Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 14

message: Someone posted a plea on Wikipedia:Third opinion about the TotallyDisputed tag. Having read the discussion, it sounds like the problem is resolved; i.e. this article still contains a history of issues that had been challenged in previous archived discussions and those issues haven't been addressed. If that is the case, then the TotallyDisputed tag should stay. Perhaps someone could go through the archives (ugh, what a lot of work that looks like) and list the remaining issues that had been challenged, so that they might be addressed. -Amatulic 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: **Please revert your 3RR violation. Personal discussion does not belong on this page**
**What is this above? there is no 3rr violation, SqueakBox 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The opposers all got banned, and as their views now dont count a clear consensus was indeed a reality, SqueakBox 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What makes you so confident that I'm an SPA? Even if I am, you better read WP:SPA (f a b i a n) 16:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your contribs and the history of this article, SqueakBox 16:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact you know about SPA's etc makes me wonder whose sock you are, SqueakBox 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fabian discussion 

message: A few days ago, this article was merged with the history article. Although the user who merged it claimed that the (weak) consensus in favour of keeping the articles apart had changed, I found no discussion indicative of such a consensus.
Personally, I believe that the articles should be kept apart, as per the same reasons suggested in the last discussion I found on this issue. (f a b i a n) 10:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see it was 3 permanently blocked users and one user who changed his name before being permanently blocked in his new name who opposed the merge so I felyt it right to ignore their opinions and thus there was a consensus for the move, SqueakBox 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets have a proper vote or discussion on merging 

message: There were a number of individuals who were listed as being supporters of pedophilia, without supporting references.  Unsourced assertions of this nature should not be allowed to remain for one moment, regardless of whether they are true.  I am investigating the truthfulness of these claims and will add them back if sources are found.  Joie de Vivre 21:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst I personally think that this is silly, you will find proof within the aricles for the people themselves. Good luck, and please don't take too long over it 153.19.178.28 23:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed individuals listed as supporters

message: We have 101 and only 96 are turning up. Can someone better at these things than me please fix it? SqueakBox 21:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are all there; one thing you can do to check is to go to the last reference, and click on the little carat (^).  That will direct you immediately to the place on the page that the reference is used, and it will highlight it as well.  (At least it does on my Windows machine with Firefox).  Joie de Vivre 00:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I should've posted on talk--it was a coding error, which I fixed that day.  -Jmh123 01:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: Why should we do this in the opening couple of paragraphs? The DSM bears little relation to activism, and it just seems like we're listing "negative things" against pedophile activism, because we foolishly think that it "balances" the article (when it actually introduces subjectivity galore) 153.19.178.28 23:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With ref. to Mr Petersen, your revert was kind of a broadsweep on all the changes that I had done (as if the lot were vandalism or something). Surely not all are reverts? 153.19.178.28 23:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a new user with a controversial special interest and a perspective you apparently wish for the article to convey.  Normally on pages that are controversial, edits are discussed on the talk page first.  -Jmh123 23:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a tag to this page to underscore and suppor twhat Jmh123 said. DPetersontalk 00:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your question, it makes sense to present the existing view of pedophilia, as represented by objective, mainstream sources like the DSM, that the activists are working to change. They are not acting in a vacuum. The alternative to DSM would be to represnt the often cruder viewpoints of pedophilia held by less professional commentators. - ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 02:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to anon user, I don't think your edits are inferior.  I do think that that the points made by Jmh123 and Will Bebecak address your concerns.  DPetersontalk 13:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why must we refer to DSM? 

message: Hi, all.  So, it looks like we actually got somewhere in the section titled #Let's fix the article as far as determining what to do; we had several editors in agreement that bringing this article to NPOV was a good first step.  The momentum was lost before any changes were made, so let's get it going again.  Currently the  tag is still up, but we haven't identified what content should be changed in order to bring this article to NPOV. I actually don't see much that is explicitly POV; the material is presented in terms of what the activists do, say, and believe, i.e. "this is what they do", "this is what they believe".  It is not used as a platform for espousing or legitimizing personal views as far as I see.  However, Squeakbox had advocated for including the template, so I thought that perhaps he could outline the things that need changing most.  It's not good to leave an article hanging around in a state of dispute, so let's fix it.  Joie de Vivre 13:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's been a couple of days.  I'm removing the totallydisputed tag.  If someone wants to put it back, they should explain why it is there and what needs to be changed in order to bring the article to NPOV.  Joie de Vivre 11:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article continues to strongly favor and "normalize" child sexual abuse and the molestation of children.  DPetersontalk 12:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For example, sections in the research section. DPetersontalk 12:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no section called Research, I really don't know where you mean.  Please be more specific about what information is problematic and what needs to be done to bring the article to NPOV.  Saying "it's legitimizing pedophilia" does not help bring the article to NPOV, we need to outline specific changes.  Joie de Vivre 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scientific Claims,"  Sorry about the miscue there.  Also see: "Papers supporting some activist opinions"  Too much there of questionable valdity. DPetersontalk 17:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK, thanks for clarifying.  Good, we've identified two areas that should be addressed.  OK, if these are of questionable validity, how do you want to demonstrate that?  Can you introduce any contextual arguments, i.e. similar studies that refute the claims?  Should they be removed altogether?  Would a Criticism section at the end help?  Just throwing out ideas here.  Joie de Vivre 17:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Joie de Vivre is right to point out that we need a more concrete reason to remove the said references to and summaries of said studies from the article. The papers currently referenced within the article appear to be legit. There is no doubt that a great deal of mainstream research will disgree with the findings of these works. However, the text clearly states that studies used by pro-pedophile activists to support their position generally criticize mainstream research findings, and suggest that there are ways to improve on the way mainstream research is conducted. However, since this article is specifically about pro-pedophile activism and its rationale, it makes sense to concentrate on the research that pro-pedophile activists utilize within their movement. Articles that deal with mainstream research into child sexual abuse are accordingly found within the article on that subject. Thus, in my opinion, the "Scientific Claims" and "Papers supporting some activist opinions" sections should stay as they are, unless more specific rationale is provided to support changes within the corresponding text.Homologeo 05:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem is it is still not clear why the TotallyDisputed template is in place.  I understand that the topic is upsetting, but we have upsetting articles all over the place, Torture, Fascism. I just want to get this article to NPOV.  We can't just slap an orange warning label on this one because we don't like it.  That isn't what the template is for.  If we can write a neutral article on Global warming, we can do it here too.  I am still waiting for the people who placed the template to explain what is wrong and what we can do to fix it.  Joie de Vivre 10:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what I see on one reading.  1) I do think the scientific aims and claims section appears biased.  Even though it is true that this is a section about what studies are used by pedophiles to rationalize their position, it is also true that these studies have been refuted.  The entry doesn't make that at all clear.  At the very least it should be stated that mainstream science does not concur or that studies exist to contradict these (and I don't mean with a disparaging dismissal as in the case of Rind). 2) There are "citations needed tags" throughout, because there are many unsourced statements. 3) There's a conflation between pedophilia and same-sex attraction in the entry as written that is exacerbated by virtually no discussion of age.  The statement by one organization that this is "a gay issue" seems to erase completely other possible forms of pedophilic acts and lump all of these together as one issue.  Relations between a 25-year-old male and a 14-year-old male, or between females of the same ages, versus a 50 year old man claiming he is having a love affair, including intercourse, with a 3-year-old girl--are we to assume that, to these organizations, both situations are the same in every respect?  4) Psychological harm is addressed, but physical harm is not.  Again, age is clearly a factor here.  -Jmh123 22:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise a number of good points.  I think all unsourced statements should be deleted now.  Unless the other improvements you suggest can be made, I support deleting the offending sections DPetersontalk 23:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I explained my problem with the "scientific claims" section here and got no responses.  --P4k 23:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct and all that material should be deleted now.  You have my support DPetersontalk 23:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's fix the article (round II)

message: "David.L "Dave" Riegel is mentioned - but his home page (http://www.shfri.net/dlr/) is not linked to his name. Should it be? If so, could someone who knows how do so?24.229.103.183 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested link

message: I think this article puts too much emphasis on Non-Abstinent Childlove and it's opponents. Non-Abstinent Childlove advocates "consensual" sexual relationships between adults and children. However, the article largely ignores Abstinent Childlove, which opposes child pornography and sexual relationships between adults and children. Instead, Abstinent Childlovers work towards social tolerance and repealing laws against fantasy-oriented activities, such as lolicon. There should also be mention of Anti-Childlove, which opposes social tolerance and fantasy-oriented activities. They usually express the opinion that all Childlovers pose a danger to children, regardless of their "stated" views on abstinence. These topics may be difficult to research, as different groups use different terms.{{subst:unsigned|68.1.124.88
:You've made the same comment twice, further evidence the pro and anti articles need merging, SqueakBox 20:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like any topic, we can only talk about Abstinent Childlovers if we have reliable sources for it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merting the two articles really makes sense.  That way both points of view can economically be cited, assuming there are reliable and verifiable sources to support statements. DPetersontalk 23:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Once again, it makes sense to merge the Pro and Anti articles together, for they both deal with the same topic - pedophile activism. One is the actual movement of individuals in support of advancing the pedophile perspectives on life, and the other is an attempt to counter such ideas and their influence on society. Both views deserve to be viewed from a neutral point of view. This is the key to making the two articles work well together on the same page. The goal should be to ballance the information, and to make sure that it is clear who is making what claims. Likewise, it is important to be as thorough as possible (to a reasonable degree of course), thus it's a good idea to distinguish the different stances that people take in regards to pedophile activism. This measns that the article should explain the different kinds of pro-pedophile and anti-pedophile activists there are. However, truth be told, until we're capable of bringing each of the two currently seperate articles to NPOV, it does not seem wise to merge the two. What's more, we need to finally reach some consensus on the issues that have been causing discord among the major contributors to these articles. It's now clear to all that change is necessary - the point is to determine what change is warranted, and how to make it reasonable enough for all (or most) editors to agree on.Homologeo 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully support independently bringing each article to NPOV.  However, merging the two together does not make sense. By that logic, should we merge the White supremacy and the Anti-racism articles together, on the grounds that it is not possible to present one phenomenon without presenting the opposition in its entirety?  I hate to sound like I am defending adult-child sexual contact, but melting two opposing camps into one article doesn't make sense.  Should we merge Pro-life and Pro-choice into Abortion debate?  If we can independently bring each article to NPOV, there is no need to merge the two.  Joie de Vivre 12:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Homologeo that merging the two articles is in order.  If someone can tell me how that is done, I will begin that process. DPetersontalk 21:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Merge.  First step is to open the process for discussion, thusly: Proposing a merger.  -Jmh123 21:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abstinent Childlove, Non-Abstinent Childlove, and Anti-Childlove

message: The result was no consensus to merge Pro- and Anti-pedophile activism. -- Jmh123
No consensus was achieved on this discussion. One can find a new vote for merging the two articles into Pedophilia below
#Yes Based on discussion above in this and other sections. DPetersontalk 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Will, criticism of the pro-paedophile movement should be included in this article and not hived of into a POV fork, but this article should not be about 'all activism relating to paedophilia, pro and anti', because that is just an arbitrary conjoining of two separate topics. --Coroebus 07:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Von. I'm not Dutch. XavierVE 11:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If so, that would be interesting. But do you have any evidence? From what I can see, this article was started with the current topic. If you are referring to the anti-p article, then isn't that a whole different topic? Samantha Pignez 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the separation which was started in the anti not the pro article but still an unwanted and non consensual separation, SqueakBox 22:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the objection. The version of the pro-p article from that time has no such material removed from it, making the anti-p article an original piece of work. You don't need consensus to start articles. Anyway, thanks for showing me. Samantha Pignez 22:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it was Jim's response to attempts to include anti pedophile material in what was then pedophile activism so I think I am right in saying we need to justify this separation and not see it as a default position. If I cant get consensus for merging I will consider afding this article, SqueakBox 22:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, I don't see any splitting of actual content. Anyway, I think that housing anti-pedophile material in its own article is a pretty smart move (since it is, you know... anti-pedophile) Samantha Pignez 22:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasnt logical then as the article on pedophile activism should have contained both pro and anti material. I believe Jim created the article to kee anti pedophile material out of the then pedophile activism article for his own pushing of pro pedophile activism and that this needs tio be urgently undone for NPOV reasons, SqueakBox 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Fringe view? What on earth are you talking about? I dont understand any of your poin ts in your last edit, and as to any fringe POVs I have, you've completely lost me. Can you try to reframe your points please, SqueakBox 22:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the vote so far, the idea that one article should encompass two movements is rather fringe. The idea that the article was actually "merged" or "should have" contained documentation of two POVs when the anti-p article was started is even more fringe IMO. Most people seem to accept that this article is centred on one movement, and always has been, no? Anyway, no need to take offence. Simply being outspoken does not lower the virtues of your argument, but just makes your task harder. Samantha Pignez 22:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This topic is not analogous to topics of racism or abortion and the individual making that comparison is not doing a valid audit of how controversial topics are handled on Wikipedia. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking - There is not the "anti-smoking article" and the "pro-smoking article", there is an article about smoking, period, with both viewpoints contained therein. Why, why on any earth that there is even a pedophile activism article or a pro-pedophile activism or an anti-pedophile activism... when it should simply be a sub-category under the pedophilia article (which, btw, is a shorter article than the pro-pedophile activism article... by far) is beyond the pale. The vast majority of the information in both the pro- and anti- articles is mostly trivial, unworthy of inclusion into Wikipedia in general. Both pro- and anti- should be merged into the main pedophilia article with most of the non-notability of these articles (vastly contributed by now banned members who are pedophile activists themselves) excised from the project. XavierVE 11:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but figutred merging the 2 articl;es was a first step toward merging both with pedophilia, SqueakBox 15:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see the point in having three articles that essentially cover the same subject.  It would be best to merge all three into one article.  Pedophilia would be the main article with the "Pro" and "Anti" articles merged into subsections.  In this manner the dispute between the two can be clearly stated in separate sections.  Otherwise, we should put the entire "Anti" article in the "Pro" article in a criticism section and then need separate sections in the Pedophilia article.  That would just be too much and too silly.  So, I'd suggest merging the two into the Pedophilia article.  Again, let's try to build agreement here.  I'll start a section to discuss this idea.
# Neutral - I don't think it really matters; the only substantive question in my mind is on length, and I think this is cuspy.  However, I think "pedophile activism" is a bad title, and should be re-worked before any merger.  --Haemo 22:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree to Merge?

message: The Pedophilia article contains far, far too much information that belongs on this page.  I've proposed that the relevant sections be merged here.  Exploding Boy 06:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is because this article (most of it) is duplicated in both places--a revert war is going on--merge this page into pedophilia, revert, lather, rinse, repeat.  It's the same material.  -Jmh123 06:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've placed a request on Requested moves, but there's no good reason for duplication of material, and there's especially no good reason to stuff the main pedophilia article with activism information, whether pro- or anti-.  If it becomes necessary, the relevant pages will be protected, and edit warrers will be blocked..  Exploding Boy 06:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: <strike>Mergefrom</strike>

message: This is currently listed at WP:RM, but there appears to be no poll as yet, and no prospect of consensus if one were to be taken. Feel free to set one up, but it's a waste of time IMO, especially in view of the failed proposal to merge with Anti-pedophile activism (currently a redirect, see Talk:Anti-pedophile activism#What happened to the article? and elsewhere in that talk page). Interesting discussion, and I commend the restraint of some editors! Hang in there. Andrewa 00:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: All editors: please use article talk pages for discussion of the relevant article(s) only.  Take other discussion to user talk pages or email.  Thank you.  Exploding Boy 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page guidelines

message: Jmh recently deleted a section listing individuals that supported and opposed pedophile activism. This was probably a good move; I would imagine these individuals probably have nuanced views and might not wish to be identified in this particular way. However, I think some of this information could be integrated elsewhere within the article. Individuals who explicitly identify themselves as opponents or supporters, such as Ashford, should certainly be mentioned, and I think we can find places for some of the quotes of people like Califia, Green, Levine, Paglia, Schlessinger, Echols, etc. Directly quoting individuals would eliminate most of the problem of alledgedly POV wording, as long as the quotes are placed in the proper context. Mike D78 06:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list was a bad idea but obviously individuals can be nmentioned in the text, SqueakBox 18:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some quotations might be of use, but please avoid simply stringing them together without some sort of integral quality that improves the article.  Post "decline", there are simply too many lists, in my opinion.  Lists should not be a substitute for well-written content.  -Jmh123 20:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual advocates and opponents 

message: Is totally POV as it describes sonme very POV beliefs with none of the opposition to contrast. We need more criticism of pro pedophile activist beliefs if this article is to become NPOV and this is a classic example of it not beiong here. lets make an effort to source those who debunk the unusual claims of the pro ped activists, SqueakBox 19:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the de Young section and the section following should be merged together, and the two reworked into a shorter form. The introduction needs to be more clear, and the possibility of these sections sounding like a manifesto should be avoided.  Just an FYI to our friends, overstating one's point can actually diminish its effectiveness.  This article protests too much.  -Jmh123 20:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not POV, nearly, yet. DPetersontalk 20:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Study by Mary de Young

message: I deleted this section as it appeared to me to be overkill.  There are already lists of organizations, external links, references, and footnotes.  These were simply links to more articles about the subject, none particularly definitive or making points that were different from the main article as far as I could tell. They appeared to me to be lazy additions rather than thoughtful incorporations.  If they contain information not otherwise present, they can be worked into the text and footnoted.  -Jmh123 20:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But those specific links are not in those other sections and the links appear relevant to me. DPetersontalk 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the specific links are not present, and if you feel that they make important points not otherwise made, could they not be better used as references to additional material?  -Jmh123 20:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you have reverted me.  I won't edit war with you, but I still say these links are a lazy alternative to distilling and incorporating information into the text.  Several have said there is a need for more criticism of the movement; why not take the opportunity to do something about it?  -Jmh123 20:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think that listing the links in a separately labeled section is most appropriate since these are external links. DPetersontalk 21:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree.  These are simply links to articles on the topic which should be incorporated into the article itself.  There's absolutely nothing significant or special about them in comparison to any other reference in the notes.  They are references without a referrant.  External links are typically for major websites on a topic, not random articles.   -Jmh123 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you'd like to try to incorporate them into the article, that would work for me.  In the alternative, I'm happy to leave them where they are until a better alternative ir offered. DPetersontalk 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your generosity.  -Jmh123 22:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Media sources

message: *Lilienfeld, Scott O. When worlds collide: Social science, politics, and the Rind et al. (1998) child sexual abuse meta-analysis. American Psychologist. 57(3), Mar 2002, 176-188.
* Ashford, L. (2002). The Human Face of Pedophilia
* Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg, G. (1988). The Paedophile Impulse: Toward the Development of an Aetiology of Child-Adult Sexual Contacts from an Ethological and Ethnological Viewpoint
* Brongersma, E. (1990). Boy-Lovers and Their Influence on Boys. Journal of Homosexuality 20 - 1/2, 1990.
* CLogo Team (2003). Pedophiles
* Dallam, S. J. (2002), "Science or Propaganda? An examination of Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman (1998)". Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 9(3/4), 109-134.
* De Young M. (1988). "The indignant page: techniques of neutralization in the publications of pedophile organizations." Child Abuse & Neglect, 12 (4), 583-591.
* De Young, M. (1989). "The world according to NAMBLA: Accounting for deviance". Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 16, 111-126.
* Finkelhor, D., Child Sexual Abuse, Free Press, 1984  
* Gieles F.E.J. (1998). I didn't know how to deal with it. IPCE.
* Gieles F.E.J. (2004). Ethics and Intimacy in intergenerational relationships. IPCE.
* Hohmann, Joachim S. ed. (1982). Pädophilie heute ("Pedophila today", in German). Foerster Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
* Leopardi, Angelo ed. (1988). Der pädosexuelle Komplex ("On the topic of pedosexuality", in German). Foerster Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
* Fagan P.J., Wise T.N., et al. (2002). "Pedophilia". JAMA. 2002;288:2458-2465.
* Moser C., Kleinplatz P. (2003). DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal
* Nelson J.A. (1989). "Intergenerational Sexual Contact: A Continuum Model of Participants and Experiences". Journal of Sex Education & Therapy, Vol. 15, No.1, 1989, pp.3-12.
* O'Carroll T. (1980). Paedophilia: The Radical Case. Peter Owen, London.
* Protestantse Stichting voor Verantwoorde Gezinsvorming, (1981). Pedophilia. PSVG, The Netherlands.
* Paiderastia. A Boylove Code of Ethics. Paiderastia.
* Rossman P. (1976) Sexual Experience Between Men and Boys: Exploring the Pederast Underground. Association Press, New York.
* Spieker, B.; Steutel, J. (1997). Paedophilia, Sexual Desire and Perversity. Journal of Moral Education, 09/01/1997.
* Underwager R., Wakefield H. (1997). Special Problems with Sexual Abuse Cases. Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony, Supplement to the Fifth Edition (Out of Print) (pp. 136-147). Los Angeles, CA: Law and Psychology Press.
* Vereniging MARTIJN (2004). What we Stand for. Vereniging MARTIJN.
* Schuijer, J. (1990). "Tolerance at arm's length: The Dutch experience." Journal of Homosexuality, 20, 199-229.
*Lilienfeld, Scott O. When worlds collide: Social science, politics, and the Rind et al. (1998) child sexual abuse meta-analysis. American Psychologist. 57(3), Mar 2002, 176-188.
* Ashford, L. (2002). The Human Face of Pedophilia
* Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg, G. (1988). The Paedophile Impulse: Toward the Development of an Aetiology of Child-Adult Sexual Contacts from an Ethological and Ethnological Viewpoint
* Brongersma, E. (1990). Boy-Lovers and Their Influence on Boys. Journal of Homosexuality 20 - 1/2, 1990.
* CLogo Team (2003). Pedophiles
* Dallam, S. J. (2002), "Science or Propaganda? An examination of Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman (1998)". Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 9(3/4), 109-134.
* De Young M. (1988). "The indignant page: techniques of neutralization in the publications of pedophile organizations." Child Abuse & Neglect, 12 (4), 583-591.
* De Young, M. (1989). "The world according to NAMBLA: Accounting for deviance". Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 16, 111-126.
* Finkelhor, D., Child Sexual Abuse, Free Press, 1984  
* Gieles F.E.J. (1998). I didn't know how to deal with it. IPCE.
* Gieles F.E.J. (2004). Ethics and Intimacy in intergenerational relationships. IPCE.
* Hohmann, Joachim S. ed. (1982). Pädophilie heute ("Pedophila today", in German). Foerster Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
* Leopardi, Angelo ed. (1988). Der pädosexuelle Komplex ("On the topic of pedosexuality", in German). Foerster Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
* Fagan P.J., Wise T.N., et al. (2002). "Pedophilia". JAMA. 2002;288:2458-2465.
* Moser C., Kleinplatz P. (2003). DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal
* Nelson J.A. (1989). "Intergenerational Sexual Contact: A Continuum Model of Participants and Experiences". Journal of Sex Education & Therapy, Vol. 15, No.1, 1989, pp.3-12.
* O'Carroll T. (1980). Paedophilia: The Radical Case. Peter Owen, London.
* Protestantse Stichting voor Verantwoorde Gezinsvorming, (1981). Pedophilia. PSVG, The Netherlands.
* Paiderastia. A Boylove Code of Ethics. Paiderastia.
* Rossman P. (1976) Sexual Experience Between Men and Boys: Exploring the Pederast Underground. Association Press, New York.
* Spieker, B.; Steutel, J. (1997). Paedophilia, Sexual Desire and Perversity. Journal of Moral Education, 09/01/1997.
* Underwager R., Wakefield H. (1997). Special Problems with Sexual Abuse Cases. Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony, Supplement to the Fifth Edition (Out of Print) (pp. 136-147). Los Angeles, CA: Law and Psychology Press.
* Vereniging MARTIJN (2004). What we Stand for. Vereniging MARTIJN.
* Schuijer, J. (1990). "Tolerance at arm's length: The Dutch experience." Journal of Homosexuality, 20, 199-229.
*Lilienfeld, Scott O. When worlds collide: Social science, politics, and the Rind et al. (1998) child sexual abuse meta-analysis. American Psychologist. 57(3), Mar 2002, 176-188.
* Ashford, L. (2002). The Human Face of Pedophilia
* Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg, G. (1988). The Paedophile Impulse: Toward the Development of an Aetiology of Child-Adult Sexual Contacts from an Ethological and Ethnological Viewpoint
* Brongersma, E. (1990). Boy-Lovers and Their Influence on Boys. Journal of Homosexuality 20 - 1/2, 1990.
* CLogo Team (2003). Pedophiles
* Dallam, S. J. (2002), "Science or Propaganda? An examination of Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman (1998)". Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 9(3/4), 109-134.
* De Young M. (1988). "The indignant page: techniques of neutralization in the publications of pedophile organizations." Child Abuse & Neglect, 12 (4), 583-591.
* De Young, M. (1989). "The world according to NAMBLA: Accounting for deviance". Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 16, 111-126.
* Finkelhor, D., Child Sexual Abuse, Free Press, 1984  
* Gieles F.E.J. (1998). I didn't know how to deal with it. IPCE.
* Gieles F.E.J. (2004). Ethics and Intimacy in intergenerational relationships. IPCE.
* Hohmann, Joachim S. ed. (1982). Pädophilie heute ("Pedophila today", in German). Foerster Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
* Leopardi, Angelo ed. (1988). Der pädosexuelle Komplex ("On the topic of pedosexuality", in German). Foerster Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
* Fagan P.J., Wise T.N., et al. (2002). "Pedophilia". JAMA. 2002;288:2458-2465.
* Moser C., Kleinplatz P. (2003). DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal
* Nelson J.A. (1989). "Intergenerational Sexual Contact: A Continuum Model of Participants and Experiences". Journal of Sex Education & Therapy, Vol. 15, No.1, 1989, pp.3-12.
* O'Carroll T. (1980). Paedophilia: The Radical Case. Peter Owen, London.
* Protestantse Stichting voor Verantwoorde Gezinsvorming, (1981). Pedophilia. PSVG, The Netherlands.
* Paiderastia. A Boylove Code of Ethics. Paiderastia.
* Rossman P. (1976) Sexual Experience Between Men and Boys: Exploring the Pederast Underground. Association Press, New York.
* Spieker, B.; Steutel, J. (1997). Paedophilia, Sexual Desire and Perversity. Journal of Moral Education, 09/01/1997.
* Underwager R., Wakefield H. (1997). Special Problems with Sexual Abuse Cases. Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony, Supplement to the Fifth Edition (Out of Print) (pp. 136-147). Los Angeles, CA: Law and Psychology Press.
* Vereniging MARTIJN (2004). What we Stand for. Vereniging MARTIJN.
* Schuijer, J. (1990). "Tolerance at arm's length: The Dutch experience." Journal of Homosexuality, 20, 199-229.
</div>
</div>
Mike D78 22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, SqueakBox 22:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I'll work on implementing it then. Mike D78 22:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, that got rid of the horizontal scrollbar for the page. Some of the references still need fixing to prevent the scrollbox from having a horizontal scrollbar, though. In particular, there are some cited websites that need to be formatted in the proper way for a referenced website instead of simply having the url cited. I'll work on tweaking this later. Mike D78 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I dont think any technical innovations are likely to prove controversial, SqueakBox 22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully not ;-) Mike D78 22:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall, I think the recent edits by Mike D78 and Jmh123 are really quite good and are improvements...to the point, well sourced, all seem within Wikipedia policies.  Great work. DPetersontalk 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, no prob =) Mike D78 07:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Example References

message: "To counter developmental arguments that children cannot give informed consent, for example, David L. Riegel (2000) stated in his book Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers, 'Anyone who holds to the idea that a young boy cannot give or withhold informed consent has never taken such a boy shopping for new sneakers' (p. 38)."  How does this illustrate informed consent?  Because they are eager to spend your money to get something they want, and have a preference as to the brand?  I don't get it. It's a loooooong way from choosing sneakers to choosing sex.  Proferring gifts is a known method of obtaining consent, but I don't think that's the intended meaning here.  -Jmh123 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not valuable if it doesn't make the point.  -Jmh123 22:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For sure! DPetersontalk 00:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the sneakers quote.  -Jmh123 02:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll see if I can find a better quote. Mike D78 02:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Perspectives

message: I rearranged the sections in order to put the perspectives and scientific claims sections together, as I believe they are related.  I also think there's a lot of duplication between the two, and it's easier to see when arranged this way.  Although they are themed differently, which makes doing this more difficult, I think the article as a piece of writing and as an encyclopedia article would be much stronger if these two sections were shorter and more compact, with repetition of points/studies eliminated.
I deleted the short section on "the movement's use of scientific papers" as the entire section is about scientific claims, and this paragraph simply states what the entire section demonstrates.  The Fagan et. al. study is cited earlier. 
I have reduced the "Questioning assumptions" to actual examples of scientific studies.  Whereas the insertion of reference to Ashford articles was well-meaning, in response to a criticism, the citations do not meet the criticism, as stated above. 
I integrated the articles listed under "media and academic articles" into the reference list, except for one dead link.  -Jmh123 02:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything looks good so far. Mike D78 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll work on maybe finding a prominent Internet site or two to mention in the lead, and on eliminating any redundancy in the sections you mentioned when I get a chance. I agree that conciseness is important, and thanks for the consideration. Mike D78 03:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give you a little time, but I haven't forgotten. If you don't do it, I will.   -Jmh123 14:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, been away from my comp a bit lately. Still interested in shortening it where possible. Mike D78 19:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: One merit of the current organization of things, though, is that the "perspectives" section provides more of a summary of claims by the movement before the "scientific claims" section gets more into the meat of the subject matter. Interrupting the "perpectives" section with studies cited by the movement might also make this section, which is currently organized into views recorded by Mary de Young and other views, feel less cohesive. Ultimately, however, I think combining the "perspectives" and "scientific claims" sections in the manner described above could improve the article if done right. From an inclusionist point of view, I'm interested in retaining the current breadth and comprehensiveness of this article. However, if done right, combining these two sections could remove some unnecessary redundancy in this article while still retaining its current nuance.
I'll see about getting some of these things started in the next few days.
Mike D78 08:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem I see is within the perspectives section.  I'd consolidate de Young and "other significant views" for sure.  I don't see the reason for anchoring the section with de Young; just present the perspectives.  As for further consolidation, your suggestions might work and sound reasonable. Worth a try. A temp page is a good idea.  Some of the problem (as I see it) is in the "defense" of the perspective or scientific study, which in some cases is redundant and veers towards overdoing a point.  The goal is to avoid making the same arguments over and over. Thanks. -Jmh123 14:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently making good progress on a draft version of the article that combines the "perspectives" and "scientific claims" sections. I also removed the distinction between the claims noted by de Young and the other claims, as you suggested, and have consolidated the descriptions of similar perspectives under broader headings. I'll share the temp page I'm working on once I've refined things a bit more. Mike D78 09:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good!  I have limited access this week, but I'll check in when I can.  Look forward to seeing it.  -Jmh123 14:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't had as much time to devote to Wikipedia in the past few days, either, but I'll let you know when I'm about done with the draft (shouldn't be more than another day or two). Mike D78 10:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits tonight

message: This article is disgusting and needs to be deleted, this should not be given the time of day on wikipedia. It is just plain wrong and the sources are bottom of the barrel rubbish. 89.240.154.160 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it up for afd a week or two back and there was no consensus to delete or to not delete. There was also an attempt to redirect the article to Pedophilia which also failed, generally I do agree with you though, certainly about this article being a redundant POV fork, SqueakBox 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if there is any way to pursue this further: redirecting it to Pedophilia?  Maybe Mediation? I don't know. DPetersontalk 23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are concerns about the quality of this article, especially about POV, please feel free to contribute. Wikipedia always encourages editors to improve articles that they deem to be lacking in one way or another. As for the proposals to delete the entire article or to redirect it to Pedophilia, the overwhelming majority of participating editors have already voted against both of these proposals. Homologeo 05:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Squeaker, your proposal was whupped by 19 votes to 6. Fascinatingly enough, four of those who voted to delete have had recent involvement in the organisation of this article, while most of the keeps were from new faces. Seems like Xavier's "infiltration" theory may be working in reverse, eh? 86.131.41.244 13:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually the last two editors are being very confusing given there was no consensus re the afd. Thus to claim there was overwhelming opposition to deletion/merging is being dishonest to say the least of it. There was no consensus and we must base our new decisions on this fact. As for the anon's reverse infiltration theory, please assume good faith which you clearly are not doing right now. We tried to merge both the pro and anti articles, i think to just merge the pro article would be the best bet right now, SqueakBox 17:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but where am I implying infiltration by that indiviual? I was just saying that it may be the case that there is more organised antiped activity, as the voters' involvement suggests. Anon was not a voter, as far as I know. 86.131.41.244 08:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: So now they have "pro-pedophile activism"? What's next, pro-ruining-some-poor-little-kids-whole-life-for-the-sake-of-my-perverted-sexual-desires-activism? Sick. This sort of crap shouldn't be on the internet. 63.245.145.113 10:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't censored because we do echo the world. By its very nature it is illegal worldwide, but Wikipedia should echo movements even if as individuals we class pro-paedophile activists as free thinkers or gross sexual perverts. The article pro-ruining-some-poor-little-kids-whole-life-for-the-sake-of-my-perverted-sexual-desires-activism could never exist in Wikipedia for the simple reason that it would only echo an individuals ideas see WP:OR. Mike33 - t@lk 11:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The deletion debate was unfortunately a no consensus, but find a source and add the bit about pro-ruining-some-poor-little-kids-whole-life-for-the-sake-of-my-perverted-sexual-desires-activism as that is, IMHO, a good description of your average pro-pedophile activist, SqueakBox 00:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't mean to be a wet blanket but I would like to suggest that we keep comments on this page directed toward the improvement of the article. :) — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this world coming to?