Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 15

message: See, Wikipedia thinks the only articles that are neutral when talking about controversial issues, are the ones written by the ones on the hated side. In this case, an article written by pedos. ForestAngel 07:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As already discussed, Wikipedia actually blocks pedophiles, pedophile sympathisers and suspected pedophiles from editing any articles. Would you call this article biased? If so, in what way is it? Samantha Pignez 07:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No, Forest, we dont all think that, but its an uphill struggle. Wikipedia blocks self identifying pedophiles it doesnt block people fopr making pro pedophilia edits, SqueakBox 22:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where can I find the policy about blocking pedophiles? Martijn Hoekstra 22:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to write to the arbcom. Drop an email to Fred or another emmber of the arbcom as this policy is not openly stated anywhere but based on a behind the scenes arbcom case, SqueakBox 22:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a specific ArbCom case I could have a look at concerning these decissions? Martijn Hoekstra 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To the best of my knowledage there isnt such an available case, its all been done behind the scenes, for reasons that appear reasonable to me; ie I dont think self identifying as a pedophile, by which I mean someone who says "I am a pedophile" on their user page, is acceptable and as far as I know nobody has ever been blocked for what one could call pro pedophile activist edits to the main space. There is a long discussion in one of Jimbo Wales archive talk pages that could shed some light on the issue, SqueakBox 23:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I read some discussion on Jimbos talk page archives, which at least shed enough light on it to show it is a controversial issue, with a lot of discussion around it. I'll see if the questions I have regarding it can be cleared up through email. At any rate this is not the place for a long discussion about it. Martijn Hoekstra 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well feel free to mail me or drop a note on my talk page if you want further clarification, SqueakBox 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh! I asked for unprotection as you were writing the comment. great minds and all that....and we have the totally disputed tag because it isnt neutral. While I fear the banned users who think it is neutral will crawl back out of the woodwork if it is unprotected that is no reason not to unprotect, SqueakBox 23:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is messed up... 

message: A few editors are already aware of this, but I have been working on a draft version of this article for sometime now. I initially intended to enlist the help of a few other editors in working on this draft before I presented it to everyone else, but few others have seemed to have the time to do much with it, so I'm going to go ahead and seek everyone else's opinions.
This draft reorganizes the information in the article in a few places, the most significant change being the merging of the currently seperate claims and scientific views sections. This draft at this time is a bit longer than the current article; I added some more sources that I thought were of relevance, with the intention that others could help me make everything more concise (I have trouble doing this).
While we are discussing the future direction for this article after it is unlocked, I hope everyone will consider the substantial amount of work I have put into this draft. I believe the reorganization of information, as proposed by another editor, really improves this article, and I hope that others can help in fixing any problems some editors might have with this draft. Feel free to edit as you wish on this draft, as I have another copy saved elsewhere. Just try to make sure that all edits are constructive and keep the general ideas expressed in the article intact. Mike D78 08:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The draft is fine. It's just that I don't know what else can be done to improve this article without going against consensus. ●Farenhorst 16:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganized draft 

message: Reading the original - now blocked - article and all the discussion it provoked I can only conclude that the incredible obsessiveness to this subject which started in the USA and now seems to have spread worldwide makes any kind of normal objective description impossible.
People tend to forget that through the centuries sexuality tended to be linked to the process of maturity, or better said, being of child bearing age. This is/was still true in lots of cultures that aren't linked to our western civilization. Let's remember that Marie-Antoinette was 13 years of age when she married; this was quite normal for those days and it's not a very long time ago. Nowadays in many western countries kids have their first intercourse   at age 14 or 15 even though we, their parents, would have preferred it to be different.
If we were capable of separating pedophilia more clearly from hebephilia, I think many of the senseless discussions would stop. For now I would suggest an honest but simple and factual description of the points of iew of those who violently oppose the existence of this phenomenon (in as much as you can oppose something that seems inbred in some people, similar to homosexuality and a lot more diversions) and those who feel that these sexual preferences have a right to exist. 
In any case the topic should be concise and objective. If you make a total mess out of it that lastst many ages, only those who are totally obsessed with this topic themselves would take the time to read it all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.42.204 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  obsession causes uselessness  

message: :Image:GLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:GLogo.png

message: While my link to this article remained in the revert there was a claim that it doesnt happen on the internet, a strange claim as most grooming occurs in the interent. can whoever is clainming that please bring their sources and arguments here, SqueakBox 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no such claim. Please look at the reverted edit. 86.150.128.67 05:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Child grooming

message: the claim that there are allies to PPA or were int he gay rights movement needs sourcing. This issue has proven controversial in other articles, though, SqueakBox 22:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you joking? The reference was to NAMbLA. NAMbLA started off as a gay rights campaign, and was a member of gay umbrella groups up until the schism of the late 80s/early 90s. This should be basic knowledge for anyone who has edited the article as long as you have. The fact that you want something so plainly obvious sourced suggests that you have a revisionist agenda. 86.150.128.67 05:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Really, SB, you should STOP removing stuff that you disagree with. Tag it as per your comment above. This will allow someone (ideally yourself) to find the obvious link to IPCE or other historical reference to ILGA members. 86.150.128.67 05:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: gay rights

message: Why was this delinked? its an internal and highly releavnt article, SqueakBox 23:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the Age of Consent article was previously not linked (or delinked), it is currently wikilinked within the Activities section. Do you think there should be a wikilink to this article earlier in the text? If this is the case, this can easily be done. ~ Homologeo 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Age of consent article

message: Could some editors weigh in on how the external links section should be organized. We previously had Pro and Anti sections, but these have just been combined into a single section. I personally think that having two sections, each dedicated to resources applicable to one position, would be the most effective method of relaying information people may be looking for. The thing is that, if we're to mix the links together, we have to be very careful in the link description, because users wouldn't want to end up on a site that they're not interested in or may be upset by. What does everyone think? ~ Homologeo 23:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument has happened before, it was now banned user Jim Burton who organised it inot the opposing sections but this is a violation of our NPOV policies and always a source of contention (we finally removed it from the cannabis article and it really helped). I think any links to PPA sites that users might not want to go to should be removed and if not then flagged as such in the individual tags, SqueakBox 23:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether a banned editor brought up this argument before or not, why is it inappropriate to organize links according to their type? Mixing all the links together is only bound to confuse the reader. It's not like we're promoting any of the links by placing each in its appropriate group. Howbeit, if we're to keep the mixed format, an explanation will have to accompany each link, so that users would be able to know what the link leads to before clicking it. ~ Homologeo 23:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Homo is correct. I find the idea that organising links into sections is inherently POV to be most irrational, and probably a result of one editor's dislike of another. If we are to compromise with him, there must be full descriptions. As for deleting potentially offensive links, that just wont go. In case you forgot, we don't censor. 86.150.128.67 04:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization of External Links

message: Which section should go before the other - "Scientific Claims" or "Criticism?" It seems to make more sense to put the scientific claims of the movement that is the focus of this article first, with criticism to follow. Generally, criticism goes after the detailing of the claims advanced by the movement in question. ~ Homologeo 23:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But NPOV demands a balanced article which is why the criticism section needs more prominence, as I expalined above, and buried at the bottom favours the PPA viewpoint in what is an already totally disputed article, SqueakBox 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic is indeed very controversial and the nature of this article has been disputed ad infinitum, but that is no reason to treat the article differently in terms of what section should go where. It does not seem logical to interupt a line of thought - in this case, the presentation of the movement's perspectives - and then to come back to it at the end of the text. Why should this article be treated differently from all other articles that have Criticism sections? ~ Homologeo 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Homo. Regardless, has SB never heard of the recency effect that would actually benefit the POV he is here to promote? 86.150.128.67 04:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto, what other articles have the criticisms before the science?  I see this page's opposition page has it's criticisms shoved to the bottom.  And what's with all the weasel words in the Scientific Claims section?  "Attempt to debunk..." and "Some say..." reads like the talking point of a Fox News pundit.  Squeakbox, you can rip apart their arguments in the criticisms section... BELOW their claims, don't know why you wouldn't anyway.. oh wait, that's right why wait till the criticisms section to criticise.  So, as tempted to be WP:BOLD and fix it, I'll leave that to cooler heads.  75.16.108.53 09:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it would not make sense to criticize the idea before you know what the ideas are first. Yes, it is correct that articles always have criticisms at the end. Take for example self-help.--A 23:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Sections

message: SqueakBox, could you possibly address my concern over the edits you made to the intro? My comments can be found above. If you want, I can copy/paste them here. I mainly would like to inquire why the intro states that pro-pedophile activists aim to "abuse" children, among other things, when no pro-pedophile activist would ever openly advocate such goals. This is indeed how the goals of the movement are perceived by others - among them, politicians, the majority of the public, and the bulk of the medical community - but pro-pedophile activists themselves would certainly never make such claims. This simply wouldn't make sense. It is completely appropriate to include criticism within the intro, but it should always be identified as such. Assuming that any given position is inherently true is inappropriate and factually incorrect. As it happens, the existence of the pro-pedophile movement alone attests to just that. The following sentence is clearly biased towards one side, since no identification is given to the claim about abuse: "Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to abuse children" (emphasis added). If at all possible, please review my other concerns above. I would very much appreciate a response. Thank you in advance, ~ Homologeo 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the heart of the matter. If PPA's arent trying to abuse children (legally and with society's support) what are they trying to do? I respect that PPA's say they want to keep within the law and it is the law and society's attitudes that they want to change but they want to change them with the aim of what we would currently consider to be to abuse children sexually. And yeas, the fact that this is hjow PPA's are viewd by the great majority is why this edit should stand. Just because this is an article about PPA's does not mean we should only express the viewpoint of these folk, NPOV demands we also express the viewpoint of the politicians, medical community and genral public re PPA goals. If you want to suggest a change whereby we make it clear who thinks what that sounds good, ie that the majority think this but PA's themselves do not. I'll see what I can think up (but maybe not tonight as there is lots going on here where I am). And, hey, I am hapy to discuss these things point by point, SqueakBox 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "Neutral" is used for good reason. "Neutral" means that we disassociate ourselves from any point of view, as opposed to taking a stand in favour of what could be seen as the centre ground. As we are discussing child-adult sexual contacts in its philosophical and sociological as opposed to taxonomical or presently unitary-conceptual sense, it would be most certainly biased to state that PPAs want access to abuse children. That would be to say "it's wrong now, and will still be wrong if it is legalised". We do not make such judgements concerning other forms of legal advocacy, nor do we state that current jursdictions in which the age of consent is 12 or 13 are inductive to abuse. So why tar a future possibility with our present judgement in this most unencyclopedic of manners? 86.150.128.67 05:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sincerely hope that it is not a future possibility, but your comments on the lack of neutrality are very correct. Perhaps a more neutral way to rephrase that lead would be "in order to allow adults to have sex with minors, an act which is considered child abuse in most nations." ...or something like that. Reading further I see "protect children from predatory pedophiles," which is also quite POV (I think it's the word "predatory" that does it there...). No need to color this article with POV on child abuse... I'm sure the readers can make up their own minds. Let's keep this encyclopedic. My two cents. WDavis1911 05:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-written the intro, paying close attention to the said requirement for impartiality. 86.150.128.67 05:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I guess we're back to reverting each other. SqueakBox, could you please tell me what was wrong with the new intro? It seemed to incorporate neutral language, the main viewpoints expressed by pro-pedophile activists, a brief mention of anti-pedophile activism, and a summary of the dominant lines of criticism, including the public, medical and political attitudes towards pedophilia and the pro-pedophile movement. Is there something else that should have been included, or is the language used not up to par? Please share with us why you reverted the new intro. ~ Homologeo 02:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia and needs to read like one.  To say outright that pedophiles abuse children is plainly POV, and I would even say it's on the verge of sensationalism.  Fighting for Justice 09:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assertions Made in the Intro

message: I've full-protected the page for 3 days due to the edit warring. Please sort out the issues (and make sure you do not undo constructive edits) here. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 00:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we all need to be careful not to undo constructive edits, I ahve certainly been the victim of that and if I have also done it myself, well I shouldnt have and will try better, SqueakBox 23:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: psst.  pull out the nails, we need your cross for firewood. 75.16.108.53 09:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Protection #2

message: We need a source for romantic love if it is to be included as any contended unsourced material must be removed and the onus is on thiose who want to add it not on the remover to gett he sopurce, if possible, SqueakBox 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a fairly apparent statement that that's part of their agenda, but regardless, I added a source that FFJ apparently thought was unnecessary. Mike D78 00:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Where is this information suppose to come from in order to satisfy you SqueakBox.  You aren't satisfied that Mike and I have both pointed out to you that NAMBLA stands for North American Man Boy Love Association. Fighting for Justice 00:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just wondering - what is wrong with the source that Mike D78 has provided? On that website, in regards to the question "What is boylove?", the intro clearly states the following: "It's a phenomenon of attraction to boys that many males exhibit, in which there are erotic, aesthetic, emotional, and spiritual aspects. Many people call it an orientation just like any other." (emphasis added) The two italisized words relay the notion of "romantic love." I think it would be appropriate to incorporate this source as a reference. ~ Homologeo 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Since the goal of this article is to describe the views of Pro-Pedophile activists, any sources that represent a particular movement would very definitely be considered as reliable and representative of that movement's stance (as is the case with NAMBLA). After all, the sentence did read: "Some pro-pedophile activists advocate social acceptance of adult romantic love and sexual attraction to minors and legalization of adult-minor sexual activity". Thus, your continued persistence to revert after all the discussion in this regard is both completely unjustified and un-encyclopedic. Equilibrist 22:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A source would be great and I am happy to see it re-included with a source, and the name NAMBLA expounded in a secondary source could be used. But we cannot say the word love is in NAMBLA and that is the source, that is not a source it is original research which is prohibited from wikipedia. I suggest someone brings a proper source here to the talk page, based on our standards at WP:RS and WP:V. Reverting unsourced material is never unjustified and it always the responsibility of ther person who adds the infornmation to provide the source, the person who removes unsourced information is always right to do so. Discussion here is not a substitute for sources as we never assume that our readers come to the talk page to undertsand the article and neither can users insist on unsourced material remaining in this or any article as policy trumps consensus and consensus is very clear in this case. if a source is easy to find there is no reason not to bring it here and if it isnt easy to get then the information should not be in the article, SqueakBox 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Romantic love

message: ::Mike D78 has now been indefinitely blocked, as has Amateur cyclone as a sockpuppet of Pol64 who has been blocked for a week. Any user misusing sockpuppets here is clearly in the wrong, we need to have one account per user and no banned users here if we are to give the article a chance, and all these proven sock allegations and a locked article are extremely disconcerting, SqueakBox 17:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are the ones with confirmed socks given a week, whilst the one without a confirmed sock is given an indefinite block, just like all the others you tar as pro-pedophile? Dyskolos 18:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blocks and socks

message: To SqueakBox and those currently editing in a similar vein: 
Have you completely lost yourselves in your own rhetorical/personal positions?!?! This article, as it now stands (based on being "locked"), is **disgracefully un-encyclopedic**. The earlier versions, however much you disliked them, did not contain the aggressive, bias-laden quality that the current version now possesses. As the person who most thoroughly edited the "Anti-Pedophile Activism" article (a perusal of the history of that article will reveal that *all* of the scholarly and *all* of the referenced materials of any academic weight were added by me ... and have all stood in their places since they first appeared there), I assert that the "Pro-Pedophile Activism" article has devolved into chaos through the editing practices of you, SqueekBox, and those following your lead. My advice is that the "lock" on this article be removed, and that the initial paragraphs appear as follows (I hate bitching about something without taking the time to try to fix it).  I hope the following serves as a mediated, judicious substitute for the current editing war: Welland R 10:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi and thanks for throwing in some fresh ideas on this subject. I think that it would be a good idea if we all try to agree on the intro here and now so that we won't end up with a new edit war when the lock expires. Below is my proposal, partly based on Welland's proposition and partly on the latest version reverted by Pol64:
_________________________
Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for specific changes to criminal laws and to cultural responses associated with pedophiles and adult-minor sexual relations. The movement consists of self-identifying pedophiles and other pro-pedophile activists located in various countries, including the United States, the Netherlands, and Canada, sometimes allied to grassroots organizations such as North American Man/Boy Love Association (now virtually defunct) and the Dutch group Vereniging MARTIJN. Most current activism takes place on the Internet. Pro-pedophile activism stands in sheer opposition to anti-pedophile activism, which aims to shield children from those it considers "predatory pedophiles" and which claims that pro-pedophile organizations and activities are merely attempts to legalize and legitimize the abuse of children.
Some pro-pedophile activists advocate social acceptance of what they consider to be adult romantic love and sexual attraction to minors, as well as the legalization of what they believe to be non-abusive and mutually consenting adult-minor sexual activity, activity that is currently defined, in most cultural, medical, and legal contexts, as child sexual abuse. Other goals of pro-pedophile activism may, but do not necessarily include a redefining of contemporary authority relations between adults and minors and the changing of institutions of concern to pedophiles, such as age of consent laws and mental disorder classifications. 
However, seen from the position of anti-pedophile activists, such goals are merely attempts to legalize adult-child sexual relations, to remove the protection parents exercise in preventing their children from falling into the hands of pedophiles, and to foster social acceptance of adult sexual attraction to children, as well as the sexual activities that might result from such an attraction. ->(this may be included, though I would personally cut it for NPOV reasons since we already have a criticism section further below which already covers all of the significant responses of the Anti-ped movement. There is plenty of criticism already above and below in the intro anyway).
Increasing public focus and disapproval of pedophilia and pro-pedophile activism has motivated more stringent legislation and criminal penalties regarding child pornography, child sexual abuse, and the use of the Internet to facilitate these activities. Child grooming is also now recognized as a criminal offense in some jurisdictions. Pedophilia remains classified as a mental disorder in the ICD-9 and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. To consider pro-pedophile activism as a valid political or civil rights activist movement is also unpopular. Equilibrist 12:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks to the two editors for suggesting the new revisions. I would prefer the second, as unlike Welland's it does not give four unnecessary shots to the "anti-pedophile" lobby who have bullied other editors on this article and continued to revert against the general consensus. Dyskolos 16:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I second Dyskolos's opinion above. Thank you for providing two alternatives to the current intro to this article. Although both intros are good, I would recommend using the one proposed by Equilibrist. My reasoning streams from the fact that there already is an entire article on anti-pedophile activism, and the Criticism section here covers its responses to the pro-pedophile movement anyways. Although it's useful to state the general stance of anti-pedophile activists (which is amply done), there's no need to go into excessive detail about their movement, since this article is not about it. On a similar note, I likewise do not think the following sentence adds any value to the intro: However, seen from the position of anti-pedophile activists, such goals are merely attempts to legalize adult-child sexual relations, to remove the protection parents exercise in preventing their children from falling into the hands of pedophiles, and to foster social acceptance of adult sexual attraction to children, as well as the sexual activities that might result from such an attraction. On the contrary, it could come off as NPOV, as pushing a bias. Such comments should be in the Criticism section and in the article on the specific movement concerned, not in the intro of this article. Lastly, I second the suggestion that the Criticism section should be moved lower in the article, per general Wikipedia practice. ~ Homologeo 17:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No, we need something balanced and and NPOV and the proposals on offer in this section are not that. Give me a couple of days and I'll bring my own proposal to the table, SqueakBox 18:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it reads anything like the current version, it won't get consensus unless Pol64 comes back with more sockpuppets. Dyskolos 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: SqueakBox, as long as the intro you will propose will be NPOV, I'm sure everyone will be happy to consider it. ~ Homologeo 19:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments so far everyone. Quite honestly I am a bit puzzled that Squeakbox is of the opinion that the proposed version is neither "balanced nor NPOV". It would be interesting to see his version of what a balanced and NPOV intro ougth to look like. However, I regret to note that the latest disputed edit by Pol64 was in fact largely a copy of Squeak's own intro  so I do hope that he has something better to offer this time. Equilibrist 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am in complete agreement with using the second version (it is, I must admit, very close to the version I would have put in place myself had I not been overly concerned to keep SqueakBox and others satisfied).  I was attempting, given the current state of things, to achieve some form of mediation rather than an *ideal* encyclopedic entry.  I find the second version (by Equilibrist) more than satisfactory, and I feel that it should serve as the replacement for what now appears. Welland R 09:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been watching this article for the best part of two weeks now, and I have to say that the two versions suggested here would fair a lot better than the current locked edition. I'm sure that many child abuse prevention, treatment and awareness charities would adopt a similar rhetoric (although they surely wouldn't claim that the movement does not exist!), but just like NAMBLA et al, this version is advocacy and similar language must be avoided (using the rest of the article as a rule of thumb). It is not at all useful that we have editor(s) claiming audaciously that the current advocacy edit is neutral and in line with whatever policy they point to, and ignoring what the majority of editors say in opposition to this. Regards. ♥ Lundiaka 18:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorial PMS

message: OT - originally in response to a comment in the above thread. ♥ Lundiaka 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The day Mozilla (my browser) incorproarte a spell check that doesnt itself butcher the language (ie Americanise it) I certainly will. I always take great care when editing the main space, its not so important on the talk pages but I always double check. This kind of comment doesn't belong here, it should go on my talk page, SqueakBox 18:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself was going to leave a comment on that page, but you deleted FFJ's contribution (after encouraging it!). To be fair on SqueakBox, the errors are not misspellings, but typing errors. ♥ Lundiaka 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I was highlighting your spelling error.  Yopur ridiculoyus and obviously <------- that's what you typed.  You'll never find me typing like that.   Fighting for Justice 19:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucky you, SqueakBox 19:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, FFJ did not call you ridiculous, but described your spelling as atrocious. You (as can be seen above) similarly described my arguments as ridiculous. ♥ Lundiaka 20:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling Discussion (OT)

message: Please do not comment here. This is intended as a redirect for a lot of the well-poisoning accusations that have been flying around recently. Hopefully, we can get back to discussing the content of the article in the appropriate place.
See my article 
here. Dyskolos 02:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack of the clones II 

message: This page is clearly in dispute, and it doesn't seem that much progress is being made in reaching consensus. I was wondering what attempts to mediation have already been made. The first step would usualy be the MedCab, and if this hasn't been tried yet, I would like to propose this case to the mediation cabal. Has this attempt to reach consensus already been tried? Martijn Hoekstra 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I asked Voice of Britain for mediation re this article I was soundly rejected. I am certainly willing to go down this road but only if those who are in disagreement with me are willing to do so as well, SqueakBox 16:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So far I haven't been very involved yet, but I would certainly participate in mediation per MedCab. I'll go request the case, and those willing to getinvolved are free to join in the mediation. I would like to stress that for mediation to be successfull, it is important that those in conflict are willing to participate, as that makes it far more easy to get ahead with the issue. Martijn Hoekstra 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please also list WellandR, Equilibrist and Homologeo who like A.Z. have very recently opposed the edits of SqueakBox and Pol64. Dyskolos 17:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to participate, and yes, I oppose the current version by Pol 64/Squekbox and would vote against it. Equilibrist 19:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I was planning to make a note on the page, you are free to do so yourself, there is no harm in listing too many. I did a quick search through the talk page here, but I don't claim that it is the complete list of conflicting editors. You can find the page here. Martijn Hoekstra 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, hope mediation can lead into something positive.  The current intro to the article is not neutral and must change.  Fighting for Justice 19:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The current sanction against Pol64 for socking on this article means that this MC pits six users against one. The primary suggestion may be that editors who are representing a minority viewpoint respect the consensus of others. Dyskolos 21:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try and avoid to put things in a perspective of editors against other editors. We are all here to write the best encylcopedia we can. Let's focus on that, and our common grounds, and let's see what we can do with that. I'm sure we can come up with something, even if it's hard. Martijn Hoekstra 21:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation, what has been tried yet 

message: If this is going to progress in any way that is satisfactory, we must begin with something concrete, for which I suggest basing our discussion, especially in regard to the initial paragraphs, on the following suggested rewording by Equilibrist.  I feel that this is a good starting point, a text that can be tweaked into a form that will allow for some sort of consensus: Welland R 09:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that SqueakBox speedily reverted the above version back to the version by Pol64. Since he is definitely in the minority I suggest that we keep the above version until disputes have been resolved via Medcab. If SqueakBox thinks that the majority consensus in this case is due to sockpuppetry, he should file appropriate requests for user checks on suspected accounts and cease supporting his rationale for reverts by accusing others of sockpuppetry without any evidence whatsoever. Equilibrist 21:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Equilibrist. SqueakBox, you said you wanted to make headway in getting this article unprotected, improving its quality, and bringing it closer to NPOV. Please explain why you have reverted the inclusion of this proposed introduction. In what ways do you think this intro is inappropriate? Multiple editors on this Talk Page have expressed approval of this new version, and both the pro- and anti- views of the pro-pedophile movement and its goals are incorporated within. ~ Homologeo 21:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My ref'd alternative fots NPOV, this unref'd one doesnt, SqueakBox 20:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SqueakBox, is this reference that you added supposed to back up the statement that adult-child sex is sexual abuse? The reference doesn't say that. a.z. 23:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's get to work (Suggestion for a starting point) 

message: It looks like no one is going to be happy wherever the history section goes. I suggest that we simmer down this bulky article by re-instating the seperate history article after finding consensus or at least an overall majority in favour. This would mean that we can get the criticism back to the bottom of the article (where it should be, according to nearly every article structure on this site) and that this article will once again be approaching the size of the anti-pedophile activism article, following a much bemoaned discrepency in size. Dyskolos 17:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose, on principal (I a merger not a separator), nothing ot do with the content of the article, SqueakBox 17:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I would like the history section stay so I oppose the separation proposal. However, I approve of moving the criticism/controversy part at the bottom of the article, as is the norm here on Wikipedia.  Equilibrist 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if there is a consensus to move the history and criticism sections I can go along with that but please don't change the opening to the other version at the same time, SqueakBox 20:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: My vote is to keep the History section within the main Pro-pedophile Activism article, since it is quite relevant to the topic and fills in the details on how this movement came to be what it is today. What's more, I don't think this article is too big, so I don't see a point in moving the History section. As for the proposed move of the Criticism section, I endorse this on the grounds that the viewpoints and scientific claims of the movement in question should be discussed first, with criticism to follow. Besides, that's the general policy adhered to in the majority of Wikipedia articles. ~ Homologeo 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History move - please discuss/vote. 

message: A possible justification for objections to this article.
Due to the saturation of highly condemnatory, emotionalistic and value-laden articles written on the subject of pedophilia, child molestation and its apologists, could it be that readers come to this article with dripping maws, expecting much of what they have become accustomed to? If so, the shock that they get when noticing that this article does not pass judgement on either side of the debate may be the elixir of bias accusations. Of course, I have to concede that this article is relatively biased when we take into account most literature on this subject. When this relative bias combines with the article's huge amount of disturbing and foreign ideas, the simple of mind will of course be vulnerable to gut reactions and confusion. After all, not passing judgement on pedophiles is highly sympathetic in relative terms.
But looking through this article, I can see no valid objection on NPOV grounds. No undue weight, but rather a disturbingly large amount of sourced material, concerning a movement that many people would prefer to have never existed. Dyskolos 03:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your last paragraph. It seems like a fairly fair article to me. a.z. 04:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article still has huge NPOV issues not helped by certain editors determindedly pushing the pro PPA line using both honest and dishonest methods (socks being an example of the latter), SqueakBox 20:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate, and be more specific? a.z. 22:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, please elaborate, and voice your concerns fully. There's not much headway being made by constantly claiming that editors with a pro-pedophile agenda are out to push their POV (be it via socks or otherwise), if no evidence is provided. Please impact your claims - that way they will carry more weight. For instance, simply claiming time and again that socks are rampart in editing this article will not get us anywhere. You know what should be done if actual socks are present, especially if they're socks of previously banned editors. Please take the appropriate steps to address the situation. If you're not going to do that, please do not use the "presence of socks" argument to defend edits that are against consensus. ~ Homologeo 03:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have elaborated on this so manmy times I do not need to repeat myself, you all know more or less who has beenn bnlockled as socks and continuously sniping at me for daring to mention the various socks (Voice of Britian has had many socks including Farenhorst while Mike D78 wasbl;ocked last Saturday as abanned user editing from proxies to push a pro-pedophilia POV so ithis attitude is entirely unreasonable and mine a reflection of the basic problem here which is massive use of socks month after month, SqueakBox 04:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the socks that you think have been bothersome have now been banned (leaving the justification and rationale of the blocks to the admins), why continue to stress the issue now? ~ Homologeo 04:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that is no guarantee they wont return as after all they have persistently returned in the past. That is why I am interested in mediation and why it is vital that we all remain vigilant in this issue, we cannot just pretend that it wont happen again. Any article or series of articles plagued with socks faces the same issue and needs to tackle it in a highly vigilant manner, obviously. The more socks get uncovered the less possible it is that this issue will go away. if we see no socks in 6 months we could then start to relax and that is absolutely what I want. I find the presence of socks of banned users here highly disruptive tot he articles and the project as a whole and completely contrary to the spirit of wikipedia, SqueakBox 04:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dripping maws 

message: The article says "the DSM defines pedophilia as a mental illness", but the article on pedophilia says "The ICD-10 and DSM IV, which are standard medical diagnosis manuals, currently describe pedophilia as a paraphilia and mental disorder of adults or older youths, if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." Which one is correct? a.z. 04:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter is a more or less accurate description of what DSM actually says in this regard, though it seems that pedophilia is described more as a "sexual" rather than "mental" disorder. Pedophilia is listed under paraphilia section which belongs to the "Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders" category. Equilibrist 04:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DSM 

message: Equilibrist, do not remove ref'd material and replace it with unref'd material. Also your edit summary "If opponents believe that sockpuppets are involved, they have to present concise evidence that this is so" tries to put the onus on honest editorsw to uncover dishonest ones and given the history of this article and wikipedia as a who;le that is not the way it works, SqueakBox 18:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on your definition of honesty.  Fighting for Justice 19:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Squeak seems the most honest editor here, to be honest (guffaws).Pol64 19:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several well-established Wikipedia users have backed the version I was reverting to. They also agreed that your version was POV pushing. When you start (as you often do) using sock accusations against those who disagree with your edits as justification to bypass consensus, you should be able to back up your claims with solid evidence. Equilibrist 22:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is simply pathetic. ALL he can ever claim is that he is right to poison the well (accuse sockpuppetry, justify consensus-busting edits with it) because his assertions are correct (I'm honest, all of you aren't). The quality of debate is therefore atrocious. This will just go around in hopeless circles until something is done about the editor. Dyskolos 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: I support this edit by SqueakBox. Everything should be referenced. a.z. 04:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I could find another solution.  a.z. 04:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: They could have invented the testimonies. I think that's their objection to the previous version. Wikipedia was saying that the testimonies were real, but that's not verifiable. If the New York Times, for instance, had published such testimonies obtained from interviews, I think Wikipedia would be able to say that there are people who claim that they had sex with adults as children and did not suffer from it. a.z. 04:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This was not my intention, and I don't think that message is relayed. The statement clearly states that this is "anecdotal material" and no claims are made about its accuracy. Furthermore, the word "claim" relays that this is what the providers of the testimonies believe, and not necessarily the truth. ~ Homologeo 05:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But my version is correctly referenced. We can't say that the testimonies are true, because this is unverifiable, but we can say that the websites collect them and that they say this is true. This is all verifiable. a.z. 05:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please clarify your response to the point I made above - about the definition of "anecdotal information" and the use of the word "claim" in relation to the assertions made by the individuals being referenced. ~ Homologeo 05:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The version you wrote says "Some activist websites collect and publish anecdotal material from various people, mainly adults, who, having been sexually involved with an adult as a minor, claim to have enjoyed or suffered no ill effects from this experience." To me, this means that there are real adults that claim to have had these experiences. The references do not support this claim. It is unverifiable that there really are such adults. Wikipedia can't just trust the websites on that. It's verifiable, however, that the websites collect the testimonies and that they say that they are real. a.z. 05:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. Please go ahead and adjust the test, so that this point is relayed appropriately. However, the wording previously used was very confusing, which prompted me to make my edit in the first place. ~ Homologeo 05:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad about that. Here's the diff with my changes. a.z. 05:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If the information is clearly biased and skewed on any particular website, Wikipedia tends not to link to such a site. However, if an article is talking about claims advanced by a particular group, referencing that group for proof that such claims are indeed made is quite justifiable. Hope my reasoning makes sense =) ~ Homologeo 05:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not justifiable. Just as White people should not link to Stormfront sites, etc., for they are not reliable sources because they are biased and skewed. Hope you can see the analogy. Jeeny (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the analogy being made, but I still have to reiterate my point. If there is a truth claim being made, then, yes, Wikipedia does not link to such sites. However, if the text is concerned about what a site says - the site being the main forum of many pro-pedophile organizations - referencing the sites makes sense. Besides, where else could Wikipedia link to confirm that a site actually says something that the Wikipedia article states it does. Unless someone else writes a critique or mentions the site in another article, there will probably be no other appropriate source to be used as a reference. Even if there is such a source, it would be considered "secondary." Wouldn't it be reasonable to use the primary source in this context, since the secondary source would only be drawing for information on the primary in the first place? ... Whew... hopefully I didn't ramble too much on this point. But I really appreciate the way editing of this article is now progressing - people are communicating and rationally presenting their positions. I'm so happy that we're making headway after such a long looooooong time of nothing productive happening here. Kudos to all who are contributing to this new effort! ~ Homologeo 05:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) The article on Stormfront does link to the Stormfront website to back up the claim that "Stormfront calls itself a 'Racialist discussion board for pro-White activists and anyone else interested in White survival'". Stormfront is not a reliable source when it comes to whether white people are superior or not. However, it is a very reliable source when it comes to whether Stormfront calls itself something or not. It's the same case here. The reference we are talking about is not about whether adult-child sex is OK or not, or whether there exist adults who say they had sex with adults as children and they did not suffer: it's about whether the websites collect the information and say that this information is true or not. The sources we are using are reliable. a.z. 05:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it does, but does White people link to Stormfront sites? This article is not named NAMBLA. Which I would consider a better analogy. Now, I understand the citing problems with subjects such as these...but maybe I should have directed you to WP:NOR more than the others, as this may help better understand the criteria, and to verify the content and cite properly for an encyclopedia. :) Jeeny (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on white supremacy links to the website of the Church of the Creator, a racist organization. It doesn't matter what is the article's title. If the article on NAMBLA did not exist, and there were only a sub-section of the article on pro-pedophile activism about NAMBLA, that sub-section would be able to link to the NAMBLA official website, if they have any. This article is about pro-pedophile activism, but that paragraph is about pro-pedophile groups. Their websites are an acceptable primary source when it comes to backing up the information that they say they have testimonies of people who were children and had sex with adults, etc. If there were secondary sources, this would be better, but there aren't.  a.z. 06:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) True, good points. Then maybe this article should be deleted. As this is an encyclopedia and not a place for pro anything. If articles can only link to primary sources then there is something wrong with them, therefore are not encyclopedic, IMO. The are other sites, like stormfront, NAMBLA, etc for their views. Such as a blog of sorts, news magazine, etc. :) RE: Primary sources" "Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary. To quote Wikipedia again, on secondary sources: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. ... Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Jeeny (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using primary sources to back up your claims is not being pro nor against anything. We are being descriptive here. If there were secondary sources, what the article says wouldn't change, the references would be the only thing that would change. All information that Wikipedia contains is also contained in books, magazines, documents, etc. We just collect it in one place, and there's nothing wrong with doing that. This article can not only link to primary sources. It links to many secondary sources, but, to back up the specific claims we are discussing, primary sources are just fine, as any regular person can verify that the information is true. I don't think it's productive to just quote policy like that without explaining why you think it matters. Do you think some Wikipedian has added their personal interpretation of the sources to the article? Do you think the sources are being misused? If you do, then explain why. a.z. 06:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Jeeny, please wait about a week or two before bombarding this article and its talk-page with minute changes and quibbling suggestions (all of your proverbial "tweaking").  At the present moment, those of us who have been editing this article for some time are attempting to address larger issues than those that result in the changes you have made of late.  As for your comment "Then maybe this article should be deleted. As this is an encyclopedia and not a place for pro anything"--if it were not so conceptually naive, it might be taken as a failed attempt at humor on your part.  Your suggestion will certainly end the abortion debate on Wikipedia, as the "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" articles both disappear via your magic rhetorical wand. Welland R 11:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I resent your remarks that I am "quibbling" and "bombarding" this article and talk page, and my "proverbial tweaking". Comment on content, not on editors. Thank you very much. Also no one owns an article, so I have every right to edit this article or any other article, as long as I abide by the policies of Wikipedia. And I was being a bit sarcastic in my comment saying all pro-anything articles sould be deleted, even if I personally believe some should. I'll be careful to keep my personal feelings or judgements out of this, and I ask you to do the same. Cheers. :) Jeeny (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, Jeeny, and feel free to bombard the article and talk page with your good faith edits as much as you feel able to do. You are not the first person to want to see this article deleted and there is conceptually naive abou this. Therea re ediotrs here who appear hostuile to any change they disagree with  but as this is nott heir article they have to live with others disagreeing with them also being editors here, SqueakBox 15:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SqueakBox, we were having the most constructive of conversations above, and it only stopped because Jeeny went to bed. I agree that Jeeny's edits were in good faith, yes. The rest of your post is nothing but destructive and adds nothing to the conversation. a.z. 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Jeeny's participation in the discussion on this Talk Page and in the editing of the article has been very helpful. As I stated above, it's good to have some headway happening here, after such a long standstill. Even though some big issues about the intro and in other respects still need to be worked out, there's no harm in tweaking the article, as long as the edits made are in good faith and not controversial. Welland R, I'm pretty sure all that Jeeny meant was that, if this article only linked to primary sources, than its presence on Wikipedia would be questionable. I have to say that this observation is quite on the money, for secondary sources are indeed preferred. I guess what needs to be done is to distinguish where the text warrants secondary sources and where primary. ~ Homologeo 21:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Needed

message: There are more issues, but I have selected two of them. Until these issues have been addressed, I feel SqueakBox should stop changing the page to his proposed version. 
*Lack of references: SqueakBox's version implies that adult-child sex is child sexual abuse, not in the legal sense, but in the psychological sense. It is impossible to state that because studies about this are impossible. There is no scientific study that says that sex between adults and children has something harmful to it, and that it can't be a positive experience for both. His current reference backing up this claim is this website that says nothing about the matter. I think it is unverifiable that adult-child sex is child sexual abuse.
*Talking about people's motivations: SqueakBox's version refers to "activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to abuse children". Besides implying that sex between children and adults is the same as child sexual abuse, this sentence implies that pro-pedophile activists knowingly wish that children be abused. Wikipedia doesn't speculate about people's intentions. a.z. 19:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you go on please provide refs for your extraordinary claim that sex between children and adults is not child sexual abuse because I think this is your original research, please seeWP:NOR, SqueakBox 19:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no references and I have never claimed that sex between children and adults is not child sexual abuse. a.z. 20:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have no references, then the content should not be added to the article, or if you do add content that has no reliable source  reference, it can and should be contested, or even deleted. RE: "I think it is unverifiable that adult-child sex is child sexual abuse." Especially this comment. Again, if it's unverifiable it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Period. Jeeny (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At no point in the intro disputed by SqueakBox is there an assertion that "adult-child sexual contact" is or is not "child sexual abuse." There is an observation that pro-pedophile activists consider it to be not harmful (and references for this are ample throughout the article), and there is a point made that such contact is currently defined in most medical, legal, etc. contexts as "child sexual abuse." How is this information inappropriate? Please explain. ~ Homologeo 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, Jeeny, I don't understand your point. I agree that, if someone doesn't have references to back up a content, then the content should not be added. That's what I am saying about SqueakBox's version. He is trying to add something without having references. I have no intention whatsoever to write in the article that sex between children and adults is not child sexual abuse, but SqueakBox wants to write that sex between children and adults is child sexual abuse, although there's no reference backing that up either. a.z. 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a ref now! Please do not remove it. Roman, please dont say don't add refs to the opening as that completely contradicts policy and how we do things here, SqueakBox 21:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A.Z you complain there is no ref and when I give one you immediately remove it. That is not an edit of a good faith editor, SqueakBox 21:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SqueakBox, I don't have access to the book The Sexual Exploitation of Children that you added as a reference to back up the statement that adult-child sex is child sexual abuse. Could you copy to this talk page the relevant part of the book, so I and others can evaluate whether that is really what the book says? a.z. 21:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. It seems that there's  an online version. I'm going to read it. a.z. 22:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) Nope, I suggest you post to Talk:Child sexual abuse as the ref came from that article, SqueakBox 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you added the reference without reading it! In the article about child sexual abuse, this reference is used to back up the assertion that "child sexual abuse is an umbrella term describing criminal and civil offenses in which an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor or exploits a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification." This has absolutely nothing to do with the assertion that "Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to abuse children". The definition the reference backs up is legal. If the criminal laws were actually changed, then adult-child sex, currently an offense in many places and thus described as child sexual abuse in the legal sense, would stop being described as child sexual abuse because it would stop being a criminal or civil offense. I didn't read the reference yet, and I am going to do it because I am interested. But, based on the reasoning above, I reject your reference already. a.z. 22:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess the problem here is that statements on the order of "always child sexual abuse before the age of 14" or "inability to give consent before the age of 16" are perfect examples of value judgements and certainly not something that is universally verifiable. There are no objective scientific tests measuring the ability to consent to sex, nor is there any conclusive evidence that non-violent, volunteer sexual contacts between certain age groups neccessarily constitues "abuse" at one instance but not in the other (such as, it is "always abusive" to have volunteer sex with a 12 yearold but possibly "okay" with a 14 yearold, etc.). Many places in the US an 18 yearold having sex with a 15 yearold would be legally defined as a "statutary rapist", no matter how volunteer and mutual the actvity in question. These are good examples of value judgements, and while as an encyclopedia we should point to the fact that ALL sexual activity between adults and "minors" are considered "sexual abuse" "in most cultural, medical, and legal contexts" it is unencyclopedic to take sides in the debate by stating that "PP activists want to abuse children. Period." as per SqueakBox's suggestion. We are not here to judge and decide the truth but merely to describe a phenomenon in value-neutral terms as appropriate for an objective, impartial encyclopedia. Equilibrist 22:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't just deal with science, that would make us a scientific encyclopedia, a great idea but not what we are. And we must not confuse our readers or we would destroy our value as educational. The reality is adults having sex with children is rape but adults having sex with 16 year olds isn't, SqueakBox 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not up to Wikipedia to decide the "reality" of your statement and, besides, your point has already been made quite clearly in the intro: Some pro-pedophile activists advocate social acceptance of what they consider to be adult romantic love and sexual attraction to minors, as well as the legalization of what they believe to be non-abusive and mutually consenting adult-minor sexual activity, activity that is currently defined, in most cultural, medical, and legal contexts, as child sexual abuse. and Pro-pedophile activism stands in opposition to anti-pedophile activism, which aims to shield children from those it considers "predatory pedophiles" and which claims that pro-pedophile organizations and activities are merely attempts to legalize and legitimize the abuse of children.. Several researchers, such as Rind et.al., have in fact opposed the orthodoxy and suggested the use of value-neutral terminology in order to properly differentiate between what might be described as "abusive", "neutral" and "positive" experiences. Equilibrist 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: SqueakBox, Wikipedia is a scientific encyclopedia, and humanities are sciences just like psychology is. No reader will know what you mean if you actually write "adults having sex with children is rape". This sentence can be interpreted in a number of ways, and you ought to be more clear. a.z. 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that sexual contact between adults and minors may not be an invariably coercive, forceful interaction is one that has been suggested and even taken for granted in various societies. Thus, when discussing it as anything bar the crime, we should avoid problematic value judgements such as "love", "abuse" and even "relationship". Describing a potential decriminalised interaction as abuse is crazy, as it would be non-abusive by its very definition! This should really end the debate! ♥ Lundiaka 01:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think that a decriminalised interaction is necessarily non-abusive? There have been many societies in which it was legal to physically and psychologically abuse people in many ways. a.z. 01:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be non-abusive by its legal definition. And the PPAs described in this article would not support any of the contact that would be prosecuted under general assault laws, as long as they did not "discriminate" by age. Of course, individual cases under a more liberal regime may very well be abusive, using a broader definition, but I'm sure you'll agree that to call all of the legalised interactions "abuse" or "love", simply because that is how they are defined now, or that is how some PPA wants to see it, is stupid, misinterprets the PPA message and is unnecessarily POV. ♥ Lundiaka 03:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two issues that need to be addressed about SqueakBox's version 

message: Jeeny, why removing information about the DSM? This is referenced and important. From where did you get the information that a paraphilia is something "abnormal and unnatural", whatever that means? Isn't that just your personal opinion about pedophilia? a.z. 03:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Abnormal and unnatural" does kind of fit as an unofficial, lay description of Paraphilia. The main problems with her edit is that she or he seems to be asserting that it is not only an official definition, but one endorsed by the DSM (only a ref in the Psy Today link used to back up this definition). Another problem is that the Psy Today article does not involve "behaviour" in the passage quoted. Another problem is that she or he removes at least one valid source and a copy-edit. ♥ Lundiaka 03:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed information about the DSM 

message: Hi, Jeeny. I am a new editor, although I have a lot of experience in this topic.
You have supported an edit that removes this valid link from the DSM verification, removes the official literature and goes on to implant a misquote of unofficial opinion as a definition of paraphilia. This makes it look as if the DSM is written by the editor of Psy Today, which is obviously not good.
Please condider the quality and applicability of your sources, and make sure not to misrepresent official texts such as the DSM. Cheers. ♥ Lundiaka 03:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Lundiaka, I have a problem with "cherry picking" from sources to support a POV. Yes, that blurb is in the criteria, but there is a lot more. Please see the link Jmh123 provided. It does include the text that was there before my revert, but it is taking it out of context which I have a problem with. This is a complicated subject, to use the text that was there before...seemly was to minimize what the diagnosis or criteria pertaining to the sources it actually quotes. So, IMO it it best to leave it to the reader to click on the ref to read further. That is, unless the full explanation is fully illustrated in the article. Cheers. :) Jeeny (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you add the full explanation, with context, to the article? a.z. 03:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you? It is the responsiblity of the editor who included the content to provide accurate content. Not me. Anything that does not support the source, or if there is no source, anyone has the right to delete it. :) btw, I'm going to bed now. I was up too late the last couple of nights, and I have to go to work in the morning. JSYK. :)Jeeny (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? That's not what I'm discussing. I copied the text directly from the source. The text I copied made perfect sense for me, and I think it could stay there as it was. In the future, someone could add more information. I won't add the "full explanation" because I have no idea about what the "full explanation" is. You seem to know it, so, to improve Wikipedia, you should add that to the article. a.z. 04:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it. Jeeny (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. A.Z. 04:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It was never my intention to cherry - pick or eliminate information that was unfavourable to pedophiles. In fact, I was trying to achieve a more "official" definition (such as the one that you and I now seem to endorse). In this sense, putting back the copy edit and removing the misquote of Psy Today editorial opinion was central to my aim. Any elaboration on how my (and other editors') revert edit lead to bias would be much appreciated. ♥ Lundiaka 00:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DSM verification 

message: An editor described ICD-10 as "an international classification of mental disorders" when according to the WHO it is mainly used for classification of all kind of diseases, mainly physical disorders with a single chapter (out of 22) dealing with psychiatry (which it in turn largely borrows or infers from the DSM). Directly from the WHO website: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/
ICD-10 definition of pedophilia, with a code F65.4 listed under the "Disorders of sexual preference " category: "A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."http://www.reasoned.org/dir/ds/icd_f65.htm#4
PS: I forgot to sign in during my latest edit, so I accidentally edited the article with an IP address. Equilibrist 10:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICD-10 

message: An editor claims that we do not revert sourced material.
This is invalid when talk page consensus has established that the sources do not support the claims. 
This is invalid when the claims are laden with subjective values and oppositions as raised in my earlier arguments (NPOV). You cannot use the bible to reference the rightness of its own judgements.
This is invalid when the more popular version is supported by references in the body text. ♥ Lundiaka 22:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why reverting against consensus is not a good idea 

message: SqueakBox added back his proposed version, even though none of the issues mentioned above have been addressed. Referenced material does not mean a sentence with a random link next to it. That link just does not back up the assertion, and I have said this to him above. SqueakBox's version is not referenced. a.z. 02:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it's sourced and the one he reverted from was not. But, if the references do not support the assertions in the article itself, then it needs to. I haven't checked the refs though. I don't have time right now, though, to check them. I want to let this go a bit, so I do not become emotionally involved, and can remain neutral. :) Jeeny (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to check the refs. SqueakBox admitted above that he didn't even read the reference before adding it. He just copied it from another article, where it is used to back up a completely different assertion, as I pointed out already. a.z. 03:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referenced material 

message: With all respect, Roman, we're not dealing with a movement whose primary objective is the legalisation of sex between minors, which is often legal or acceptable in the first place. If we are, "youth-minor" could not be classed as a form of sexual interaction at the same time as "adult-minor", as this would imply that youths are different to minors, or are a subclass of adults. ♥~Lundiaka 10:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Lundiaka, we are!  Sex between minors is illegal in Germany (see http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/176.html and http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/180.html) and as I hear in at least some of the United States as well.  There have been 17-year-olds incarcerated for intercourse with 13-year-olds or 7-year-olds put life-long on the sexual offenders registry for sexual play in the elementary classroom.  I don't know much about pedophile activism overseas, but the German pedophile activists have a history of fighting for children's rights to sexuality.   If you want, I can search for example articles on http://www.itp-arcados.net/ and http://k13-online.krumme13.eu/. Roman Czyborra 11:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is shocking. A.Z. 05:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, especially the part of 7-year-olds being on the sexual offenders list. That's what I mean, when it is obvious that the public is against this. And it is getting more and more bizarre. This is so over the top. This is not to excuse those adults who take advantage of children under the age of 12 as objects of desire, not counting those adults who do NOT act on this urge, though. Jeeny (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Children should be free to have all the sex they want between themselves. Taking this freedom from them is child abuse. A.Z. 05:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where you are really from, but it's not just Germany, it is in the US, UK etc, too. They are arresting children and taking them away from their parents! It's gone too far. And it is mostly because of this friggen movement. Don't you see that? Jeeny (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am really from where I say I am on my user page, Jeeny, but I'm sure you'll explain your concerns about my identity/intentions/location on your talk page tomorrow. I would like to know what evidence there is that pro-pedophile activism somehow caused these German laws to be created. This seems like an interesting theory. A.Z. 05:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting as this disctussion is, it is not in fact discussion about the article, so let's keep it at this, or continue the discussion on user(talk) pages. Our opinions on wehter or not something is shocking are not all that relevant to the article. Martijn Hoekstra 23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Adult/youth-minor sexual interactions" 

message: I want to stress that the focus of this article should be pro-pedophile activism. This is especially true of the intro. This being said, Barry Jameson, could you please explain why you think the following sentence should remain within the intro: "Many vigilante groups also target anyone with a sexual attraction to children." Although we both agree that this deals with pedophilia in the sense that it talks about anti-pedophile activist vigilante groups, this text is not relevant to the main topic of the article. If you want to add this sentence to the Anti-pedophile activism page, please feel free to do so, but the anti- movement is already sufficiently covered within the intro. Furthermore, what this sentence is saying is that these groups target pedophiles, and does not even reference pro-pedophile activism or activists. In that regard, this would even be more fitting for the Pedophilia article than this one. Furthermore, this sentence could come off as POV, and that's the last thing this article needs, seeing as there are already concerns about viewpoint neutrality within this text. Lastly, this sentence just looks out-of-place in the intro, since the intro is supposed to be concise and to the point, and should focus on the topic at hand, and not something else, such as a counter movement. ~ Homologeo 02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course. It's the pro-pedophile article. Why the hell is it so much larger than the antipedophile article, though? GrooV 06:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose because it is much more controvercial, and therefor receives much more attention in the popular and scientific media. Martijn Hoekstra 09:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I added two references, however one is a blog (although not typical blog content) and one is a media article rather than a vigilante organisation. Is it acceptable to link to CorporateSexOffenders.com following the owner's rant about Wikipedia? That website targets anyone with a sexual attraction to children and is a vigilante group, which makes it a very good example.
Your sentence is probably an improvement, but it isn't just pedophiles who oppose vigilante action against non-predatory pedophiles. Barry Jameson 16:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately some vigilante groups also target people whom they mistakenly believe to be pedophiles but whom are innocent people. There was a march in the UK some years ago with people carrying placards reading "send the peds to Latin America" which is completely off the wall, incendiary material that fully contradicts the spirit of the UK law and decent human compassion. It is fine to link to media, btw, but I think stuff about vigilantism should be moved to the APA article. Do others agree? If so I can do it, SqueakBox 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A person's sexual orientation does not define whether or not they are "innocent," contrary to the implications of your statement. There is some overlap between what is relevant in the pro-pedophile activism and anti-pedophile activism articles. I don't think that moving the sentence to the anti-pedophile activism article is necessary. Barry Jameson 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand your first statement at all. I said innocent and I meant it, I wasn't commenting on innocent people's sexual, merely on whether they were wrongly believed to be pedophile by people who attack first and ask questions once they have done the damage, SqueakBox 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of this sentence: "Many vigilante groups also target anyone with a sexual attraction to children"

message: are business as usual with these articles, and heaven forbid anyone step in the middle for any reason or you'll get slapped.  I think using someone's personal name crosses a line, but I won't push it as I see that it is on the individual's userpage.  In case any of you care, all this endless arguing, regardless of position, discourages anyone with a real desire to improve Wikipedia from coming anywhere near these articles.  In some cases, that may be the goal.  -Jmh123 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Welland's dissertation below, I thought the idea was to get outside opinions.  If you guys are just going to carry on as usual under the guise of a RfC, why bother?   -Jmh123 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. The problem is that this talk page and its arguments have gone through such convolutions that expecting someone from the outside to suddenly enter this mess and navigate it is expecting too much from them, I think.  Since the object of foremost contention is really the first paragraph, I provided a framework at the bottom of this talk page for talking about that introductory paragraph ... but note that I have not commented there (nor will I) on that first paragraph in its two forms (the former version and SqueakBox's).  Perhaps that is sufficient (though I might be wrong) for allowing an outside observer to engage and comment on it.  As far as myself, I am pulling out of this debate for the immediate future, considering it futile.  I am curious what the article will look like in a few weeks, after all the alterations and the debate have hopefully settled a bit.  If anyone wishes my view on a particular point, I am willing to discuss this on my talk page (or on someone else's).  Here, I think I will write nothing for a few weeks.  Increasingly bored, Welland R 14:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unproductive arguments 

message: I would like to propose a new version of the for part of the introduction paragraph, I tried to merge both versions together. apart from some structuring issues, I removed the sentence where it is implied that it is an aim of pro-pedophile activist groups to abuse children. It does still say that anti-pedophile activism aims to shield childrem from pedophiles. I removed the qualification fo preditory there, because shielding children from something already clearly indicates that they believe the pedophiles are trying to 'get to' their children. Unfortunately, I ended up with very few refs from the original version, as most of the refs had problems. The removed refs can be found below the article, with a reason why I removed them. Be sure to stick them back in in case I missed some valid reason to include them. Here goes, hope you like it.
Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists, who concern themselves with specific changes to criminal laws on sexual interactions between adults and youths or minors like changing age of consent laws, social acceptance of adults' sexual attraction to children, social acceptance of sexual activity between adults and children, or pedophilias mental illness classifications. Amongst its members are self-identifying pedophiles. They are sometimes allied to grassroots organizations such as the now virtualy defunct North American Man/Boy Love Association and the Dutch group Vereniging MARTIJN. Most current activism takes place on the Internet. Pro-pedophile activism stands in opposition to anti-pedophile activism, which aims to shield children from pedophiles, and which claims that pro-pedophile organizations and activities are merely attempts to legalize and legitimize the abuse of children. Some pro-pedophile groups are involved in opposing vigilante groups that target anyone with a sexual attraction to children.http://www.the-signal.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=50916
refs:
refs that I couldn't find a place for:
* http://www.thestandard.com/article.php?story=20040227211153249 I found nothing of relevance to pro-pedophile activism here don't really see the added value of this source. Squeak, could you give the relevant quote for this ref that makes it relevant? I might just have missed it.
* http://www.clinicalsocialwork.com/incest.html This ref was used as a reference for the line about what pro-pedophile activisims aims are, but I find nothing here about activism.
* http://anu.nfshost.com/2007/because-its-not-about-the-children Very POV ref from a pro-pedophile activism website. Could only be used as an example of the oppinion of a APA group, and would then still be a dubious source, as it would be used as a primary source. Way to POV to be a reliable source to use their statements as a secondary source.
* http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28336 fairly good ref, WND would probably count as a reliable source , and it talks about activism, so I'm sure it references something. I just couldn't find what exactly. If anyone uses this ref for anything, best thing to do might be using a citeweb template, and making sure you use the 'Quote' property, to show what exactly you are using as ref.
* http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/parade_071402.html I really couldn't get through this ref. Could someone else review it, and see what exactly it references? (with a quote from the article)
* http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=69831 , holds a copy of http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=69609. The latter should be prefered if it is used as a source, but it seems that using this source will be hard without resorting to OR, since it's a very primary source, in fact, it's a work of fiction to provoke discussion. I don't really know how to use that as a source.
The only ref I left in place is the one at the end, and that one is still not perfect, as it is a primary source, and can serve as an example, but doesn't really source the statement made. So unless I'm missing big things here, I think we have to hunt for new sources. On the upside, I do think we should be able to get sources for most of the facts tags in this proposed partial introduction. 
Martijn Hoekstra 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was aware that the anu.nfshost.com reference was POV when I added it, but there is an obvious reason for having a POV reference for that sentence. The statement is, Some pro-pedophile groups are involved in opposing vigilante groups that target anyone with a sexual attraction to children, therefore I provided an example of a pro-pedophile group opposing vigilante groups that target anyone with a sexual attraction to children. Barry Jameson 19:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So you are suggesting we use the banned user who returned as a sock's version then? Even though it is far more POV than the current version? Since when are people who abuse children not predators? Since when is having sex with a child not child sexual abuse? SqueakBox 02:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You read my comment proficiently enough to refactor it, yet still did not gather its meaning. Firstly, I am suggesting the intro outlined immediately above under the heading "Yet another proprosal" be used, whether it is this you are referring to it surely cannot be, since it is hardly as N:POV as you suggest it is (as I pointed out previously, if anything, it is N:POV in favor of your current edit). Secondly, I think there is a strong possibility that you may have found yourself on the wrong talk page: you see this article details paedophilia and a movement surrounding it, clearly you must have taken a wrong turn at child sexual abuse. As a studying minor in pyschology I take mild offence when people confuse correlation with causation, it is the most naive of mistakes to make. Please re-read the article (and some independent research wouldn't hurt either): paeophilia is not child sexual abuse and vice versa; thinking all pedophiles are child sexual predators is as naive as thinking all heterosexuals are rapists or that all casual friday-night drinkers are alcoholics. 70.53.129.124 09:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another proposal