Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 6

message: I say that we need to split this page into two sections when it deals with the arguments for and against... If you read Manual of Style, Words to Avoid you will see that the word "However" is mentioned there when it's used in the way that it is on this page. (I specifically refer to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the "Objectives of the Movement" section, but there are other times when this "However" is just better hidden within the text. Impression is being created that quotes ran on as paraphrases, and therefore an oppinion of the editor is being presented as one of the original author. For now i will not change anything, not to start up another revert war. Beta m (talk)
:Sounds like an OK idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Recent edits have implemented this, but it is still far from ready for removing the tag. See recent edits of selectively quoting sources in very pov way. 216.131.220.133 17:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposition to remove NPOV notice 

message: The Danish Pedophile Association (DPA) has not been re-formed. A group of its former members have only decided to make its website available. According to its website:
:"We would have liked to have had sufficient resources to re-establish a counselling for pedophiles, but realizing the state of things, we find this impossible for the time being. For this reason the purpose so far is solely the continuation of a website in order to give the public access to more varied views in the debate on pedophilia. No meetings, no members, no statutes, only this informative website on the Internet as a unique source of scientific information regarding pedophilia and related topics. Any remaining references to the DPA on this website are to be considered "historical material" regarding the now abolished association. What will happen later has not been decided yet. The former association's P.O. Box has been closed. The group behind this new website calls itself the 'DPA Group 04'."
--Zanthalon , 03:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Danish Pedophile Association

message: Paranoid made the following edit summary "Due to the way Wikipedia formats floating images, the order should apparently be reversed". Actually this is ot totally correct. The way images are formatted is determined by the skin applied t o the page. If a user is using Classic, Nostalgia or Cologne Blue, the images appear one way since the floats are not cleared. Users using MonoBook will see the images vertically, since each float appears below the preceeding one. Since the default skin for Wikipedia is MonoBook, I have changed the order back to the way it was before. --Zanthalon , 16:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Order

message: :"This view does not take into consideration the research that shows that in the early stages of a child's development they are unable to make informed and clear decisions. Many pyschologists view teaching young children about sex as being damaging to children, and it is only later in life that they are mature enough to handle these concepts."
What research? Which psychologists?
:"Objections to the ethical framework are that a child is not mature enough to be able to have the freedom to withdraw from an abusive relationship and can be very easily coerced into maintaining this relationship with a pedophile. In most Western countries, the consent of parents and ongoing communication with them is not a consideration when prosecuting child abusers. Also, many child psychologists would not agree that a child's relationship with a pedophile is in harmony with that child's normal development."
As far as I know, nobody has ever publicly spoken out against this ethical framework. We need substantiation of these 'objections to the ethical framework'. Otherwise, this paragraph looks like nothing more than an attempt by Wikipedia to distance itself from a socially unacceptable viewpoint.
And once again, which child psychologists? --Zanthalon, 16:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel Words, Part II

message: Wikipedia will reflect the consensus in the world as a whole.  We are a scoreboard for where the current debate is.  Our policies -- like Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research -- mean that we are fair scorekeepers, but no more.  So if you are winning the medical debate, that will be reflected here.  If you are winning the public perception debate that will be reflected here too.  But if the movement is losing these debates in the wider world -- which by its own admission it is -- you cannot improve your position with a wikipedia article, rather the current state of the debate will be reflected here as well.
Dreams of a wikipedia article that is more beautiful or clean than the debate elsewhere are misplaced.  That's not what the wiki is for.  Thanks. -- 216.131.222.69 17:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's clarify what wikipedia is about: the movement cannot win (or lose) a battle here