not appear to be the general context of the activism. If you look at the other entires in those two categories, you won't find other articles about activism. -Will Beback 05:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: if you look in :Category:Activism you'll many "movements", so I think it is the category you were looking for. -Will Beback 05:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its pretty offensive to compare paedophile apologism to ethnic, queer and womens rights movements. Womens, queer and ethnic rights activists are heros of democracy. Paedophile apologists are disgusting failed humans. Duckmonster 13:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That statement adds nothing to the discussion. The article merely documents that the comparison has been made. WP is not here to make value judgements, and neither is this talk page. Zuiram 07:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: This large section of text is unreferenced, and very original. As an essay, we can agree that whomever wrote this makes sense, but encyclopedias are interested in how things are categorized by published sources, not how they should be or might be.
"These categories should be constituted by such factors as
*coercive, aggressive, oppressive, and/or violent behaviour vs. the lack of such behaviour,
*simple consent (i. e. agreement, willing; a few put informed consent here instead) vs. the lack of it
*whether the adult involved could actually be diagnosed as a pedophile in the medical sense,
*biological age of the child involved,
*incest vs. non-incest,
*anal/vaginal intercourse vs. the lack of these penetrating acts, and which was the penetrating party if any,
*age disparity,
*biological sex of the parties involved,
*common social relation between the involved parties both on an individual and a wider, non-individual scale,
*which party initially brought up sexual aspects and behaviour and under what circumstances, 
*prior believes and values held and experiences made by the child concerning sexuality in general (if any),concerning sexual acts between members of the involved sexes (if any), and concerning adult-child sex interactions (if any).
These effects of adult-child sex interactions themselves should be categorized as primary detrimental effects.
Secondary detrimental effects
According to pedophile activists, aforementioned prior believes and values are supposed to be interdependent with and easily subject to manipulation by 'after the fact' actions taken by intervening authorities and peer groups as soon as this fact becomes known, thus play a role in secondary detrimental effects caused by such measures, and allegedly these secondary detrimental effects are neither accordingly distinguished into a seperate category from primary effects due to sexual interactions. Pedophile activists point to studies suggesting that secondary detrimental effects might frequently be significantly more negative and severe than the effects even of most intergenerational sexual interactions.
Secondary detrimental effects vs. False Memory Syndrome
Though often mixed up, this secondary effects issue is not identical to the False Memory Syndrome which is mostly adults becoming aware of supposedly repressed memories through means of therapeutical work (see Recovered Memory Therapy), although pedophile activists claim similar patterns by means of manipulation can occur during the same time as secondary effects. Simply put, the difference is changing attitudes about actual events and/or causing detriments by means of labelling and sometimes even maltreatment by authorities (including relatives) and peer groups during and after investigations and councelling on the one hand (secondary effects), and the fabrication of memory and conviction concerning events that never happened on the other (False Memory). Via socio-psychological pressure and labelling either way, children would thus suffer secondary effects by adopting new values concerning events and their own identities.
Claim of coercion
A third claim by some pedophile activists is that children during police investigations would be coerced against their will into testifying about events that the children themselves don't believe to have happened. This would be the less severe case of what otherwise would become False Memory Syndrome due to basically manipulative coercion."
It is possible that these arguments were taken from some published source that the editor did not mention or include. But especially in the "impacts of scientific papers" this large body of definitions cannot stand unsourced. Saying "Pedophile activists claim" is not enough. Remember that this article itself is over-long. Being that there is more than the recommended amount of text on the page to start, removing unreferenced and perhaps in part unreferencable material for review here is justified, I think. Lotusduck 19:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that just as with those links I added at the end of the first paragraph of this section, I won't have a hard time sourcing those statements via IPCE, just give me a few days. -TlatoSMD 04:01, 24 May 2006 (CEST)
This is a large amount of text that is arguably not central to an article describing pedophile activism. It's a detailed argument that only says "Some pedophiles purport that the counseling, therapy and litigation following adult-child sexual contact is more detrimental than the sexual contact.(see False Memory)" The intense detail into that argument goes outside of describing pedophile activism. This is the size of some stub on it's own page, and it certainly doesn't belong in the "reaction to scientific papers".  If this level of detail into this argument is neccessary, add it to another page on the effects of what the law knows as child sex abuse, because beyond my example sentance, it isn't central to this article. Lotusduck 19:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "These categories should be constituted by such factors as" 

message: While reccomendations for size says that the scope of some topics justifies the added reading time, articles above 30 and especially above 50kb should probably be divided. The size of this article does make it difficult to edit, and harms it's ease of reading.
Surely, with the amount of redundancy in this article, some sections are worthy of their own article and not wholly central to understanding pedophile activism. What do YOU think?Lotusduck 16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dividing and reducing 

message: While many references are in the neat numbered system, many are not. While the article itself has some very keen references, large blocks of text remain unreferenced. 
IPCE documents of pedophile activist self publisehd books and pamphlets, have in the past been accepted as references on this page. Clearly now, there is no need to search far and wide for information on this topic, in fact, there is more than can be comfortably read, loaded and edited in this article alone. 
Verifiability says:
:One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers."
It also says
:". Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so."
Activists are neither journalists nor professional researchers. When activists write something notable, often enough a scientific journal or popular journal will pick up on it. That may seem harsh for info you might think we could come to a consensus to accept and ignore the policy, but these are policies set up by the people that created and run  wikipedia. There are other wikis, like wikiinfo, that aren't as big or as important as wikipedia, because wikipedia has standards like these.
Sections or information whose only reference is a self published newsletter or book must instead reference a trusted published source that discusses that book, newsletter or blog. If appropriate references cannot be found, the information should be removed. Lotusduck 18:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: For example, topless sunbathing, they note, is legal in some countries and treated as exhibitionism in others. Many pedophile activists argue that classification of pedophilia as a mental illness would be motivated by moral views based upon learned aesthetical perception, as well as by factual or imaginary detriments based upon adult-child sex interaction while these factors should be considered irrelevant for this classification. Mental illness classification should be constituted by etiology instead, i. e. the origins of pedophilia in the medical sense. In accordance with contemporary counterculture zeitgeist, most of 1970s Western Europe pedophile activism, especially Bernard, argued according to Freud's psychological theory of infant sexuality being polymorphously perverse (or, simply put, multi-sexual) in the beginning and that by socialization, this sexual potential would be more and more restricted and hence repressed bit by bit, especially by the super-ego based upon socio-cultural values. Pedophilia would thus be normal and not a mental illness as every human being would be pedophile in the beginning but most people would 'unlearn' this specific capability of sexual desire among a variety of others. Other activists suggest a genetical theory (thus completely eliminating any constituting mental factors), either to that pedophilia would be based on individual mutation, or that it was created by evolution serving a purpose in nature that could well be fulfilled by only a limited number of individuals in each generation. Especially advocates of the evolution theory claim that pedophilia would be fundamentally different from any other form of adult sexuality as to be not equal but complementary with childhood development.
:This stuff is pretty general stuff about understanding that is repeated at the beginning of the article, and in the scientific papers section. Much of it, especially the evolution stuff is very weasel wordy, "some say, these here might say" etcetera. It's also overly technical and hard to understand.I am not against something similar to this being put in, however this section is redundant and flawed to the point I would rather you work from the citation and ignore this writing in the new version. Lotusduck 16:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically anything saying "some" or "many" pedophile activists, or even "some" or "many" journalists, researchers or people, is poor style and conveys little information. Saying "Pedophile activists like Brongersma" for info based on his works is okay (probably.) Even paragraphs that talk about scientific papers, like some of the above, need verification for their central idea, that many pedophile activists argue as these paragraphs describe. Some info that I have not yet taken out will be once I read their sources and determine if they are self published. If and when you find published sources for any of the above claims, please write clearly and concise, um, ly. This page just got a lot more readable and editable, now being 50kb. I guess technically it's 30+ not 50+ now. Doesn't almost complying with guidelines feel good? Lotusduck 16:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more uncited material 

message: Shouldn't some information about NVD be included?A.Z. 22:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Netherlands Pedophile Party

message: The pedophilia article is splintered into a Pro Pedophilia Article and an Anti Pedophilia Article. For the benefit of the readers, they should be made aware of this fact at the beginning of the article, so that they can freely choose to read and learn about pedophilia from either the Pro or Anti article. 69.137.223.3 00:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro Vs. Anti Pedophilia 

message: I found this interesting paragraph while reading through a Britannica article (gasp): (From the "Effects of early conditioning" section of their "Human sexual behavior" article; see here)
:[A few children have] atypical sexual experiences, such as witnessing or hearing sexual intercourse or having sexual contact with an older person. The effects of such atypical experiences depend upon how the child interprets them and upon the reaction of adults if the experience comes to their attention. Seeing parental coitus is harmless if the child interprets it as playful wrestling but harmful if he considers it as hostile, assaultive behaviour. Similarly, an experience with an adult may seem merely a curious and pointless game, or it may be a hideous trauma leaving lifelong psychic scars. In many cases the reaction of parents and society determines the child's interpretation of the event. What would have been a trivial and soon-forgotten act becomes traumatic if the mother cries, the father rages, and the police interrogate the child.
Interesting! JayW 14:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Britannica support this opinion?

message: The article subsection "Claiming pedophile activism, feminism, gay activism, and partly racial minorities would be dependent upon each other." is confusing. The sentences are much too long for easy reading, context is insufficient, and it probably breaks undue weight guidelines by being so long compared to the other subsections. In addition, it is one-sided, not even mentioning the opinions of any other group than the pedophiles on the matter. Since this point is (as best I can gather) supposed to be based on scientific research and studies, it would be nice if we knew what the scientists who came up with the theories thought, whether they agreed or disagreed with the application of their ideas, etc. From the manner it is written in, I would normally suspect original research, but it does seem to have some citations along with it. --tjstrf 10:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrendously confusing subsection 

message: Hi!
In french Wikipedia, we are working on the french version of this article, based on a translation of this one. We are trying to fill some gaps on references: there is one that we cannot fill, when article says "In a 1998 newspaper interview, Dutch psychiatrist Gerald Roelofs suggested the following five guidelines for relationships between adults and children: (...) " (here). May someone of you provides a reference for this "newspaper interview"? Thanks in advance!
.: Guil :. chat 11:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here: "I didn't know how to deal with it." Good luck with that! JayW 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference request 

message: "Declassification of pedophilia as mental illness. Activists of the movement quote Moser and Kleinplatz (2003), who suggest that all paraphilia be removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). They write that objective, non-culturally-biased criteria for classifiying sexual behavior as psychotic"
Do they use the word psychosis ? AFAIK psychosis refers to disorders like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, not to sexual orientation or behavior. Apokrif 16:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, do I consider myself a lil psycho? >8D --Rookiee Revolyob 04:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychosis 

message: I've noticed that discussion, most notably between Rookiee and tjstrf, has been straying away from the article. Can we please keep discussion to the article at hand, not the subject it informs us about?
Mickygor 22:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, there's been almost no discussion for almost 3 weeks. What are you talking about? --tjstrf 04:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: We had too many links to forums and other sites with little info. Per WP:EL, such sites are discouraged. -Will Beback 01:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've included the neptune links directory. Although it is part of an advocacy website, and therefore Wikipedia will need to maintain it's own links, this resource is easily good enough to dispel a lot of the linking that you refer to --Jim Burton 12:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excess links 

message: I have just nominated this page for dispute of NPOV.
The vast majority of information it presents is skewed in favor of sexual relationships between adults and children.
This is an extreme minority viewpoint presented as though it were a rational, logical argument, a clear violation of the "Sensationalism" clause of the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines.  The medical professionals cited in the vast majority of instances in the article favor this viewpoint and very little argument to the contrary is shown.
:Hence the title 'pedophile activism'. A gay rights activism article would not contain anything more than the short 'controversy / criticism / public reaction' type section, so nor should this. The anti - pedophile movement can have it's own article. Both movements can also cite studies in other articles that approach the actual subjects, as opposed to one stream of opinion.
:'Extreme minority' - Pedophile activism is one of the larger single movements on line, where anonymity is guaranteed. Wikipedia also does not conspire to present opinions as any less 'rational', simply because of the number of people supporting them. --Jim Burton 00:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the article about the pedophile activist movement, not the article about pedophilia nor the article about child molestation. Read those if you want to hear the mainstream view on the subject. --tjstrf talk 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: Wikipedia should not be a place of paedophile advocacy. Also, the article is full of lies presented uder cover of discussing diferent points of view (vide: sexual abuse of/relationships with children as doing no harm to their psyche). Any common sense persdon will wonder at why it has not been deleted yet.
:This article isn't, or at least shouldn't be, an endorsement of its subject. We have articles on rape and murder too, though we don't advocate them. If there is a particle passage in the article that is troublesome please let's fix it. -Will Beback · † · 10:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were pages devoted to "pro-rape activism" (ie this page) or "pro-murder activism" many users would want them deleted too. P4k 10:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedophilia is not rape. Many other articles go out of their way to explain that—in NPOV. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pro-murder activism is called fascism except some of its marginal schools. --91.122.33.71 17:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a point. If you want to nominate the article for AfD then I wouldn't object. I suppose that at best this article catalogs the movement in order to better expose it. At worst it aids in promoting illegal activity. The community usually opposes the deletion of well-sourced articles but there have been exceptions. The Pedophilia article is already long so there's little opportunity to merge content. -Will Beback · † · 10:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know.  Personally I don't think it should be deleted, but stuff like this certainly represents one of Wikipedia's shortcomings. P4k 11:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a place of pedophile advocacy, as should be obvious. Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge for the masses. Compare it to a dictionary - you can't take things out of the dictionary because they might offend someone, otherwise you would end up with nothing. All that really can, or should, be done, is to try and balance the article. I personally don't believe pedophilia should be legalized, but that's not important. What is important is that the article is slightly unbalanced, in favour of the activists. I may not support their ideas, but surely they have the right to an opinion, and just because it disgusts you doesn't mean that you can criticise and humiliate them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwerty josh (talk • contribs) 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be deleted. 

message: Wikipedia gives voice and mention to the most obscure of objects and causes. Therefore, an article on one of the largest online movements, and a well documented campaign elsewhere(with around 50 years behind it) should not be removed simply because of a subjective judgement about it's effects within the law, or the fact that an overwhelming majority of people dislike it. P4k's profile surprises me, considering what the editor is implying.
I propose that we develop an article entitled Active opposition to child sex. We could start with children's charities that use literature that re - inforces maintream opinions, aims to raise awareness of abuse, etc, moving on to exceptional beliefs such as abusers 'making children believe that they enjoyed it' (Stop it now campaign). Then we could cover the militant online (hacking of websites, lobbying for censorship and alleged harassment) and offline (far right in Holland) movements. Perverted Justice is one example. --Jim Burton 04:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No, a counter article is needed for balance

message: I would really suggest that you don't edit this article, unless you can keep your POV and curious deletion obsession under control. Here are just a few examples of your editing:
Ipce’s hosting of the article was full, not a ‘reproduction’. Therefore, why should you make note of it? 
This is simple fact, and does not have any POV implications I admire your scrutiny, but a fact is a fact. Leave it alone, please: http://www.clogo.org/main.php
Again this fact is so indisputable, that you really should try looking for refs on something like BoyWiki, or some forum, rather than getting rid of it
This is an amazing claim! And you want everything cited! I call bias
You remove all meaning from the sentence and then insert the disturbingly POV assertion that the terms are [euphemisms. All you should have done is put the word ‘stigmatized’ in quotations
You really don’t get it, do you? Put the phrase in quotations, so that the logical train of rhetorical amendments proposed by pedophiles can be seen! Don’t just replace the word!
Please stop ruining this article. No one is claiming that an age attraction is ‘analogous’ to a gendered attraction. The previous edit would be ten times better, with quotations from ‘as’ to ‘heterosexuality’
You have completely destroyed half of the guidelines that have been set out. What we need is a point by point ‘’general’’ analysis of the guidelines, as opposed to the two that you deleted
I am giving you the chance to defend your edits, before I reverse them and cite previous versions that you deleted. --Jim Burton 07:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't put usernames in headers - we're not here to discuss editors, just edits. Most of your complaints here do not appear to have strong foundations. Please do not revert the changes.  -Will Beback · † · 09:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the energy to defend myself from all of these claims, but re: Ipce's hosting of that article: I mentioned that it was reproduced on their website because it shows that a pro-pedophilia organization is using the paper to advance it's claims--if that weren't the case, the summary of the paper wouldn't really have any place in this article.  I don't really see the problem with the word "reproduced" but if you don't like it use a different one.  As far as some of the things I deleted being "undisputable facts", if something has a citation tag attached to it for months I feel like I'm justified in deleting it.  It's not my responsibility to look for refs!  And the article doesn't need to contain every symbol used by pedophile activists, it's probably too long as it is (it's longer than the article on LGBT social movements, for example).  In a sense my editing was biased--I was trying to bring an article which had been hijacked by ideologues closer to reality.  Maybe my edits were sloppy or mistaken too, I'm not a full-time Wikipedia editor.  I still think the article was better after my edits than before.  P4k 09:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edits 

message: Does anyone know why many facets of my most recent edit are missing, despite no activity against them in the history? This has happened before, with other editors' changes. Could it be that BLue Ribbon opened up the edit article window before myself, and then saved his edits to an older version? --Jim Burton 15:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is misbehaving 

message: I just nominated a couple of logo images for deletion because of weird, POV restrictions on the copyright release. But then I saw that the version of the "girl-love" logo used on this page is an identical duplicate file--and that version, uploaded by somebody else, makes no mention of the restrictions on the image's release.
What's going on here? Is there really one copyright holder for the logo? Who is it? (He is unnamed in the statement of the copyright restriction.) Is the second, unrestricted version of the image itself a violation of the creator's copyright restriction? Or what? DanB†DanD 19:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: actual copyright on logos?

message: It has been suggested that International Boylove Day be merged into this article.
I don't agree with that idea, because this article is already quite long and I think that the subject could well have an own article. In comparison there are Wikipedia articles for other relatively unkown days, e.g. Transgender Day of Remembrance, Ask a Stupid Question Day, Creativity and Innovation Day or World Hello Day.--Greeny6000 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles should not merge. The day is obviously an institution as of itself, and as can be seen, has been cause for specific counter - reaction. --Jim Burton 02:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything in pedophile activism is a cause of reaction, but doesn't mean that this day is notable. This article is not so long that the short text for the "IBLD" can't be incorporated here. -Will Beback · † · 07:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still, it is the special observance of a larger minority group, has indeed caused a reaction and in comparison with other days that have an article at Wikipedia it should be notable enough.--Greeny6000 00:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Will Beback - if we are to give calendar dates their own pages, that decision should be upheld whatever the subject. If we are to merge some and not merge others, IBLD should easily qualify for its own page, as it has generated a stand - alone phenomenon of observance rituals and counter reactions that would contribute to the merged article's fragmentedness. There is also the argument for any future indexing of calendar dates (indeed, this may have already happened). In such a system, individual pages would be preferable. --Jim Burton 08:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might as well leave it by itself, this article is long enough without it. --tjstrf talk 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We are rather saying that we must remain consistent in the level of notability that we report on. It would be unfair to see more notable articles get deleted before less notable ones, simply because they report a more controversial topic. We may also be saying that these seemingly unnotable, banal topics go unchallenged for good reason, and thus the controversial ones should. I most certainly am, especially considering the sheer level of storage space that wikipedia has! --Jim Burton 07:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding It would be unfair to see more notable articles get deleted before less notable ones, please see WP:WAX.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 21:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for Merger with IBLD Article

message: * "Ipce", a ring of writers and academics who publish a newsletter and many research articles on their website.
What's our source for characterizing the members of IPCE in this way? Why are we even bothering to describe them? We don't describe the members or contributors to other websites. -Will Beback · † · 07:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And why is Ipce in quotes? None of the names for the other links are. Anyway, the Ipce description is weasely (they're a "ring"? How suspicious.) Clayboy 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: IPCE is a secretive group of academics (e.g. Dr Gieles) and writers (e.g. Tom O'Carroll) that holds yearly meetings and sends reps out to sexology conferences, etc. Whilst that is known fact, the function of the group is harder to pin down. I would suggest that they co - ordinate the direction of research from a pedophile emancipation perspective. But that is beyond the basic description required. It is fine as I see it. If Clayboy has a problem with the term 'ring' (which I don't), then maybe it should be changed to 'circle'. --Jim Burton 07:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: from Wikipedia's article on academia:
"An academic is a person who works as a researcher (and usually teacher) at a university or similar institution in post-secondary (or tertiary) education. "
This seems to be a pretty reasonable definition to me.  If you want to describe them as academics it's your responsibility to provide some independent evidence (a newspaper article, etc.) that they fit this definition, just like with any other statement in a Wikipedia article.  Just asserting that something is "known fact" isn't enough.  If the only evidence is the group's own word than they could be described as "a self-described circle of..." or whatever.  P4k 07:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "IPCE is a secretive group..." No, that doesn't sound good either. Unless we have sources for the description I suggest we just include the entry with no description. Ditto for the other sites. Just give their titles and let readers interested in the topic make their own judgments. -Will Beback · † · 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember hearing an interview with an IPCE member in which he described the organisation as secretive and academic, and made sure not to disclose the names of other members. As for the inclusion of academics, I thought that was as easy as a spade is a spade, and therefore did not need citing. Here are the audio files. See ep 20 and 21. --Jim Burton 19:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just leave off the description. -Will Beback · † · 20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm at a loss to explain why you should be so uneasy about this description. All you have to do is have a look at their website, or click on those audio files. I have changed the definition once again, so lets see if we can reach consensus on that --Jim Burton 01:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An anonymous speaker on a podcast is not a reliable source for anything. -Will Beback · † · 02:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What is the name of the person who is your source? -Will Beback · † · 07:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The man's a pedophile, so he simply goes by the pen name 'old st nick' --Jim Burton 15:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPCE description 

message: Stating that all studies in support of this movement's hypotheses were published by pedophile activists is needless poisoning of the well, especially when you can't show that all original publishers are pedophiles and activists in the movement described.
As for using the word 'advocate' (as opposed to the horrendously off - target 'activist'), this is again poisoning the well, since any researcher supports the conclusions of their study. For example, if a researcher, unlike Bruce Rind, concluded that the current legal situation is fine regarding sex with minors, we would not list them as an 'age of consent advocate / activist', let alone use a sweeping term for all similar researchers. 
All this can be described as is reactionary bias in Wikipedia. We are treating minority positions differently, simply because they are outspoken. Poisoning the well is a reactionary measure of biased editors, and is totally unrequired in an article from which we expect the reader to make their own conclusions. --Jim Burton 15:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to show that all pedophile advocates are themselves pedophiles. I assume you're referring to the section titled "Questioning the assumption of harm". There are four instances given, sourced from David L. Riegel (author of Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers), the SafeHaven Foundation, Tom O'Carroll, and Edward Brongersma. All four of these are clearly pedophile advocates. We can phrase it differently, but it's appropriate to indicate which sources are within the movement as opposed to non-advocates. I've added some text which I think differentiates them from Rind. -Will Beback · † · 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is now vastly improved, since it does not look like any supporting studies ( e.g. Rind, Sandfort) are put forward by pedophiles. Technically, these people should still be referred to as advocates of sex with minors, and moreover, this should not be mentioned at all, since it has no bearing on their arguments. Brongersma, as an ephebophile (I gather) should really be referred to as a 'pro pedophile activist' at the very least. But this section now comes off my priorities, having improved --Jim Burton 01:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poisoning the well! 

message: I have recently added a section on the use of anecdotal evidence of positive intergenerational sexual relationships with minors (promoted views: other), and in the spirit of anecdotes, I have added Sandfort's interview study of 25 boys (linked up via a convenience sample of pederasts) to 'other papers'. It can be seen from this link that at least six activism websites have directories of anecdotal evidence. --Jim Burton 17:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this article is about activism, the anecdotes should be limited to stories of activism, not of child-sex contact. General anecdotes about child-adult sex should go in Child sexual abuse. -Will Beback · † · 21:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that since the use of anecdotes is a tactic which cannot be summed up by describing an argument, a short sample is required, as with examples of studies, etc. That's why I picked Ginsberg (as cited by Howard Kline) as an example. --Jim Burton 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll come back to the Ginsberg quotation later. We have no reason to assert that it is among the "more reliable of these testimonies". Critics might point out that Ginsberg was a pederast later in life. As for adding that activists collect and publish anecdotes as evidence, we can say that without providing examples. -Will Beback · † · 01:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ginsberg is a far more relible testimony, since he is not an anonymous internet i.d., was cited from television, in a written article, and as a public figure, should have denied saying this if the quotation was false. His being a pederast: Exactly how would this make his testimony unreliable? I would also appreciate any rationale behind not referencing the use of anecdotes with at least one example. I would say that we are meant to be providing examples of activism, not censoring it. --Jim Burton 14:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The overall section in question provides additional type of advocacy. One of those types is publishing collections of anecdotes. The examples we provide are the links to those sites. Adding the actual, unverified text from those sites is not necessary, and is POV because we don't provide any balancing material. In general, this encyclopedia does not provide examples of things, but rather summarizes or describes things. So I'm going to leave the paragraph, but remove the Ginsberg quote. It might be more appropriately summarized in the Ginsberg bio. -Will Beback · † · 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote is to anecdotal as study is to academic, IMO. But my main concern is that the section itself remains uncontested. --Jim Burton 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot use one-person websites as reliable sources for most purposes. While we can link to them as proof that they exist, we cannot assume that what they contain is sufficiently reliable to include as facts. -Will Beback · † · 21:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Mr. Kline sourced the Ginsberg quote from the journalistic profession. Would you be happy for this short quote to stand as an example in the text, if it were linked from a journalistic source? --Jim Burton 17:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anecdotes 

message: Again, that 'ol weasel word "controversial" used to lend credence to a given position, to give the impression that there a give-and-take going on between two roughly equal positions. But the perfectly accurate word "unpopular" can often be more descriptive. Here's a handy guide to when to use each word:
*CONTROVERSIAL: Abortion rights; tax policy; immigration policy; etc.
*UNPOPULAR: Nazism; human sacrifice; pedophilia activism; etc.
You see what I'm saying? We don't say "John Smith, in a controversal action, blew up a school bus full of nuns and babies today". Now, I'm sure there are those who wish that pedophile activism was actually controversial; who would like a world where the conversation around the water cooler goes "Say, did you see what those pedophile activists said today? What idiots!" "Oh, I don't know, I kind of think they have a point"... and so forth. But, you know, if wishes were horses then beggars would ride, hm? Thank you and good night. Herostratus 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is a lot of hate towards pedophiles in general, and thus a categorical rejection of almost anything that they say. It's probably more rationalising than rational, but it most certainly is the truth. --Jim Burton 12:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  oh, that weasel word "controversial" 

message: The article is long and in some places clear. Things that are confusing and unattributed can be taken out. Like this here:
"Objections to the movement's ethics
Western society generally regards all child-adult sexual activity included in the ethical frameworks proposed by paedophile organisations as abusive and harmful.
Most people argue that minors would not have the freedom to withdraw from an abusive relationship, into which they can also very easily be coerced. Also, most child psychologists are highly unlikely to agree that any child-adult sexual activity is in harmony with the psychological development of a child. In line with social consensus, some scientists hold that sexual activity is innately harmful for young children, i.e. no amount of social restructuring or sexual tolerance can change what they claim to be a consistently damaging activity. It has also been claimed that sexual attraction to children is intertwined with a psychological pathology that would make such 'ethical' behaviour impossible. 
A popular lay position conceptualises childhood as a time of purity and innocence. Sexual behaviour, being seen innately lacking in such purity, is therefore equated with the 'theft' or 'taking away' of 'childhood', or at least some of the associated properties.
"
Most of this is duly covered in the rest of the article, and what is more most of it would be refuted by any reference at all. For instance, I think more than one lay or professional opinion holds childhood as something like a time of innocence. Now, some of this could be put back into the main article after getting attributed, except for the fact that all of it is already there. Lotusduck 07:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The unattributed, the redundant and the weasel worded 

message: == 'While I am a free thinking person, this just feels icky to read...the fact that there is a words or words to describe adults viewing children as sexual objects doesn't make it acceptable in any way in  my opinion. Children are growing humans who need love and support and appection in healthy ways. There is nothing healthy AT ALL for the children (though perhaps for the adults in this case) who are seen as cute young adults with holes for probing or touching. OH, I get ill just thinking of it. And how did I find THIS CRAZY PEDOPHILE ACTIVISM GARBAGE? My young son made a music video and put in on a popular website like his friends have done, and I found that in a mere few weeks his video was LINKED TO A BOYLOVER WEBSITE!  So, yes, my son's video has been viewed by potential pedolphiles.  My first thought was to TAKE HIS VIDEO DOWN, but then I thought how unfair it was for us to have to do this after all of his hard work in this video...and then I thought about just how proud he is of it...so, instead of HIDING from these people, I will FIGHT THEM and all they STAND FOR. They need HELP. It's not right no matter HOW it's laid out for us to try to understand, or be brainwashed into thinking it's ok/acceptable.
SO, if one of you PEDOPHOLE ACTIVISTS happens to be reading this... I must ask you this: how would you like me to take your 7 or 8 year old sweet little daughter or son to a Pedophle Activism Camp so he or she can meet up with a 56 year old gray man with a boner...would you agree send your little child away and alone with this man for him to somehow manipulate your child into allowing his nasty dry old man hands on your sweetheart's body? I know you couldn't!!!!!! So you KNOW this is wrong...If it's your own child, it's wrong. No matter HOW you look it -->>> it, it's wrong..but when you look at it THIS way...it finally feels wrong to YOU, doesn't it?' ==
:I don't think that your comment has a lot to do with the content of the actual article that is being discussed here. I also don't really see your problem concerning the music video of your son. Just because it has been linked to by a boylove site that doesn't mean that your son is in any danger. It probably only means that there are people out there that like the video and as boylovers obviously like boys, it isn't even a very big surprise that some paid attention to it. Of course there are always some people out there that make dumb or rude comments on such video portals, but one should not generalize about a whole subgroup of society and as I said, I don't think that there is any danger for your son, if you taught him not to give out personal information about himself on the internet.--Greeny6000 22:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  _____ By SS _______  3-27-07 

message: I am shocked such biased reportage permitted on the Wikipedia. Neutrality concept in some respect involve society views, this article disproportionate contains views of deviants and criminals. Master administrators I urge your attention on this matter, perhaps it has even unlawful and media controversy can be damaging to the Wikipedia Project credibility. Danger to the children from dissemination of such harmful writings justify administrator interventions here, in my belief. Wen Hsing 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably wants the article deleted. Good luck. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  02:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course my approach would lessen the lean toward any view and be more informational.Lotusduck 04:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see the issue (in regards the article itself, not its content or views). Deleting this would be like pretending that the problem doesen't exist. I'll just close my eyes and LA LA LA the world will be perfect LA LA LA - rubbish. These things should be available for people to find out about, from all points of view. This is supposed to be an information source, not an opinionated blog. Besides, all you paedophile-haters out there would get bored if these articles weren't up, because then you'd never have found out about this group and therefore wouldn't have had anything to moan about ;-) Filecore 09:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master Administrator must review this horrendous propaganda 

message: I removed this sentence:
:"Apart from that, many also reason in the 1921 (First Congress for Sexual Reform, see Magnus Hirschfeld) tradition of Kurt Hiller on intergenerational activities that, based on the theory that sexual activities are most and foremost a variety of social communication among others, also simple consent (i. e. agreement, willing) to sexual activity needs not necessarily yield detrimental effects in itself as long as the informed party watches their steps, and that exclusively simple consent  yields the information needed for informed consent." 
Perhaps it's battle-scarred or something. Anybody who can figger what it means is welcome to write a coherent version and put it back. Bishonen | talk 23:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed incomprehensible sentence

message: Basically, almost everything under "The movement's use of scientific papers," "Rind et al. controversy," and "Other papers" is irrelevant and should be deleted.  The first sentence, "Many in the movement use scientific papers in their arguments, disputing some claims of psychological harm from child sexual abuse and using other papers to argue for changes in policy or public opinion." is fine, although it needs to be cited.  But the rest of this section doesn't present any information on how pedophile activists use scientific papers or any proof that they do at all (apart from the fact that some of the cited papers are hosted by ipce); instead, it's just a collection of findings that could be construed as pro-pedophilia in some way.  This section doesn't show that these papers are used by pedophile activists, which is the only thing that would justify the inclusion of information about them in this article.  This section isn't about pedophile activism, its just about pedophilia.  If an article on environmentalism says "many environmentalists use scientific papers in their arguments" it would be appropriate to follow that with something like "for instance, Greenpeace quoted a 1997 paper on global warming in literature sent to their members."  Saying instead, "a 1997 paper showed that carbon emissions cause global warming" (which is the equivalent of what this section does) would tell you nothing about environmentalism and would have no place in an article about it. --P4k 03:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "The movement's use of scientific papers"

message: The harm done is highly debated among professionals, Peer Commentaries on Green and Smith 2002, shows this with excellent clarity. Voice of Britain 18:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I dont have a copy of that. It sounds like you are trying to defend the minority arguments of the activists, and we are not here to do that. This article is way too pro peadophile activism and your reverting anything that attempts to NPOV it isnt good, SqueakBox 18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I do and it shows that it is highly debated among professionals. Fred Berlin for example does not seem very convinced of the always harm argument, and he is a prominent researcher. I will revert since you aint got yoour facts straight. Voice of Britain 18:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To show good faith I will not revert just yet, if you can source your claims within 2 days, I will not revert. Voice of Britain 18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets turn this around a bit. Can you give an online ref of any part of the medical community that supports activists claims? Give one example of a country where adult-child sex is legal? Reference that these groups are considered by anyone to be ethical? SqueakBox 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had much recent experience of SqueakBox also. He frequently edits from a POV basis and ignores facts.--Vintagekits 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth are you talking about? Do you have anything to say about paedophile activism? If not please move along, SqueakBox 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment is on you and your editing which is not fact based it is POV based.--Vintagekits 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have come here to attack me and have nothing to offer please go away. if you have something constructive to say about Paedophile activism please join in the debate. Perhaps you know of a country where child/adult sex is legal? etc, SqueakBox 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Article talk pages, like this one, are only for discussing articles. If anyone wants to discuss editors then another venue should be used, such as the editors' talk pages, RfCs, AN/I, etc. -Will Beback · † · 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed and Vintage is very welcome here to help resolve the editing dispute we have by focussing on the specifics already outlined by Voice of Britain and myself, SqueakBox 22:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The proble with the greater medical community is it implies that a substantial minority may not be unconvinced. You might be able to find the odd doctor who agrees with PA but a lesser medical community, that implies like thousands upon thousands at the least. Perhaps almost the entire community could be added if we have some solid sources for medics who are convinced by these arguments. Again generally harmless is so vague that it could mean anything and therefore should not be included, SqueakBox 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV edit build on non-facts