Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 10

message: It seems inaccurate, to say the least, to characterize a movement whose goal is to end legal discrimination against pedophilic sex practices, as a movement which advocates pedophilia.  At first, the difference might seem slight.  But careful evaluation will reveal just how important the distinction is.
Advocacy is promotion.  It's the championing and advancement of an idea, lifestyle, or practice.  A pedophilia advocacy movement would be trying to spread the practice of adult/prepubescent sex, proposing that everybody should engage in pedophilic acts.  A careful reading of the article, however, indicates that it's not about people trying to get people who have never committed pedophilic acts to engage in adult/prepubescent sex.  It's more about simply ending criminalization of people who have already chosen to engage in said acts.
Calling the article "pedophilia advocacy" makes as much sense as calling somebody who believes a woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants one, an "abortion advocate," when in fact the person is only advocating a right to choose abortion, and not the actual act of abortion. Corax 01:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your argument is plain wrong. Wikipedia's own definition of "advocacy" is excellent, reflecting how the word is generally understood: Advocacy is an umbrella term for organized activism related to a particular set of issues. The issue is paedophilia. "Advocacy" does not mean "encouragement" at all in this sense (nor, really, in any sense but a very loose colloquial usage). Compare with child advocacy, which does not advocate more children. The childlove movement are without question paedophilia advocates. They speak in favour of paedophilia, they lobby for its acceptance, they defend it. These are thelements that make one an advocate. I suspect that your dislike of the title stems from your dislike of "paedophilia", which is a trigger word.James James 08:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Child advocacy" is a misnomer.  The appropriate term is "children's rights advocacy," just as the appropriate name for this article would be "advocacy for decriminalizing pedophilia." Corax 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the name change in this article? 

message: Although there are still additions to many of these sprawling discussions, this is all too huge. I think we should just blanket archive everything up to today, and people can just restate their arguments like they constantly do besides. Good idea? Yes. Lotusduck 15:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. = Silent War = 05:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  are we all okay with archiving this talk page? 

message: While the IPCE is reasonably scholarly, I don't believe it falls under any category for a wikipedia source. So it can stay as an interesting external link, but as far as linking to specific IPCE articles talking about certain psych papers, I'm pretty sure we're doing wrong. People can get copies of the original papers through their public libraries and can find commentaries from any perspective they like anywhere on google. Lotusduck 20:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ipce is a collection of documents. In these cases, we're citing documents hosted on Ipce as we're referring to them. We cite Giels and then give a link to her ideology: http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/i_did_not_know.htm . Ipce did not write it, it's simply a transcript of her newsletter where she proposed those ideas which we are describing. // paroxysm (n) 23:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Because it's a published source. // paroxysm (n) 23:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPCE links 

message: The picture being added to this page does not at all illustrate pedophile advocacy, and, besides perhaps shock value, adds nothing to it. A picture of a girl would be appropriate at our girl article, to visually elucidate the subject; it does not in the least make this article more informative, however. Before readding it please provide your reasoning. // paroxysm (n) 02:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of image

message: The most recent edits have pointed out a big error. A massive amount of the article conains weasel words, 
Here are some weasel words that are often found in Wikipedia articles:
    * "Some people say..."
    * "Research has shown..."
    * "...is widely regarded as..."
    * "It is believed that..."
    * "It has been suggested/noticed/decided..."
    * "Some people believe..."
    * "Many people say..."
    * "Critics/Experts say that..."
    * "Some historians argue..."
    * "Considered by many..."
    * "Accusations..."
    * "Apparently..."
    * "Allegedly..."
    * "Serious scholars/scientists/researchers..."
    * "Mainstream scholars/scientists/researchers..."
Apparently we need to find a source for every other sentance in this article. This is like that time I changed "Some psychologists say" to "Richard Green Proposed in a paper from the" etcetera, only everything I guess. Lotusduck 23:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some people say 

message: The following was removed:
: Members of the pedophile movement seek to avoid the stigma of the term "pedophile", which carries connotations of illness (Fagan, 2002), exploitation, perversion, and criminality. They promote the terms "childlover", "boylover" and "girllover" to replace pedophile. The terms have been popularized among pedophiles through the Internet. Lindsay Ashford in the Human Face of Pedophilia writes: Many have problems with the word pedophilia since its meaning has been so warped by society and the media. [It] has grown to take on the meaning and connotations of an evil person who lurks in parks. Many of us simply do not resemble or relate to this stereotype, so we have chosen to adopt terminology that better describes what we are.  Ashford says that childlove is "an emotional and spiritual attraction to young children that transcends a simply physical or sexual attraction to them."
The reasons given were that the "Fagan" reference is only "spuriously" connected, and that the Lindford quote is "non-notable". I know these are valid reasons (though i haven't read this Fagan reference), but it seems an awful lot could be removed on those grounds. Providing dead-on scientific references to every single claim is often not possible, especially not for underground movements where attempts at research is attacked by politicians for being immoral. Avoding the perceived stigma is a major motivation for the alternative terms. Is this really a controversial claim that needs to be cited scientifically and notably? Clayboy 18:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Over the past few weeks I have done looking and seen several places where it is stated by "Ch. lovers" (at their sites, etc.) that they want to avoid the stigma. If you can find at least three, I'd say that would be fair grounds for a claim. In fact, any site that uses alternative terms will probably say something of this nature somewhere. --DanielCD 14:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also: Some material is going to have to come from these sites. Perhaps Herostratus' project can help us reach a concensus on which ones are notable and long-lasting enough to deserve use. --DanielCD 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Fire? What fire? Just commenting; no fire on my part. --DanielCD 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I'm removing the following: 
There have been varying degrees of pedophile activism since the 1970s that can be traced to the social changes that occurred during both the 1960s and 70s. Encouraged by the increased tolerance for minorities and alternative lifestyles, underground pedophile groups began to go public in an effort to garner greater social acceptance (Schuijer, 1990). 
The references do not contain a Schuijer. Furthermore, the next sentace basically says the same thing as this one does, so I think it's perfectly acceptable to not look for this reference but instead just leave this redundant paragraph out. Lotusduck 23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truths removed 

message: I propose replacing these three sections with three sentences: 
:Research exists that supports the theory that not all sexual contact between adults and children is harmful. For example, in 1998, the American Psychological Association published a meta-analysis of studies of the correlation between sex abuse in childhood and the later stability of the child's adult psyche. The authors of the analysis found little correlation. [7] 
Joey Q. McCartney 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we want to something so blatantly stupid? Posts like this is borderline trolling as far as I'm concerned. --DanielCD 23:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: My meaning here is that just stopping by and asking to slash material isn't productive to those of us who would like some real constructive criticism. It feels like someone with an over-rightious attitude is calling us "stupid", and hence attracted a sharp response. However, as I see it, the problem is being remedied. --DanielCD 03:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the comment. I've read many of your posts and respect your work here. I am a newbie at Wikipedia (though not at editing), but I have been trying to follow the guidelines. It's a big article and big history, and perhaps I need to spend more time lurking before trying to contribute. Also, perhaps my suggested edit involves too much cutting of the article. But it was not my intent to troll or suggest anything inappropriate. Thanks for your patience. Joey Q. McCartney 06:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It does seem to me that detailed descriptions of research on pedophilia would belong, if anywhere, in the Pedophilia article. An article on Pedophile Activism, however, I think should include detailed descriptions of pedophile activists and groups and of their beliefs and goals, along with a simple statement that some research at least arguably supports their beliefs, and a link to the Pedophilia article, where all the scientific research should at least be cited, if not fully described. That puts things in their proper article and keeps the articles from being too redundant of each other. It's nothing personal, and again, I hope I'm not suggesting anything way out of line. I admit it's bold. Joey Q. McCartney 08:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: sorry about all the backslashes. I don't yet know what causes them. Joey Q. McCartney 08:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impacts..., The controversy... and Other Psychology... sections

message: In order to stimulate some ideas for this article, I invite everyone to view this page. Also, if you go to that page's history and click on "last" next to the edit I made at 01:06 today, it should show a side-by-side comparison of the actual, current Pedophile Activism and my rewrite (or the first few sections of both, anyway). 
My efforts may not be any better than the current article. Heck, they may be a lot worse. But I wanted to try, and to let others see. I felt like, if I'm going to experiment with major edits on such a controversial topic, I'd better not do it on the article itself! Thanks. Joey Q. McCartney 01:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I even read your edits, I'd just like to compliment you on the idea. I wish more people would do this for massive re-writes, they'd be a lot less confusing and people could get a chance to see all the changes. It's hard to check and revert rewrites before more changes start getting added on top, after all. Now I'll have a look... okay I looked at the difference between the first one in your history and the latest, a definate drastic improvement. Good job! It's good to see more psychology involved. Tyciol 17:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Joey Q. McCartney 22:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite I did of the first several sections of this article

message: You may not find the positions that the Pedophile Activists put forth accurate, but this is not the place to debate them.  If you wish to criticize the activism it belongs in a separate section, rather than peppering the factual presentation of the movement's goals with POV criticism.  These people are unpopular and few share their views, but that does not merit a different standard in the article. Tomyumgoong 08:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is the place where all viewpoints on the matter should be covered, pro, con, or whatever. "Neutral point of view" means giving all POV without showing bias for or against them. It is a common practice to rebut assertions as they are made. A criticism section is another way of handling it. But deleting sourced criticism is not appropriate. -Will Beback 21:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is an encyclopedia

message: I've been critical of the achievability of Wikipedia's "NPOV" policy for some time.  Because no article can ever include all the information pertaining to a certain subject, every article will be the product of the selective inclusion and exclusion of factual material.  The choice of which facts to include, which to omit, and the different degrees of elaboration of the various included facts inevitably create a filtered way of viewing reality, a view that is unmistakably tained by bias.
These pedophile-related articles provide the best examples.  Presumably, they have all been vetted of factually incorrect information.  However, because the vast majority of wikipedia editors are virulently opposed to the idea of pedophilia, every factual pedophile article contains a lengthy and detailed digression breaking down various "criticisms" that are nothing more than factual reports of people's opinions of the article's facts.  Because these opinions are included as attributions to others, they are technically "factual," but only insomuch as they factually state somebody's opinion.  The inclusion of these factual reports of opinions then triggers those with different opinions to play the same game.  They go out and fish for opinions of other "sources" which they can then attribute as a response.  The consequence of this cycle is that wikipedia articles dealing with highly controversial issues begin to morph into repositories of opinions, little forums where a person can engage in proxy debate by finding and citing others whose opinions are similar to his or her own.
What suffers is the important content -- the verifiably factual content for which a consensus exists.  Instead of constituting the bulk of the articles, the factual content ends up submerged into a swamp of murky and highly unencylopedic proxy debate.  This highly unfortunate practice should be remedied, perhaps by creating separate articles (titled something like "the pedophile controversy" or "the abortion controversy") where various opinions of people can be cited in a back-and-forth, tit-for-tat fashion.  Those who disagree should perhaps explain why Pedophile activism and NAMBLA both have "criticisms" sections consisting of several paragraphs each, while Republican Party (United States) has no such section.
I understand that everybody harbors strong opinions about certain issues, especially when those issues touch upon the safety and happiness of young people.  Nevertheless, this is an encyclopedia, not a political, religious or ethical debate forum.  It should make every effort to disentangle itself from the world of speculation and opinions, no matter how many sources express those opinions, and to stick to the world of undisputed fact. Corax 06:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and the Ubiquitous "Criticisms" Subsections

message: An encyclopedia should be allowed to show any article whatsoever. Nobody can say whats wrong or write since its not directly harmfull . Since its just information , not tending to one side or another , it must be able to relate anything. Its up to each one to have any reasons or views about the life , since its harmless and up to the point of view or culture one assumes.
Trying to say what to do , to any living being , is simply an imature discrimination. 
Lets try to accuse murderers , thieves , corruption and not to push somebodys life to and absurd point of view. Everybody is free to think . Why is the human-being so selfish to the point if tries to say whats imoral or not . There is no imoral or moral . All individuals should be free and taught about the consequenses of their acts . Thus they should choose what he wants to do .
Albert Johnstone , Colorado Springs
:Do you feel there is a point of view that is being suppressed in this article? Pais 19:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, what part of the article are you addressing, Albert? Hmmm "There is no imoral or moral"... in that case, you don't mind if I help myself to your stereo system? Thx! Herostratus 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT EVEN TO BE DISCUSSED