Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/Archive 5

message: *As a point of order, can we define what an LGBT organization is?  Is it a self-defined category?  Does any group who claims the mantle of homosexuality behind its goals qualify?  Would Exodus International qualify as an LGBT group, since its members are made up of people with homosexual leanings?  If not, why not?  --DavidShankBone 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, you beat me to it. Jeff proposes that "They are an organization comprised of gay individuals, thus they are a LGBT organization", but this obviously applies to Exodus, as well as Love in Action and NARTH. Members of these groups still identify as gay, or at least some do, but they say they are no longer "practicing". There's nothing there to keep them out of :Category:LGBT organizations, except that LGBT organizations disown them. — coelacan talk — 02:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought the outcome of this debate will make it pretty clear what the definition of :Category:LGBT organizations is (and as such which groups belong in it). As it is, I suspect each side in this debate would characterise it quite differently. WjBscribe 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you feel Exodus International qualifies as a gay group?--DavidShankBone 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I don't think every homophobic group or group that seeks to 'cure' gay people can qualify. Those who organise it are expressly not gay (or 'no longer gay') and they seek to reduce the number of gay people. I don't see how NAMBLA's inclusion would require their inclusion. WjBscribe 02:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the composition of the group is irrelevant?  Exodus is run by gay men fighting their feelings.  In the 2/12 New York Times profile of Exodus, it is comprised of gay men who seek to change, or at the very least, mitigate, their feelings.  But does that make them "not gay"?  I hope you can agree, that these are, in fact, tortured gay individuals attempting misguided cures for feelings that are natural to them (or the struggle would not be so difficult).  There is a second point you made:  the goal of the group.  Does it need to be a gay-supported goal?  This logic needs to be worked out.  --DavidShankBone 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: David, I just read that article, and unless I overlooked something it did not say that the organizers of Exodus or other ex-gay movements were ex-gay themselves. If they were, indeed, ex-gay, I suppose one might be able to make a case for inclusion in the LGBT category...but then if they were ex-gay, then they would be de facto heteros and not eligible. They would probably also oppose themselves being included--a worthy argument for or against inclusion here, in my opinion. Jeffpw 09:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I return to what I said before. Once we have determined whether NAMBLA should be included we'll be in a better position to work out these issues. Should it be decided that NAMBLA does not belong in the category, this discussion becomes moot. WjBscribe 02:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your phrasing above begs a chicken/egg scenario: if we can't define what a gay group is, how can we define whether NAMBLA or Exodus falls into it?  We aren't defining gay group via NAMBLA.  I throw in Exodus here not as a bogeyman, but for context to the larger discussion.  So I return to my orginal question:  What is a gay group?  We should be able to come up with notions of this that will answer both the NAMBLA and Exodus questions. I'm asking your opinion now.  --DavidShankBone 02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a gay group?  If [[NAMBLA]] qualifies, does [[Exodus International]]?

message: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." (From: WP:CAT) Clearly, as evidenced by this talk page and the tag, it is a very controversial inclusion into the category. Therefore, per the guideline, I have removed the tag and the category from the article. (See above comments and discussion for further information regarding my take on the matter.) Vassyana 17:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that your interpretation of the guidelines translates into obliterating historical information. Many things are controversial and still documented properly in the Wikipedia. There is sufficient overlap here for reasonable people to disagree, and we should not deprive our readers of such links just because present view have diverged from past ones. Let people make up their own minds, don't make them up for them. Haiduc 13:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haiduc, the decision to remove the category was discussed above and agreed upon by consensus. Using the tag indicates that NAMBLA is still an LGBT organization, which is not the case--thus the tag is not accurate. If you would like to create a "former LGBT organization" category, you are more than welcome to, but please discuss such changes on the talk page before unilaterally making them. Justin Eiler 13:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right, I was having second thought about it myself. However, since, as you imply yourself, they are no longer an LGBT organization, we should simply put them into LGBT history, since they are incontestably part of it. Haiduc 14:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A day later. Opposing opinions continue (as per the recent edit to the article), and a further complication has arisen. First, I assume that I am in the majority here if I posit that we are not questioning whether Nambla is associated in some way with the LGBT movement but only how to categorize it within that movement. I am not sure myself how to resolve that quandary. We could place it in the LGBT Organizations cat, but some have pointed out that it no longer such and therefore does not belong. That sounds very good until we look at the Mattachine Society article, it also no longer an LGBT organization, yet our various banners fly high over it. On the other hand we could categorize it with LGBT history, for obvious reasons. Or we could place it in both categories for good measure. Haiduc 14:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on this article the issue is already settled, but if you want to raise it on Mattachine then I think you should.  --DavidShankBone 15:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be tagged as LGBT history, as people on both sides of the catgory debated have agreed. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 15:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  --DavidShankBone 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: David, do you have multiple personality disorder? :)  Just one centimeter above this last protestation of yours, you agreed with the listing of the article under LGBT history. I did exactly that and now you are harrumphing again. What gives?! Haiduc 18:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oi, you're right.  My apologies.  I'll put it back up.  It was a case of sloppy editing on my part.  Sorry.  --DavidShankBone 19:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happens to the best of us. :) Justin Eiler 19:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed dispute tag and category 

message: Two editors, despite the recent consensus to remove the LGBT Category tag and place NAMBLA under the List, continue to put the category tag on, citing the Talk page as if consensus runs in their favor.  I suggest that they stop editing in an unhelpful way and raise their issues here.  --DavidShankBone 18:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David, do you have multiple personality disorder? :)  Just one centimeter above this last protestation of yours, you agreed with the listing of the article under LGBT history. I did exactly that and now you are harrumphing again. What gives?! Haiduc 18:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oi, you're right.  My apologies.  I'll put it back up.  It was a case of sloppy editing on my part.  Sorry.  --DavidShankBone 19:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happens to the best of us. :) Justin Eiler 19:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editors going against consensus

message: How come the lgbt tag has a 'we dont endorse' thing in it?
The nazi party and hitler articles have wikiproject germany tags with no 'we dont endorse' in them.
The whole lgbt project going out of its way to distance itself from nambla makes it look like they have something to hide. I prefered the old tag, i never once thought that the lgbt community supported nambla without the new tag. Nambla is part of lgbt history like it or not its a fact and making a big fuss by creating a new tag to state the obvious looks a little suspect.
This is just my opinioun, being straight i'm looking in on this from the outside if you like and i certainly feel as if the regulare lgbt tag is a lot less suspicious we all know lgbt dont support nambla we dont need a tag to tell us that.
i welcome any opiniouns on this i may well be in the minority thinking this but its just the way i see the whole thing.
Thanks Crushanator 12:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crushanator, several people, both in and out of the project, have expressed concern and anger that this article is tagged, and suggested that it appears as if we at the WikiprojectLGBT endorse NAMBLA because of the tag. I agree the explanation portion of the tag is unnecessary, but the consensus so far is that we need it or something like it. Thanks for sharing your opinion on the subject. Jeffpw 12:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lgbt tag 

message: NAMBLA was co founded by Moe Lester along with David Thorsant. The two partners in the historical man boy love relationship which caused a great great uproar among popular media in the late 70's. It is unfair to dis-include Moe Lester for all the work he has done for this great organization. He worked in the organization of the protests in San Francisco during the historic LGBT meetups on the with the golden gate gays. please correct this immediately.
First sentence in History, quote, 'Events such as Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign in 1977, and a police raid of Toronto-area gay newspaper The Body Politic for publishing "Men Loving Boys Loving Men" set the stage for the founding of NAMBLA.[5]'   the group was formed at least several years before, tho I cannot provide any verifiable info except my own report...
I was the younger partner of a M/B relationship from '69 to '74.   I remember that it was during the first 2 years that he told me of the existence of the group NAMBLA which 'supported' our type of friendship.   (I dont believe he ever joined it, but he knew of it, and told me of it, when I was 13 or 14...   )   I never saw a magazine, a newsletter, or anything else...   I saw plenty of porn...   [ pardon me, but I saw 'hard porn', for the day...   never any films, but I saw mags in B/W of nothing but 'beaver shots', I saw others with nothing but pics of young boys 'showing their stuff'...   I saw mags with explicit pics of men and women...   it pales in comparison to what is easily (and privately) available on the net today...   ]
I cannot provide any externally verifiable info, only my own report, which I certify is true...
probably not able, based on that, to edit the page, but I wanted to tell you...  my guess would be that the group must have been founded before '68...   tho the 'Stonewall' riot was Jun '69, and might have been the catalyst...
regards...
p.s.   I have found, more than a couple times in recent weeks, that the phrase 'sex by eight, or it is too late' is wrongly attributed to NAMBLA...   that phrase was used by a group that advocated heterosexual sex with children, members of the group appeared on Phil Donahue's show in the 80's, and a quick search will turn up the relevant info...    all I am saying is, condemn NAMBLA for their own crimes, not for those of another...   
Wont fool me twice (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You present the requisite caveats yourself, so I'm not going to repeat them. I do find your information about NAMBLA possibly having a history that stretches prior to 1968 credible (affording yourself good faith and not suspecting you of having any motives to present wrongful information). We will obviously have to leave the matter at that, but anyone who would be privy to missing documentation about the early, and in this article undocumented, history of the organization, are encouraged to assist in elucidating also this part of NAMBLA's past. __meco (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the group is inaccurate... 

message: : The article isn't about 'people who exploit children for sex' -- or at least that's a highly tendentious interpretation.The Relativist (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Checkout the archives it's been discussed several many times with strong arguments on both sides but comes down on the keep side. It could be discussed again but check the archives first as you may find someone has already answered your issues...—Ash (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Check your favorite dictionary sometime. If pedophilia is defined as sexual attraction to children, then homosexual pedophilia certainly exists. What you probably intend to say is that pedophiles shouldn't be associated with mainstream gays. 174.126.77.173 (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

text: "Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality" Sure it does. Doesn't the Catholic Church, among others, have this problem with homosexual pedephile priests? Many of their victims claim that they are homosexual today because of the homosexual pedophile priests.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

text: This article is indeed part of LGBT history. Many LGBT activists were tied into this cause and supportive in the beginning and some even persisted towards the end. Your bias is clearly showing if you somehow want to cover this up as part of LGBT history. How would you feel if Christians tried to detag the Spanish Inquisition as part of the series on Christianity and Catholicism? My guess is you would probably not be a fan. All ideologies must acknowledge dark times in their history where their leadership went astray. Nobody is to be given immunity. 98.114.89.231 (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

text: The association is called the North American Man/Boy Love Association, not the North American Adult/Child Love Association or the North American Man/Girl-Woman/Boy Love Association, so I guess that makes it very LGBT. And it does say "love" in the name of the association, so technically speaking it is not about exploitation (it's not the North American Man/Boy Sexual Abuse Association).187.112.248.21 (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT???????

message: Please spell check this document.  Paedophile is spelt incorrectly all the way throughout as if the author was a five year old who mouthed out his consonants to learn how to spell....   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.42.147 (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How is pedophile spelled incorrectly all the way through? The spelling variation pedophile is the English version. Note that our Wikipedia article about pedophiles is titled Pedophilia, not by the British version...Paedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor English

message: I tried, absentmindedly and foolishly, to turn a (to me) strange-looking pseudo-link to NAMBLA's "Welcome" page into a real link, and ran into the fact that it's blacklisted. Good thing too, and I shouldn't try to gnome before coffee. But what I'd like to know is: a) if the link is blacklisted, should the corresponding www address be offered in unlinked form, either? (Currently footnote 9.) And the quote from it in the article? And b) what about the live link to NAMBLA's website under "External links"? Are only their individual subpages blacklisted? 
I also think most of the section "Operations" should be removed. (I've already removed the promotional description of the booklets, and the misplaced listing of William Andriette.) The link , used as a citation for no less than three of the publications listed, is 404 not found. The item "Arrel's Pages, a project through which literature concerning 'man-boy love' was sold" is altogether unsourced, and Google can't find it.  Bishonen | talk 10:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wondering about links to NAMBLA and the blacklist, and about the "Operations" section

message: There is no criticism whatsoever of the organization, I cant believe due to lack of sources being available. Also the article relies much too heavily on NAMBLA sources. There is no editorial dispute, merely a realization that the article is simply not neutral in accord with our WP:NPOV policies. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: Can you please write more about the active members of this group? Thanks. Keep up the good work NAMBLA! John K. (Miami) --207.207.17.198 (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Information about members 

message: Surely this article should be removed, because I just have troubles believing this group exists outside of an Onion article. 182.239.217.79 (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that is wikipedia informing your ignorance which is just what we are here for, so a success story!. No tor back in the day when NAMBLA were at their peak♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a site for jokes 

message: Hmm. I've been reading up on the history of NAMBLA and it seems pretty clear that while they remain morally questionable throughout their history, they are not, strictly speaking, advocates for pedophilia, but rather ephebophilia (popularly called pedarasty, which historically was more accepted than it is now in the history of western homosexuality.)  I don't want to stray into the political battles that I'm guessing on this page and similar pages quite often, but i'm just not sure that this "pedophilia" is or ever was an accurate characterization.  I realize that the word "pedophilia" has been used in the media since the 1990s to talk about adults who are sexually attracted to post-pubescent youth; but that is a cultural bias.  It is not the clinical, scientific or academic definition of the term - something that is even recognized on Wikipedia's page on pedophilia.   Food for thought on a hot-button topic...
2602:306:80B0:28E0:C920:F748:CDC7:7A3 (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It should really be. Disguising a truth doesn't make it less true. 88.17.179.212 (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Sure, like Hitler's regime was. Marksmore111 (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedophiles 

message: Wikipedia Editors,
In this article, it says that Todd Nickerson is a NAMBLA member. Well, I am Todd Nickerson and I am not, nor have I ever been, a NAMBLA member. Seriously, read the article that was used to reference this. It does not say I was a NAMBLA member--it says I sympathized with them. Sympathizing with a group's platform does not make you a member, especially when that sympathy is as short-lived as mine was. Please correct this immediately.
Thank you,
Todd Nickerson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.163.163.93  (talk • contribs) 
::*Todd Nickerson, Virtuous Pedophiles member who wrote "I'm a pedophile, but not a monster" for Salon.com was formerly a member of NAMBLA, although he opposed sexual contact between adults and children.
Pjefts (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Already  by user above. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Pjefts, regarding this, we have no way of knowing that you are Todd Nickerson. And either way, going by that Salon source and the Vice source, Todd Nickerson has received a lot attention for sympathizing with NAMBLA. Why shouldn't we keep his name in the "Associated individuals" section when he is, in fact, associated with NAMBLA? It doesn't take much to reword a sentence. I think it was a WP:Conflict of interest violation for you to make that edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I'm confused here. Are you saying that I'm Todd Nickerson and that I have a COI. I removed the material to the Talk page mostly because I've seen editors place living people as members or "associated" when clearly they were not e.g. Michael Jackson. Pjefts (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Pjefts, that an IP added the comment wasn't clear. I've now tagged the IP's comment above. I should have checked the edit history like I usually do. I will go ahead and re-add Nickerson, but reword the content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Reworded, but I need to look more into Nickerson to see if we should keep him listed. Pinging Legitimus, Herostratus and KateWishing in case they have any opinion on this or what else to do with the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd delete the reference per WP:BLP. He's unlike the other people mentioned in the section in two ways: he's not an actual member, and he's not notable enough to be bluelinked. And it's not really critical to the article to list individuals. On top of that someone has objected, who might be the person. Or might not, and we can point him to WP:OTRS, but we can save all that hassle by just deleting the person's entry. WP:BLP tells us to err on the side of caution here. Herostratus (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I am opposed to including any individuals who fail WP:NOTEBIO, i.e. are not notable enough to have their own article.  This is a policy in several other articles of people who do bad things, such as Military imposters.  Furthermore, I note the other individuals in the list are very unapologetic in their advocacy of abusing children, while Nickerson is opposed according to the sources, meaning that including him does a disservice.Legitimus (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points, Herostratus and Legitimus. I thought similarly after re-adding the content, which is the main reason I pinged you. I wanted second opinions. Per those opinions, I've re-removed the content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am not a member of NAMBLA 

message: Can somebody add the Start date and age template from "2 December 1978" to {start date and age|1978|12|2} to correspond to the North American Man/Boy Love Association's foundation?
 173.73.227.128 (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ! DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 09:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016 

message: How these guys continue since 38 years to promote pedophilia without to be arrested and judged?
if the rule of law is not respected so go ahead to the rule of jungle  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madovsky (talk • contribs) 13:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk page is not a forum per WP:WWIN I suggest going to specific user's(maybe the main and current editors of this page) talk page and talk it out. Talk page is for discussing changing and maintenance of the article itself FusionLord (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This organization is promoting pedophilia which is, according to the rule of law a crime 

message: I'm not very active on this wiki, but I really need to ask what is the significance of this organization which is in my opinion illegal? Anti-pedophile activism is on the contrary an ethical and a worthy social movement that deserves wider attention. Pe-ga-sos (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 

message: Add association of Thomas K. Hubbard to the Associated Individuals section.
The North American Man/Boy Love Association published a pamphlet by Hubbard, "Greek Love Reconsidered".
See here: https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/32865321?q&versionId=40160583
and here: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-11-03.html
This inclusion was on the page formerly, but has been removed Indeclinable (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: - Thank you. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2019 

message: The Operations section was based on court filings. These are not a reliable source. Court findings of fact may be, in some cases, but here we had the filings, which state the plaintiffs' case and can be complete nonsense, and a motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss will look at procedural issues such as personal jurisdiction, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a motion to dismiss must succeed based on the assumption that all facts as pled are true. You can't challenge the facts in a motion to dismiss, that is a matter for the court to decide in its capacity as the judge of fact. So none of the sources of this section are based on anything other than the first-party allegations of a set of plaintiffs. Even if the allegations are true (spoiler: I think they are) we cannot use this as sourcing. Guy (help!) 14:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operations 

message: I am Prof. Thomas Hubbard of the University of Texas, Austin, and am very much a living person, which means Wikipedia needs to take great care before including inflammatory statements about me as an associate of this very controversial and demonized organization. The editor "Crossroads" added this section about me on August 30 of this year, and it came to my attention only recently, as it is now being cited (as their sole documentation) in protests by a right-wing student group demanding that I should be removed from my tenured professorship. 
*"Crossroads" lists as his/her documentation a non-peer reviewed blog response by Prof. Davidson to someone else's negative review of his book The Greeks and Greek Love in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review. Crossroads omits to mention my response to Davidson, which is also visible on the same webpage: </ref>http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/11/20091103.html</ref>. My response makes it very clear that the 2000 book was published by a separate entity and then distributed to some NAMBLA members, but was not published "on NAMBLA's behalf." My response also makes it clear that neither I nor the essays in the book endorse NAMBLA's idiosyncratic approach to legal reform, and my editing of the book was in no way influenced by NAMBLA; this can be verified by anyone who actually reads the book, which is still available through Amazon (see </ref>https://www.amazon.com/Greek-Love-Reconsidered-Thomas-Hubbard/dp/0961549726/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408305279&sr=1-1&keywords=Greek+Love+Reconsidered</ref> for the blurb and table of contents, which no serious person could misconstrue as endorsing violation of present-day laws). I do, however, believe that NAMBLA members and the general public deserve to have historically accurate information about ancient Greece, rather than a misleading or romanticized view. I have also made clear my personal disagreement with NAMBLA's approach in the question period after a paper I delivered at the 2011 annual meeting of the American Philological Association, the oldest and foremost association of North American classical scholars: this portion of the session is video-archived at </ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV5BzhxQnHs</ref>. In addition, I have further evidence that is not published, but eventually may be, consisting of accusations Davidson made to an e-mail list of classicists and which I immediately refuted. Davidson claimed to be boycotting a conference on ancient sexuality because of my presence; not a single scholar joined him, but many on the list came to my defense and urged me to attend the conference, which I did. Davidson by himself is not a credible source of any information about me; if he is cited at all, he should be listed as a biased source because of my own highly negative review of his book, which is available at Classical Journal Online 2009.11.03. 
*None of this makes me a NAMBLA "associate" any more than my publishing an article in an East German scholarly journal in the 1980s (when all publications were the property of the East German government) makes me a communist or supporter of the Stasi police state. In contrast, the four other people named as NAMBLA associates in the article were either public spokesmen for the organization (Thorstad, Andriette) or prominent celebrities who made statements in support of its inclusion in the broader gay movement (Harry Hay, Allen Ginsberg). 
*Please delete Crossroads' August 30 addition to the article, or if you let it remain, add all the information I have provided that documents the true nature of the book in question and my personal disagreements with NAMBLA's approach to the age-of-consent issue. If this does not happen immediately, my attorney will demand that the Wikipedia Foundation release the name and address of Crossroads and he/she will be sued for substantial damages. This is not an idle threat, as I have substantial assets with which to hire excellent legal representation in the US, UK, or anywhere else. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be misused as an uncontrolled medium for malicious defamation or McCarthyite guilt-by-association.
2605:6000:1018:E058:245E:3372:904E:393 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See  -Crossroads- (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. To the IP editor: As this has been taken care of by Crossroads, there should be no need to contact OTRS. Regards,  Spintendo  21:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: User:CrossroadsWhy has the edit re Thomas K. Hubbard and his association with Nambla been removed? Please can this be reinstated unless there is a good reason for this edit. This was a fully cited and credible reference. Bullying interventions from individuals should not mean that neutral and reliable information is removed from Wikipedia Indeclinable (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please can we have a  to clear this up  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indeclinable (talk • contribs) 12:55, 29 November 2019 Indeclinable (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone, do see WP:No legal threats. Crossroads absolutely should not fear getting sued. I'm tempted to report this at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Flyer22 Reborn. Please can you report it at WP:ANI, and please can you look at the original reversion that followed the threat of legal action? Indeclinable (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

text: , not unless you can provide reliable independent secondary sources that explicitly list Hubbard as an associate of NAMBLA. Letters in press arguing a case are absolutely not sufficient for this, even if there were no element of synthesis in drawing the conclusion from the letters. They are primary and necessarily not peer-reviewed. NAMBLA has a long history of distorting the facts around pederasty to validate their idiosyncratic agenda, it is unsurprising that any classical scholar who documents pederasty as at risk of being claimed by them as a supporter. Guy (help!) 12:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

text: , that was the correct action IMO, not because fo any legal threat but because of the reasonable arguments put forward above. Nobody has the power to prevent groups like this from co-opting their work, and that does appear to be at least a plausible explanation here. Guy (help!) 12:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was weary about the legal threat issues (and an edit summery of its removal did say it was due to this), but it is true that anyone can nick your work and use it. The legal threat clouded what was a reasonable request.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , true - and in some cases we react to legal threats by digging in, which is not ideal. We can't use  for this. Guy (help!) 14:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request edit re Thomas Hubbard as a "NAMBLA associate" 

message: * Please email your edit request to the following email address: 
Regards,  Spintendo  20:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See  -Crossroads- (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. To the IP editor: As this has been taken care of by Crossroads, there should be no need to contact OTRS. Regards,  Spintendo  21:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: User:CrossroadsWhy has the edit re Thomas K. Hubbard and his association with Nambla been removed? Please can this be reinstated unless there is a good reason for this edit. This was a fully cited and credible reference. Bullying interventions from individuals should not mean that neutral and reliable information is removed from Wikipedia Indeclinable (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please can we have a  to clear this up  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indeclinable (talk • contribs) 12:55, 29 November 2019 Indeclinable (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone, do see WP:No legal threats. Crossroads absolutely should not fear getting sued. I'm tempted to report this at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Flyer22 Reborn. Please can you report it at WP:ANI, and please can you look at the original reversion that followed the threat of legal action? Indeclinable (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

text: , not unless you can provide reliable independent secondary sources that explicitly list Hubbard as an associate of NAMBLA. Letters in press arguing a case are absolutely not sufficient for this, even if there were no element of synthesis in drawing the conclusion from the letters. They are primary and necessarily not peer-reviewed. NAMBLA has a long history of distorting the facts around pederasty to validate their idiosyncratic agenda, it is unsurprising that any classical scholar who documents pederasty as at risk of being claimed by them as a supporter. Guy (help!) 12:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

text: , that was the correct action IMO, not because fo any legal threat but because of the reasonable arguments put forward above. Nobody has the power to prevent groups like this from co-opting their work, and that does appear to be at least a plausible explanation here. Guy (help!) 12:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was weary about the legal threat issues (and an edit summery of its removal did say it was due to this), but it is true that anyone can nick your work and use it. The legal threat clouded what was a reasonable request.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , true - and in some cases we react to legal threats by digging in, which is not ideal. We can't use  for this. Guy (help!) 14:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 28-NOV-2019

message: They were censored here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association/Archive_7
by a checkusered puppet:
 This user has been banned indefinitely from editing the English Wikipedia by community consensus. 
I readded the NAMBLA Rabbi (it is how he is known as per some RSes).
-> do look up there the rest and restore
I have not time to dig thru archives, ANIs and possible (NAMBLA?) meatpuppetry.
Zezen (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  (In)famous members list needs to be restored 

message: The "Founder" field needs to be revised. David Thorstad was not the sole founder of NAMBLA; it did not have a sole founder. NAMBLA was founded out of a 1978 convening of several gay activists in Boston and New York who wanted to respond to a large-scale police sting on a party house in Revere, Massachusetts. Tom Reeves and David Thorstad were two high-profile founders who should definitely be included as "Co-founders," but Thorstad should not be listed as the sole founder.
I am an archivist at the University of Minnesota who is processing David Thorstad's collection. Billu014 (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: DO you have an RS for this?Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021 

message: Gay Histories and Cultures is an encyclopedia with entries by various contributors. The author of the entry on NAMBLA is Daniel C. Tsang. Tsang was present at the founding of NAMBLA;  David France characterises him as a founding member. He edited The Age Taboo, which "laid out the philosophical foundation behind NAMBLA". (The Tech 1989) As of 1989 he was affiliated with the Southern California chapter. He was a panelist at the NAMBLA convention in 1986 and featured speaker in 1991.
John Mitzel, the author of The Boston Sex Scandal, was at one time a NAMBLA spokesman. Two other affiliated sources are Hubert Kennedy and David Thorstad. Cheers, gnu57 22:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out. I don't have time right now to take a close look at the article, but having this laid out is helpful and I support any improvements. Crossroads -talk- 18:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affiliated sources