Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/Archive 1

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Saturday, August 2nd, 02003.
A matter of time. Now we have it: North American Man-Boy Love Association. Now is the time for all good men to go to work.
-- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick
:Fixed.  My first article reversion.  :-( is now :-)  Maybe this page needs to be protected.  Daniel Quinlan 02:17 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::Page protection should not be used except in extreme circumstances.  MB 03:57 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:::I found the note "NAMBLA believes that young people have a right to choose their sexual partners" tendentious. The way I changed it may not be seen as neutral either, I just think that a sentence as the one I quoted cannot stand alone. Get-back-world-respect 01:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: North American Man-Boy Love Association

message: Yesterday I went to Berlin's meeting of wikipedians and spoke with the head of the German wikipedia organization, Kurt Jansson. He said that the problems with the articles related to pedophilia and abuse were well known for quite some time and probably started with a posting in a forum for pedophiles about wikipedia as a great opportunity to spread the message that sex with adults is helpful for children. He already mentioned it in an interview with a newspaper in order to increase awareness of the problem. In the German pages the most notorious abuser is de:Benutzer:Mondlichtschatten, his english version - or at least one of them - is user:Moon_light_shadow. Here user:Zanthalon seems to play the main role. Checking their contribution lists tells easily which articles need a complete rewrite: List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles, Childlove movement, pedophilia, Child sexuality, Child pornography, Child sexual abuse, Capturing the Friedmans, Rind et al.. I put the german articles on the list of articles that lack neutrality and need more care - the latter was immediately reverted by guess who. Please help taking care of the trouble. Get-back-world-respect 12:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Child sexual abuse]]

message: The official name of this organisation is the North American Man/Boy Love Association, using a stroke (/) rather than a dash (-) as has been done incorrectly here on Wikipedia. The name of this article should be changed to reflect this. --Zanthalon 01:25, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect this may cause problems with the Mediawiki software. Sorry. David.Monniaux 18:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Name

message: As somebody who has extensive background in researching the history of children's rights movements, from mainstream child "protectionists" to the radical child "liberationists" such as Richard Farson, I find it amusing that people who have apparently no understanding of the history of the gay rights movement in general or the NAMBLA organization in particular would invest the time to flaunt their ignorance for others to see.
The edits I have made to this article are in perfect keeping with publicly known -- though obviously seldom accessed -- facts.  The FBI conducted a two-year investigation into NAMBLA, infiltrated the group, even managed to procure a copy of the membership roster, but still concluded that the organization was innocent of any law violations.  One of the men responsible, Walter Harlan Echols, who wrote the well-known book "I Know My First Name Is Steven" assisted in this process.
Membership to NAMBLA is open to anybody, regardless of sexual orientation, age, sex, ethnicity, etc., who agrees with eliminating age-based laws restricting sexual behavior.  To claim that NAMBLA is an "organization of pedophiles" is innaccurate in that some controversial public figures who were NOT pedophiles have admitted openly in the past to being members (again, this is a matter of public record).  Notwithstanding that the membership is undoubtedly most pedophiles due to the social stigma attached to the objectives of the group, to call NAMBLA an "association of pedophiles" merely because the political objectives of the group seemingly benefit pedophiles is as honest as claiming that the ACLU is an alliance of secular atheists simply because a few of them happen to be members with self-interests that correspond to the stated goals of the organization.
Any edits that are not based on fact should and will be stricken.
:If a Soccer Club is open to non-soccer players, should we stop calling it a club of soccer players? The recent edits are highly dubious. I can see no legitimation to call the founding "as a response to a sustained campaign of police intimidation and harassment of local gay teenagers". Also, it is absurd to write it has been "cleared of legal wrongdoing". It should be stressed that authorities deem strong observation as necessary, not that the group could not yet be proven to have broken the law. It is also not neutral to stress the official stance of NAMBLA that it aims at "empowering youth to make their own decisions regarding sexuality". It is more or less consensus among observers that the group's main aim is not empowering youth but pedophiles. The innuendo about alleged "moral equivalence between homosexuality and pedophilia" is just pathetic, abusing children cannot be compared to the free choice of homosexuals to live their sexuality. Statistics "which indicate that most sexual molestations are crimes of opportunity committed by otherwise normal heterosexual men" are not to the point here. This is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda forum for pedophiles. Get-back-world-respect 15:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The aim is both actually.  You are, and have been, the only one talking about abuse in this context.  Who else is? lysdexia 16:13, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not contribute in subject areas about which you know very little 

message: That some would see dubiousness in what is tantamount to setting the record straight denotes a problem with the person who thinks truth is dubious, not the record-straightener.  Even negative accounts of NAMBLA acknowledge that its history traces back to a series of police incidents involving gay youth in the highly charged political atmosphere of 1970s Boston.  Two groups emerged from this time, GLAAD and NAMBLA.  Inserting factual information into an article that (at least professes to be) about NAMBLA is about as clear-cut of a case as can be made.  Indeed, the entire concept of Wikipedia rests upon it.
That NAMBLA has been cleared of legal wrongdoing is simply stating a fact established by records which any person with some ingenuity and a little spare time can retrieve from authoritative sources, and is absurd only insomuch as the claims that the Sun rests at the center of the Solar System are also absurd.  Anybody who reads that the investigation was subject to intense scrutiny for a number of years can see that "strong observation was deemed necessary," so it hardly needs to be repeated.  If doing so makes some people feel better, they can add a reiteration;  however, removing the entire statement because a few individuals with axes to grind think that it portrays the organization in too much of a positive light is the very definition of absurd on a source designed to explicate fact, and debunk fiction.  Sure, NAMBLA has yet to be found guilty of legal wrongdoing and so has the AMA, Sierra Club, the NRA, and countless other organizations.  What is important here is that authorities launched and inviestigation, and that the investigation turned up no evidence of legal impropriety, a fact some conveniently want to omit from the equation.
"Empowering youth to make their own decisions regarding sexuality" is the very essence of NAMBLA's position.  Whether that empowerment leads to twenty-somethings getting in bed with fifteen-year-olds, seventeen-year-olds having sex with nineteen-year-olds  without the ninenteen-year-old being added to a list of sexual predators for the remainder of his or her life, or even teenagers telling old people that they're sick pervers who can fuck off is irrelevant here.  The benefits to pedophiles would be secondary to a minor's self-determination and possibly not even come into existence at all.  I suppose the same argument can be made that those who oppose misoginy laws simply wanted to divorce their spouses and marry black people, but serious people shouldn't such an argument seriously.
The innuendo about alleged "moral equivalence between homosexuality and pedophilia" maybe pathetic in your eyes, but it's the case that Christian conservatives are trying to make.  Is there something against hearing all sides of the argument that offends you?  If so, perhaps you should move to Pakistan.
Abuse of children is not comparable to consenting activity, but I think NAMBLA's larger point is to stress that age is a poor factor in determining what sexual activity constitutes the latter and what sexual activity belongs to the former.  Again, this is not an argument that I am making, but an argument that NAMBLA is making.  As such, it has every right to have a space on supposedly objective explanation of NAMBLA's history, purpose, critics, and legal difficulties.
If you want a board where you can pump out your OPINIONS, this isn't the place.  If you want to convince me that your offense at factual information is reason enough to strike said information from an article, then perhaps Wikkipedia is not the place for you. (anonymous)
:I insist that it does not have to be stressed that NAMBLA "was cleared of any wrongdoings". If no wrongdoings are reported the reader knows that no serious wrongdoings are known to wiki authors. Redundance cannot be healed by adding more of it. If you know of investigations important to know about the Sierra Club go and add it to that article.
:If you have sources proving your version of the history (foundation because of police harrassment of gay teenagers) you can insert it. I find it extremely dubious given that the organization names itself MAN-boy "love" and given that no one else has supported this version up to now.
:It is my impression that it is not mainly Christian conservatives who are trying to include pathetic innuendo about alleged "moral equivalence between homosexuality and pedophilia" but pedophiles who want to abuse homosexuals by saying "look, they were once persecuted once as well, and now people turn on us although we only love boys - that is why we should be granted the right to abuse them".
:Abuse of children includes what pedophiles like to call "consenting activity" as children are not able to understand the consequences of sexual activity, and they are easily seduced. Adults have a special duty not to abuse their superior knowledge, experience, skills of persuasion, power, etc. 
As reverts seem to be chosen over discussion until consensus can be found I asked for protection. Get-back-world-respect 01:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't given a shred of evidence that "children" (Everyone is a child of someone, so this is a poor word choice.) aren't able to understand those consequences.  There are plenty of legal adults who are less qualified to have sex than those illegal children.  Your unfounded opinions and insults against children are ageist discrimination and ignorant, prejudiced moral outrage.  Children participate in many activities, legal but not necessarily ethical, moral, or logical, whose consequences aren't known to them, under the behest of domestic and|or social influences with no reason other than tradition and good intentions.  What do they know if they aren't willing to take apart their customs, and what do you if you aren't? lysdexia 16:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious?  What is dubious about a facutal account? 

message: I was onder the assumption that many members were advocating for equal laws for gays and heterosexuals with regards to the age of majority.  For example, in Canada it was ruled unconstitutional that homosexual anal sex was outlawed for anyone under the age of 18, yet the age of concent is 14 (with a few restrictions).  Now homosexual and heterosexual sexual realationships can occur with people aged 14 and above (with a few restrictions).
I also suggest you take a visit to WikiProject fact and reference check.  If people cannot agree on the wording, at least they can agree on the facts at hand after verifying the resources. --ShaunMacPherson 05:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pederastry 

message: It is true that NAMBLA members are interested in homosexual activity, but this does not in any way mean that the rest of the gay community outside NAMBLA's small membership share any of the views of this organization.
This article comes far to close to using the words 'gay', 'pedophile' and 'NAMBLA member' interchangably.  I feel it requires a serious rewrite.  As a friend of quite a few GLBT people, i find this association not only entirely inaccurate, but offensive.  I may attempt to rewrite the article without these associations, however i feel someone with a better understanding of NAMBLA would do a better job.
I do not feel my lack of knowledge about NAMBLA has anything to do with the legitimacy of my complaint.  The suggestive tone of this article goes well beyond simply stating the sexual orientation of the members of the organization.  It associates the hundreds of millions of GLBT people on this planet with something that they may find equaly if not more repulsive than any strait person may.
:If you wish to edit an article on Wikipedia, there had better be a good reason why you choose to do so apart from vague "feelings" about discomfort from associations that you perceive to exist in the text.
:A good reason to edit an article would be that the article contains factual inaccuracies.  If this is the case with the NAMBLA article, feel free to edit the incorrect information.  If there is no incorrect information, perhaps you should reconsider your calls for rewriting the article, as they would then have to be nothing more than an inability to cope with reality.  
:The article is written in a way that leaves no doubt that "gay" and "pederast" and "pedophile" are not interchangeable.  The fact that these terms are used at all should clue you in that these categories of people are not being jumbled together incoherently under one label.  Since NAMBLA was a splinter group from an ad hoc gay civil rights committee in Boston, it only makes since that there is considerable overlap in views (not ALL of them) and members (Harry Hay, David Thorstad, etc.).  Again, if this makes you uncomfortable, then I daresay that you need to learn to cope instead of trying to edit away verifiable information.
:Lack of knowledge about NAMBLA is certainly pertinent to the value of your input on the article.  This article is neutral and does not assert one normative position over it another.  It is a fair historical account of various political movements, what they have tried to accomplish, and how their relationships with one another have evolved over time.  You have no knowledge about this aside from your mantra that "gays aren't child molestors." Because this article is not about that, you have nothing to add to it.
:The Catholic church took five hundred years to apologize for the agenda-driven priests and zealots making uninformed criticisms of Galileo's advanced understanding of science.  How long will it take you to stop beating your little drum and face the facts? Corax 05:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfair gay associations 

message: To the gay rights activist known as Adam Carr:
I noticed in your recent edits that you have a horrible penchant for editing away verfiably accurate information with imaginary claims cooked up in your activist mind.  But you should be reminded that good advocacy never consists of lying.
NAMBLA has never been an organization for "male homosexual paedophiles."  It has never defined itself as such.  The self-defined purpose and nature of the group is available for everyone to view.  Furthermore, its membership has often included individuals who do not have a sexual attraction exclusively toward prepubescent children (which is the definition of a pedophile).
Strangely, the factual information surrounding Byrne's prosecution of the twenty-four GAY men was stricken from the article, yet none of the highly suspect yellow journalism included in the "criminal allegations" section was touched.
Could it be that your entire purpose for editing the article was not to improve its quality by incorporating additional factual information, but instead was to misrepresent NAMBLA in an all-too-ironic demonstration of the modern gay rights movement's decision to "distance [itself] from anything even remotely related to youth sexuality"?
Be honest, here.
----
*My agenda was to remove the tendentious pro-NAMBLA editoralising from the article. Beyond that I don't intend being drawn into polemical arguments with anonymous editors, or indeed with anyone. 
*I agree with you that the strict definition of "paedophile" is a person attracted to pre-pubescent children, and that not all NAMBLA people met this definition, since some were interested in having sex with adolescents rather than children. I think the standard term for this is ephebophile, so I will change the opening sentence accordingly.
*I removed the detailed account of the Boston trials because it was hopelessly polemical and not really to the point.
*I have no detailed knowledge of the cases in the "criminal allegations" section, so I left it alone. If you know this section to be inaccurate, you are free to edit or delete it.
Adam 07:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tendentious Material? 

message: Can I suggest a possible way forward here?
It seems to me that in the past year or so a lot of information has been added to this article that is extremely helpful. It has helped to show (on the basis of verifiable information) that NAMBLA is not just a criminal organisation, but has some important ideas to offer, ideas that need serious consideration at the very least. 
On the other hand, there is something not quite right about the style in which a lot of this material is written. It's too much "from the barricades", so to speak--fine in a polemical piece with a certain stance, but not suitable for an encyclopedia entry. Consider as an example:
"The gay community surprised Byrne by fighting back. Staff members of the newspaper the Fag Rag sensed that the bust was politically motivated. They believed that Byrne repeatedly used the strategy of exposing sensational "vice rings" in order to garner publicity before elections. On December 9, they organized the Boston-Boise Committee, a name chosen to reference a similar reign of hysteria that gripped Boise, Idaho in the 1950s. The committee served its purpose: Byrne's exaggerations were largely dispelled, and all but three of the accused were acquitted. But more importantly, it was this committee that led to the formation of NAMBLA."
I believe that every factual statement made here is probably true and can be sourced. But it is not written in a neutral way. Here is a more neutral version:
"Organised gay opposition to Byrne started to emerge. It was suspected that Byrne’s actions were politically motivated.  (Wasn't he always exposing sensational "vice rings" just before elections?)On December 9, a group of gay activists organised the Boston-Boise Committee. (The name was intended to refer to a similar situation in Boise, Idaho in the 1950s.) The pressure brought to bear by the committee led to all but three of the accused being acquitted. But more importantly for the purposes of this article, it was this committee that led to the formation of NAMBLA."
To Adam Carr and his supporters I'd say this: Insofar as your objections are a response to the biased STYLE of much of the writing I think they are valid and could perhaps be met by revisions along the lines suggested above.
To Corax and his supporters I'd say: your information looks fine to me--it is, as far as I can see, verifiable and accurate. But some of it needs to be rewritten in a style that will hopefully make it more acceptable to a wider range of people and may perhaps do something to prevent large-scale attacks on your valuable work.
Would fellow-editors be favourable to the idea of me attempting similar edits like the one above with a view to achieving a version that might at long last put an end to the unproductive edit wars waged over this article?
----
*I didn't say NAMBLA was a criminal organisation. So far as I know it has never been prosecuted as an organisation, as presumably it would have been if the FBI believed that it had committed or facilitated illegal acts. What I said was that it is (or was) an organisation of pedophiles, ephebophiles and their sympathisers, which seems so self-evidently true that I can't see why anyone would bother denying it. Who else would join such as organisation? 
*All this detailed stuff about what happened in Boston in 1977 is irrelevant to the topic of the article. All that needs to be said is that the organisation was formed against the background of those events, not the polemical and one-sided account currently given. Its purpose is to create a spurious link between the objectives of the gay rights movement and NAMBLA's objectives, a link which is rejected by virtually everyone in the gay activist community.
*More generally, the whole tenor of this article, and of Corax's comments above, is to suggest that NAMBLA's agenda is or was "youth liberation," rather than the desire of adult men to have sex with children or adolescents. This is self-serving and dishonest. It's OK to say that NAMBLA claims this, but it cannot be asserted as a matter of fact, because it is hotly disputed. Adam 05:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A way forward? 

message: I was surprised to see that this article is now unprotected again. It didn't seem to me as if all the disputes about it had been resolved.Hjs 11:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection message is a little misleading, pages can be protected just until an admin figures they can be unprotected without problems, not just until every issue is beaten to death on talk.  No problems so far. silsor 16:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I see--ThanksHjs 06:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason there have been "no problems so far" is that Silsor banned me under the 3R rule all of yesterday and today (despite himself being a participant in the debate). But now I am back, and this article will soon be rewritten. Adam 09:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of protection 

message: Try this:
"NAMBLA was founded in December 1978 in Boston following police raids on a house in the Boston suburb of Revere, in which 24 men were arrested and indicted on over 100 felony counts of sex with boys aged eight to thirteen. A committee was set up to protest against these allegations, and as a result of pressure from this committee and from other sympathetic elements of the gay community, all but three of the accused were acquitted. Subsequently,Tom Reeves convened a meeting called "Man/Boy Love and the Age of Consent." Roughly 150 people attended, and about 30 decided to form an organization, the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)."
---from hjs
The statement that men accused of serious crimes were acquitted "as a result of pressure from this committee" is still an assertion and a highly improbable one. Even if this article was about the Revere case, the statement would need to be supported by evidence, but since it is not, the statement should be deleted. The only relevant point is that NAMBLA grew out of the agitation around that case. Adam 09:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another version 

message: * The claim at the beginning of Adam's version that "The group argues that children or adolescents can give meaningful consent to sexual relations, and that sex between adults and children or adolescents can be healthy and liberating for both partners." is redundant.   Two paragraphs down it is repeated in the section which states: "NAMBLA's concrete political objective is the repeal of age of consent laws. In 1980 a NAMBLA general meeting passed a resolution, proposed by Tom Reeves."  Furthermore, the claim that the group argues that "children or adolescents can give meaningful consent" is inaccurate.  It claims that SOME adolescents and children can give meaningful consent -- and that age is a poor predictor of when consent can be given.  Thus their call for a repeal of age-of-consent laws.
* The second paragraph which explains a critical view of NAMBLA is far too comprehensive to be in an opening summary paragraph.  The original version of this article, wrongly touted as the wrong version when it was protected, did a wonderful job of giving both sides of the argument without going too in-depth.  I moved the large paragraph to an appropriate subsection titled "Critics" -- which, by the way, repeated almost all the information contained in the opening paragraph.
* Similarly, the section on NAMBLA's purposes is also far too in-depth for an intro section.  In the "wrong version" that was protected, this was under the subheading "Purpose."  Apart from a summary explanation, this is where the paragraph belongs now.
* Adam insists on calling gay groups that favored abolishing the age-of-consent laws "radical."  This is unadulterated POV and has no place in the article.
* Lastly, there is a major POV problem with the following paragraph: NAMBLA supporters counter these statements by saying that they misrepresent NAMBLA's views. They contend that NAMBLA opposes only the "arbitrary criminalization of otherwise positive relationships based solely on the rubber stamp of age." This assetion, however, contradicts the NAMBLA policy adopted in 1980, which calls for the abolition of all age-of-consent laws without qualification.
This assertion contradicts the policy nambla adopted?  Does it really?  According to what besides Adam's POV?  NAMBLA fights that 'arbitrary' criminalization of otherwise positive relationships by insisting on keeping rape and assault laws on the books for ALL relationships, while removing age-based laws as a deciding factor in who can have sex with whom.
There is nothing contradictory about that, and saying there is openly in the article is about as POV as I can stomach.
Before Adam does any reverts, I highly suggest he comment on this discussion page to avoid another war. Corax 16:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Adam's Version is Propaganda and Why I've Altered It 

message: Thank you for initiating yourself into the highly Quixotic "Campaign To Save Children By Manipulating the Content of the Wikipedia NAMBLA article."  [Personal attack removed]
First, NAMBLA does not argue that age-of-consent laws prohibit relationships that are ALWAYS beneficial, or that that age-of-consent laws NEVER protect children, only that they are so overly broad that they sometimes criminalize otherwise harmless relationships.
Second, the purpose of an introduction is to provide an overview of the main points of an article.   In this context, your insistence on inserting a lengthy paragraph about common criticisms of NAMBLA is grossly out of place, not only because it is far too detailed for an intro but also because the information contained therein is later repeated in the body.  [Personal attack removed]
Thanks. Corax 10:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed some personal attacks in the above.  Basically, NAMBLA is not a popular organization, and the introduction needs to reflect this to some degree. Samboy 11:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Samboy

message: I have taken the article back to my last edit, since I don't think anything that has happened since then is of any merit. As I said above, if Corax wants to add more factual material about the history and activities of NAMBLA, he should do so. For example - who is its current leadership? Does it hold conferences? Does it publish anything besides its website? What political activities has it conducted recently? If NAMBLA was a bona fide activist group, rather than just a network for pedos to swap tips on picking up boys and staying out of jail (as I suspect), there would be answers to these questions. So let's have them. I will continue to oppose the inclusion of all this tosh about the Revere case, Anita Bryant etc, which is both irrelevant and tendentious.
On the Thorstads - does Corax have personal knowledge that David and Daniel are two different people? If he doesn't I think I am correct in assuming they are not, since the coincidence seems too great. "Daniel" gets no Google hits outside the Curley case and I suspect he is either (a) a clerical error in those documents or (b) David's real name, Daniel being a nom de pedo (or possibly vice versa). Adam 14:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current status

message: Adam's version of the NAMBLA page is little more than a thinly veiled attempt at converting the factual page written by corax into an anti-NAMBLA screed.
The Boston-Boise committee, which spawned NAMBLA, was an important gay civil rights group, and its non-inclusion in the article is a glaring omission.
This article should concentrate on facts about NAMBLA, and the events which led to its creation in historical and sociological context.  Criticism of NAMBLA can be included in the criticism section, but this is an article about the facts surrounding NAMBLA, and not an article on what various people have called NAMBLA.
If denunciations by mainstream gay groups are included, then balancing comments by artists, intellectuals, and academics like Camille Paglia and Allan Ginsberg should also be included.
Non-derogatory facts about NAMBLA should not be attributed in the article to NAMBLA's "supporters" or "sympathizers."  It is possible to know the facts about NAMBLA without being a booster.
The mainstream gay movement's denunciation of NAMBLA should be placed in its correct context, namely the mainstream gay movement distancing itself from everything having to do with youth sexual rights, in response to allegations of recruitment and predation from the political and religious right wing.  It should be noted that historical gay icons like Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing would be "registered sex offenders" by today's standards, due to the age of some of their sexual partners.
The article plays the game of declaring positions to the left of center as "advocating and promoting" an activity.  Saying, for instance, that criminal penalties for sexual activity with minors are disproportionally severe compared to those for non-sexual crimes against minors which do comparable harm, is not a call for people to run out and break the law.  It is political advocacy, and people need to make this distinction.
With regard to people who have association with NAMBLA, and commit crimes, the question should be whether minor-attracted adults who are members of political advocacy groups like NAMBLA are more or less likely to commit crimes than those who have no such membership, and in particular, are more likely to commit the kind of crimes which "shock the conscience."  Some reputable sociologists would suggest that working within an organized political advocacy group has a moderating effect on problematical behavior.
So clearly, for these reasons, and others too numerous to mention, we should return to the version of the article authored by Corax, which is factual and neutral, and isn't an attempt to grind an axe.
Hermitian
:An article can be factual and non-neutral. There are two or more sides to every issue and it is necessary to include every one, as appropriate, to arrive at an NPOV article. In general, the preference in Wikipedia articles is to present the criticism throught the article, rather than clumping it together. The Boston Boise Committee sounds like it may be worth its own article. Wilde and Turing may have been persecuted, but they were not members of NAMBLA. While NAMBLA may advocate for changing laws, the group also extols the virtues of "boylove." As for the comment Some reputable sociologists would suggest that working within an organized political advocacy group has a moderating effect on problematical behavior,  if that is the basis for any edit please provide a source that mentions this theory in relation to NAMBLA. Supporters of NAMBLA are welcome to edit this article, but like all editors, they must strive to achieve an NPOV outcome. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
:I must point out that Hermitian is a new user who has done only two edits, both to this page.  Samboy 22:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda 

message: The last paragraph in the "Isolation" section was a glaring blemish before I revised it to conform to reality and neutrality.
Take for instance, the statement that Tatchell supports only lowering the age of consent to 14, and even then they propose restricting the age at which it would be legal to have sex with 14-year-old to persons no more than three years older.  This, perhaps it was Adam Carr thought he read, but what the article in question  clearly states (and I quote) is the age of consent should be reduced to 14 for everyone - gay and straight – and consensual sex involving people under 14 should not be prosecuted providing there is no more than three years difference in the partners ages.
In other words, Tatchell supports unconditionally lowering the age of consent to 14 across the board, with no age-based restrictions whatsoever for the fourteen-and-up crowd.  Additionally, he believes that sex with the under-fourteen crowd is acceptable granted that there is no more than three years different in the partners ages.  
The current version has a reference, but the reference leads one to Tatchell's index page, which has nothing even closely connected to discussion on the age of consent on it.  Under the link "age of consent" there is a position paper, but even it states unequivically that OutRage! is proposing an element of flexibility in the age of consent: "sex involving young people under l4 should not be prosecuted, providing both partners consent and there is no more than three years difference in their ages".
Somebody here is doing an excellent job of really misrepresenting Tatchell's position.  Let's guess who.  (personal attack removed)
Lastly, the second-to-the-last sentence in the paragraph is woefully inappropriate for an encyclopedic article.  The version reads:  This would still prevent most "boylovers" legally having sex with males younger than 16.  According to whom?  Where is a source for this?  Who defines the term "boylover" here and gets to decide what the age boundaries are for boys who attract these "boylovers"?
I have made edits accordingly.  Corax 04:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Information and POV Commentary Removed 

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