Talk:History of pro-pedophile activism

message: The most immediate thing needed is a proper introduction. Next would be sections and proper style of citations. -TlatoSMD 17:08, 8 May 2006 (CEST)
:Yes. Skinnyweed 00:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up

message: This article was used as a reference in an ongoing discussion. A conservative poster has denied conservative/religious groups could possibly sign the petition, and has thus deleted the list entries which displeased him. He shows no evidence of having read the article quoted along with the list. I think this page should be protected in order to avoid POV-pushing. Amorim Parga 13:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1979 petition support list 

message: Hey !
Some months ago, I translated this page in French, what lead to violent discussions, and the decision of clearing it from the French Wikipédia until it would be neutral. Now, there is a new History of pedophile activism, using as sources almost 60 different essays and articles, mainly from mainstream media, historian or psychologist — that is non-paedophiles. I think it could be useful to use some elements of the French article in the English one, which is quite incomplete, quite anglo-centered (?), and quite unneutral. Glotz 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: French version of this article

message: This short article on a marginally notable subject should be merged inot the larger Pedophile activism, SqueakBox 05:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please no spontaneous merges. as you can see, the discussion is being hosted on the talkpage of the other article. --Jim Burton 18:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: This article needs to incorporate anti pedophile activist history in order to be NPOV, SqueakBox 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? The article is specifically here to document the history of the pro - pedophile movement, not any one particular culture war. A decent article about a POV treats that POV as the subject matter, e.g. Gay liberation. Whilst specific historical events do not require separate accounts of either side's POV or activities, e.g. Battle of Sedan or Stonewall riots, historical movements do. Jim♥Burton 06:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this article the opposition and criticism should be incorporated within the flow of the text, rather than being segregated at the end. It's important to reflect the contemporaneous criticism that the "movement" was receiving, and the legal and cultural landscape in which it occurred. <B> ·:·</B> Will Beback  ·:·  07:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this point, and it's worth noting that the current article fulfils such requirements (to some extent, as far as I've read). What I oppose is the idea that the article should consider 'anti pedophile activism' as an equal concern, as part of the subject matter Jim♥Burton 08:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Could someone explain to me why the page entitled "History of pro edophile activism" still exists? The title is clearly misspelled, and any discussion from that page could easily be transferred to the discussion page of the correctly spelled page. If there's no real reason why the incorrectly titled page still exists, could someone please delete it. What's extra funny is that it still redirects to "History of pro pedophile activism," as if someone would actually search in Wikipedia for the incorrect title. I would also appreciate if someone could explain to me how the deletion process works, for I'm still learning my way around Wikipedia.
Thanx in advance, Homologeo 06:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see about deleting the misspelled redirect. For general info see WP:deletion.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 07:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of Wrongly Titled Page