Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

LGBT?

Okay, I know there's a discussion down there but I can't seem to add to it for some reason, but it really offends me that they're listed as LGBT; when they clearly are not. LGBT activists and LGBT groups have opposed them, and have stated they are in no way related to the gay community, and being gay myself I must say I agree one-hundred percent. Look it up.

I also feel that this needs to be re-catagorized. Acts of sexuality with the same sex aren't necessarily classified as homosexual in every instance. Instances such as these are driven by entirely different factors -- likely psychological ones. And as you mentioned, the general consensus of the GLBT community has flat-out denied any association with this group. Grendel 22:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, NAMbLA was part of the LGBT movement, but they were effectively ostracised because of their focus on adult/child sexual relations advocacy, and the surrounding controversy of doing so. Perhaps it could be listed as "former LGBT" instead? Silent War 02:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

To be technical, I think pedophilia should be classified in a whole other sphere of sexual orientation. If, for example, a man has sexual attractions to a pre-adolescent girl, this should not effectively reflect on heterosexuality in general. There is a clear difference here. As much, NAMBLA really cannot identify with the GBLT community simply because their relationships can be viewed in the context of homosexual, and I'm positive that they're simply trying to piggyback this community in order to reap the support it has legitimately garnered for itself. Can we simply leave the GBLT community out of this once and for all? Grendel 03:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. Most psychologists have agreed it is less about the gender of the child and more about the fact that it is a child, and in fact most pedophiles are heterosexual, or at least bisexual but mostly oriented towards heterosexuality. It is confusing and misleading to continue to list it as GLBT, and will no doubt lead to more people assuming pedophiles are homosexual. iwanttobeasleep 03:44, 04 October 2006 (UTC)

Off Topic By the way, pardon my usage of "GBLT" as opposed to "LGBT." I've noticed that everybody else prefers the latter, so maybe it's the most politically correct form. Grendel 03:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think GLBT is better as it flows with the alphabetical arrangement. However, every time I write it, it's changed to LGBT. Enzedbrit 10:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the request to remove the LGBT category. This group is a pederasty/pedophilia advocacy organization, not an LGBT organization. --Robb0995 00:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Special arrangments should not be made because people are offended by an organization. This organization is clearly LGBT. Just because other LGBT disagree with it, doesn't mean it is not LGBT. It is not soley pedophilia, it is not Adult-Child, it is Man-Boy, that qualifies as homosexuality. 75.3.3.245 01:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the offence at this group indeed does warrant consideration. NAMBLA is not an LGBT organisation. The term LGBT categorises a group of people, a community. NAMBLA and what they stand for fall outside of that community and everything that queer pepole have fought for, and they stand in the face of the credibility that we have sought so hard to achieve. Homosexual is attraction to the same sex, but children are not sexual creatures. If a man is only sexually attracted to men, he is homosexual. If a man is only sexually attracted to boys, he is a paedophile and, quite frankly, needs to be placed outside of society and given treatment. Men who sleep with little girls also cannot be said to be indulging in an aspect of heterosexuality. Saying that NAMBLA automatically qualifies as being part of the LGBT is the same as saying that men who sneak off behind their wives backs to indulge in risky sex acts in public toilets with men are likewise part of our community.Enzedbrit 10:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with most of the above posts. It's an umbrella name for a community of people. A lot of it is made up by homosexual people. NAMBLA obviously would like to engage in homosexual behaviour (even if it is paedophilia). Which ever way you look at it they are gay right? So why can't they be categorised as such? It's like saying "No, a Woman shouldn't be in the Woman group if she's homsexual. You can't be both!". CHSoarer 10:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

POV

I removed the following statement: "However, no evidence has surfaced to prove that NAMBLA facilitates or encourages illegal activities." as POV. I think that a reasonable person could conclude that evidence does exist to prove NAMBLA does the above, as easily as someone could conclude that they don't. What constitutes evidence is in the eye of the beholder. If one wanted to state that the organization has never been successfully sued for faciliting or encouraging illegal activities, I wouldn't have a problem with it. (Assuming it's true.) -- Sperril 16:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, such a statement already exists in the article under criminal allegations. "Although NAMBLA itself has never been prosecuted, there have been a number of prosecutions of alleged NAMBLA members for sexual offences involving children or adolescents." -- Sperril 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How funny. The only reason the statement (and the rest of the paragraph) is in the introduction is that some people insisted that the insinuations about criminal activity be included in the introduction as well. If you want to remove the statement on the grounds that it is repeated later, that's fine. But then let's be consistent and remove the unproven speculation that NAMBLA encourages illegal activity, as it is also repeated later on in the article. I love this mode of thinking: unproven conjecture about a group is not "POV" but a factual statement providing context to that conjecture is.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. As such, I've reinstated the statement until a sufficient reacon is provided for its removal. Corax 21:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition, some of those who have been prosecuted were proven members, not just "alleged" members, IIRC. -Will Beback

This text offers evidence that NAMBLA encourages illegal activity:

• NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them." Frisoli cites a NAMBLA publication he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships." "Its chapters explain how to build relationships with children," Frisoli tells me. "How to gain the confidence of children's parents. Where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught...There is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight. It's pretty detailed." "In his diary, Jaynes said he had reservations about having sex with children until he discovered NAMBLA," Frisoli continues. "It's in his diary in 1996, around the time he joined NAMBLA, one year before the death of Jeffrey Curley."

Pending more information, I'm going to alter the disclaimer. -Will Beback 00:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's hard for me to assume good faith when you make arguments like this, Will. (Then again, why should I assume good faith, since you sometimes do not?) Larry Frisoli is an advocate for two people suing NAMBLA, and his unsubstantiated claims that NAMBLA does various illegal things, including distributing a "rape and escape manual," is not proof that NAMBLA does indeed do these various illegal things. Until somebody can come forward with verifiable evidence that NAMBLA -- the organization -- promotes, facilitates, or engages in the breaking of the law, I am going to have to insist on keeping the disclaimer. And I'm sorry, but some attorney repeating widely held rumours is not verifiable evidence, anymore than Benny Hinn claiming to have heard the voice of god is proof that god exists. Corax 01:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have someone making a counterclaim that Frisoli is wring then we can include that too. But don't say there is no evidence when someone is claiming there is evidence. -Will Beback 03:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether I have somebody making a counterclaim or not is immaterial. As an administrator, you of all people should understand that Wikipedia has certain standards governing the content of its articles. The biggest rule, of course, is that you have to provide evidence and sources for your claims. Thus you need to show proof that NAMBLA encourages or facilitates the violation of the law, or you must leave the sentence in question alone.

That the attorney representing the Curleys in a multi-million-dollar civil lawsuit against NAMBLA claims to have proof is not proof in and of itself, anymore than a crazy person claiming to have heard voices in his head is proof that the voices are real. If the guy's financial incentive were not enough to raise questions about his credibility on this matter, just do a little fact-checking on your own. He claims that in 2000 NAMBLA offered the so-called "Rape and Escape" manual for purchase at its website. Yet www.archive.org's cache of the nambla site shows no such listing anywhere on the site. Making his claims more questionable is the fact that, if NAMBLA ever were shown to materially encourage or facilitate the violation of the law, the feds would have it shut down in a heartbeat. That it continues to exist, complete with public mailbox and web site, is perhaps the strongest testament to the legitimacy of the sentence which you keep censoring for your own personal reasons.

Until you offer substantive prove and not merely accusations by interested parties who claim to have proof (but for some reason do no turn them over to the authorities), there is absolutely nothing incorrect in stating that no proof has surfaced to show that NAMBLA engages in illegal activities. As such, I will consider any further modification of that statement vandalism, and I will report it as such to an administrator who is capable of acting objectively. Corax 04:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between proof and evidence, and even asserting there is no proof is likely POV. Evidence could be defined as something which compels the mind to accept a claim as true or likely. Certainly, some people could take the convictions of NAMBLA members as 'evidence.' I think that's kind of stupid, but anything can be taken as 'evidence,' really. You, personally, do not see anything which evidences CSA facilitation. But others might see <whatever> as evidence. The sentence is POV. 24.224.153.40 23:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the logic that states that illegal behavior by members of a group is proof that said group encourages that illegal behavior, then it follows Republicans who beat their children is proof that the Republican party promotes child-beating. As for your hair-splitting between the meaning of proof and evidence, it really doesn't matter which word is used. The point is that nobody has provided any objectively verifable substantiation that NAMBLA as an organization encourages or facilitates illegal behavior in a way that could stand up to legal scrutiny. Corax 21:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Republican Party does not advocate child beating. NAMBLA does advocate man/boy "love", which happens to be illegal in some jurisdictions. "Legal scrutiny" is not the standard for Wikipedia sourcing. When NAMBLA board members have been arrested, when they've been accused of writing a manual on how to evade capture, it is no longer appropriate to assert that there is no evidence that they promote illegality. We are not in a position to make a positive assertion of a negative fact. Our ignorance of evidence is not proof of absence of evidence. -Will Beback 21:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just not true. NAMBLA advocates changing the laws so as to decriminalize ONLY what it believes are consensual man/boy relationships, NOT all man/boy relationships. Thus they do not "advocate" man-boy love, which would entail the group suggesting that people enter into such relationships. Only somebody with an alterior agenda would be so sloppy in his representation of the facts.

If people have accused NAMBLA of publishing an illegal manual, but have no provided a means by which their claims can be objectively verified, the appropriate way to represent such a statement in a "neutral" encyclopedia would be to state, "Such and such has claimed that NAMBLA has published illegal manuals." Similarly, if NAMBLA members have been arrested for illegal activities, and no evidence has surfaced that the organization promoted, encouraged, or otherwise abetted those activities, the appropriate entry should read, "NAMBLA members have been arrested, but no evidence has surfaced to implicate the organization as having direct involvement those cases."

I know it's tough, but I'd like for you to at least give the appearance of trying to be neutral when it comes to this article. Corax 21:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically, you are correct. Just as NORML doesn't advocate smoking pot, only legalizing it. But they tout its health benefits and harmless as reasons, so in practice they do advocate its legal use, and in all likelihood its board members use it despite the laws. Likewise for NAMBLA. I agree without your suggested wording, except for the clause that says "but no evidence has surfaced to implicate the organization as having direct involvement those cases" unless you can provide a source for it. Otherwise we are really saying, "Wikipedia editors are not aware of any evidence". Editors need not be neutral, only their edits. -Will Beback 21:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. NORML advocate decriminalizing marijuana for adults only because of what it espouses to be marijuana's health benefits (or at least lack of harmfulness). It does not advocate that everybody should go out and start lighting up anytime they wish without restriction. Nor does it advocate that marijuana use ought to be legal under all circumstances (e.g., smoking pot while operating heavy machinery). You might infer these things from NORML's basis for advocating decriminalization, but NORML in no way supports violation of the law.

The same principle holds true for NAMBLA's advocacy. It advocates eliminating age-of-consent laws because it believes that they sometimes wrongly criminalize harmless relationships, while the harmful relationships it criminalizes would still be criminal as a result of rape and assault laws. This position is not the same as saying that adult men and minor males ought to go out and start having sex with each other. Nor is it the same as saying that man/boy relationships are always beneficial under all conceivable conditions. These are just positions that some people perceive from the underlying basis for what NAMBLA really advocates.

Wikipedia should not bother with broadcasting people's inferrals about what a group advocates; it should only report what the group advocates. Corax 22:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please either provide a source for your assertion that:

• In spite of these claims, no material evidence has surfaced that implicates NAMBLA in encouraging or facilitating illegal behavior.

Or include this additional clause that adheres to the same logic:

• There is also no evidence that NAMBLA does not facilitate illegal behavior. -Will Beback 22:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

-Will Beback 22:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the claim. Regards, Corax 22:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Only to replace it with another unsourced claim. I've removed that new claim. Let the facts speak for themselves. -Will Beback 22:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy your enthusiasm for citations. I will now go through Wikipedia and hold the other articles to a similarly high standard. Regards! Corax 23:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The article sounds like it is almost defending NAMBLA's position. There is something inherently wrong with sexual contact between adults and children. By advocating such contact, even if NAMBLA states that it does not violate any laws, NAMBLA is suggesting that such laws are wrong and should be changed to legalize paedophile activity. Frankly, it is sickening.

It is important for this project that we treat even the most honroed or desipised peope and institutions with a neutral point of view. That applies to MNother Theresa and Adolf Hitler. If there is a specific issue with this article then the editors would be happy to address it. Also, if there is material that can be added ti imprive its neutrality then please add it. -Will Beback 23:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

RFC

In reponse to the RFC, NAMBLA should in no way be viewed as a legitimate LGBT organization. LGBT is understood as referring to adult attraction to other adults, not children. To classify NAMBLA as a LGBT organization would be to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, and would be I believe an intentional smear tactic against LGBT adults.

MSTCrow 09:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This comment assumes bad faith of all those who disagree. It's a legitimate point. They are for homosexual pedophilia, nothing in LGBT makes a presumption of "adult". It should be listed. -- Jbamb 19:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody here is equating anything. I think all of us agree that:

1. "Homosexuals" and "Pedophiles" are non-equal sets of people.
2. Most homosexuals are not pedophiles.
3. Most pedophiles are not homosexual.

However, an overlapping subset ("homosexual pedophiles") clearly does exist and NAMBLA is a part of this subset. The article itself states that NAMBLA proclaims itself as such, and this has been discussed at length in former sections of this talk page. The fact that other LGBT organizations (and the majority of people, for that matter) find NAMBLA offensive is rather immaterial. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:02, Jan. 1, 2006

NAMBLA claims to be a LGBT organization. Does that make it true? Does this now mean that anything that NAMBLA says is true, including the moral permissibility of child/adult sexual relations? Simply because NAMBLA calls itself an LGBT group does not make it so, and there's no reason to think that it is one.

MSTCrow 10:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the organisation caters solely, exclusively and explicitly to males in gay relationships is a clear reason to include the article in this category. NAMBLA doesn't have to claim it is an LGBT organisation, as demonstrated by their name (note the MAN/ BOY LOVE part) and their mission statement (note the MEN and BOYS parts) it is one. NPOV, as I interpret its use in wikipedia, dictates that an article on an organisation focussing on homosexual relationships be included in the category. If you feel that the article shouldn't be included in the category despite the fact it describes an LGBT organisation, please let us know why. What do you think the consequences will be, for the encyclopaedia and for society, if we categorise the article this way? Natgoo 15:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Child molestation is not the same as "gay relationships". -Will Beback 18:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Not when each party is of a different sex. When each is of the same sex, however, then yes, it is a type of gay relationship. I fail to see what child molestation has to do with the inclusion of this article in the category. Natgoo 21:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you call child molestation a heterosexual activity, since most of it is between males and females? -Will Beback 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that? I think it's clear he's saying he thinks homosexual activities betweens two males are homosexual. Furthermore, it is entirely POV to characterize adult-child sex as child molestion, and your previous argument is thus invalid in the context of Wikipedia. // paroxysm (n) 22:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, adult-child sex is either child molestation or statutory rape in most civilized counties of the world. OTOH, Gay sex, sex between consenting males, is legal in most civilized countries. Yes, I have a POV. No, that does not prohibit anyone from editing Wikipedia. -Will Beback 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

But what bearing does either the legality or moral appropriateness of their activities have on the article's categorisation within the encyclopaedia? If it should be a factor, tell us why. Natgoo 22:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is that we don't call men raping little girls "straight sex", nor would we call men raping little boys "gay sex". -22:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. But if a gay adolescent boy and a gay man decide to have sex, that clearly is homosexual. NAMBLA are not particularly concerned with "little boys". Clayboy 23:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA usually focuses on boys before adolescense, and boys that young are incapable of consenting to sex. Even then, most developed nations have 15-18 as the age of consent, younger than that the boys are rated as being incapable of consent. It's rape, any way you cut it, and rape isn't about sexual orientation, it's about power.

Then why are they against having any age of consent at all?Homey 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article. Misrepresenting their position really isn't constructive to the debate at hand. Natgoo 01:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, adult-child sex is either child molestation or statutory rape in most civilized counties of the world. OTOH, Gay sex, sex between consenting males, is legal in most civilized countries. Yes, I have a POV. No, that does not prohibit anyone from editing Wikipedia. -Will Beback 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me reiterate: whether or not age-disparate sexual relations should be consider abusive is pure POV, even if it is the opinion of most of the "civilised" world. Sex between a male and a male is homosexual. Age is not a factor of sexual orientation, I'm sorry.

Of course you have a POV, as does everyone else here, you're just not permitted to edit Wikipedia in accord to it, and thus any argument based on your disputable, personal opinion here is unsound. // paroxysm (n) 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That is different than the argument you're making elsewhere, where you assert that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. -Will Beback 22:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I like to argue and I can't stand to be agreed with, so don't regard if I flip-flop opinion sometimes. At any rate, was that supposed to somehow refute me? // paroxysm (n) 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

We're not here to decide the moral permissibility of anything. I don't see how the type of relationship ("Man/Boy") advocated by NAMBLA could be considered "non-LGBT" (i.e. "heterosexual"). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:35, Jan. 1, 2006

Bestiality may be non-LGBT, does that make it heterosexual? Are there only two choices? -Will Beback 18:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Bestiality? You couldn't find a more appropriate straw man this early in the debate? Bestiality'd be one of the big guns, surely. Natgoo 21:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Brining up bestiality makes a valid point. If an organization advocates human males having sex with male animals, does that make it LGBT? What if it's female animals? Also, many people would consider pedophilia and bestiality morally equivalent, so it's not a straw-man argument.

MSTCrow 00:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It is when we're discussing an organisation for humans. Your point will be valid if there is a need to discuss the categorisation of articles about organisations dedicated to bestiality. Natgoo 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Bestiality is a red herring in this debate. For the record, there are more than two choices, and zoophilia is obviously one of them. Bottom line:

1. This is an organization that advocates and exists to legalize sexual activity between men and boys.

2. Sexual activity between males (and yes, between females) is, by definition, homosexual.

3. There is no way to define a "legitimate" LGBT organization, unless "LGBT" itself is the name of some kind of federation that requires organizations to register, and NAMBLA is not a member.

4. Since "LGBT" is a genericized moniker for groups organized for the benefit of and/or composed of homosexuals (both male and female), the inclusion of an organization that advocates legalization of a specific type of homosexual activity and is purportedly composed of individuals who practice those homosexual acts, it is appropriate to refer to it as a LGBT organization.

Note: I do sympathize (as do most of those who are on my side, I am sure) with the frustration of people who are opposed to this. I am sure that people who are members of LGBT groups that work for the rights and common good of non-pedophile homosexual people are extremely uncomfortable with their inclusion. However, emotions have no place in this discussion. The fact remains that logically, NAMBLA is a LGBT organization, and it is appropriate to list them as such. Jrkarp 14:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to side with Jrkarp. Although it may be frustrating to homosexuals it should be noted that the argument goes both ways. Acts of pedophilia between men and girls or women and boys are technically heterosexual acts and should be referenced accordingly - exactly as NAMBLA is referenced to LGBT in this case. May the Wiki be With us! WanderingWiki 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a difficult one. However, given that this is a group quite clearly geared at homosexual persons (male-male), I think it should be included as such. The child molestation part is irrelevant. If it were the "North American Child Molestor Association", it would be different, but the fact is, it's not. Lankiveil 06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

On the subject of what NAMBLA calls itself I would point out that any number of white-supremacist groups claim to be "civil rights organizations". NAMBLA is an organization that attempts to deflect criticism of a criminal conspiracy to sexually abuse children, by pretending similarity to all manner of legitimate social movements. That's the long and short of it.

A category of one?

I was content with NAMBLA being classified in the "Gay Organizations" subcategory only so long as that category was not a clear attempt by political-minded gays to try to shove NAMBLA out of the first tier of organizations. Not only is a subcategory with one entry completely and totally worthless, but it also reflects the aforementioned motivation of which I spoke above. Corax 06:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The point of a category is to group things together. A subcategory containing one article is worthless; anywhere such a subcategory exists, its on member should be merged back into the parent category. Moreover, creating a category for the sole purpose of excluding something out of political ideology (not to say political correctness) is a violation of our NPOV policies. --FOo 09:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, this is partly my fault. I came along, found that there was a Gay Organizations category with only 3 articles in it, disagreed in general with what was going on and removed all 3 of them. Then someone reverted my edit on this article alone, putting this one back, resulting in a category of one. Although I'm not sure that a category of 3 is much better than a category of one. Having 3 "gay organizations" listed on wikipedia, one of which is NAMBLA, is hardly appropriate. Unless someone finds a way to put a few dozen in there, I'm against this whole thing. And, uh, sorry about wandering into this process at the end and messing with it, but so it goes. --Xyzzyplugh 14:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You know people, this is such a bloody waste of time, all this fretting over a moribund "organization" of self-destructive idiots who have managed to become everyone's boogy man (bugger man?). Guanaco had hit upon a very good idea, breaking up LGBT into its component parts, which coincidentally solved all the breast beating over here. Haiduc 05:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely fail to see how breaking up LGBT into its component parts would solve anything regarding this article. Anyone who would be offended by having NAMBLA listed as a LGBT organization will be equally offended by having it listed as a Gay organization. In fact, having NAMBLA being only one of a handful of Gay organizations listed is even more potentially offensive than having it be one of 50 LGBT organizations. --Xyzzyplugh 14:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

First "offending people" is utterly irrelevant since the argument that "I was offended" is a totalitarian argument that has no place in academic discourse. Second, GLBT needs to be broken up, it is an artificial construct reflective of religious proscriptions only. Third, this goes beyond the NAMBLA argument, which it solves accidentally and very elegantly. Haiduc 15:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So just how do you intend to go about breaking the LGBT category up? I have been looking through it, and there are a few hundred organizations, and almost every one says they're for "lesbians, gays, bisexuals" and so on. If the organizations almost all specifically say they're for gay men, women, bisexuals, and (frequently) transexuals, then there is no way to break the category up. All you're doing is creating subcategories which will each only have a handfull of entries, compared to the hundreds in the main categories. Where does it get us, creating these subcategories which will be nearly empty?

And, by the way, I noticed that there is a subcategory of LGBT_organizations called List_of_LGBT-related_organizations, which makes no sense at all since there's no apparent difference between the organizations in these two categories. --Xyzzyplugh 18:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am certain that there are more gay men's organizations with Wikipedia entries that need to be added to Category:Gay organizations. Let's find them. —Guanaco 04:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Then we should do that first, before adding NAMBLA in there. We don't want NAMBLA to stand out, or more people are going to get angry and disrupt any consensus we have in here. --Rory096 02:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it why don't we recategorize every organization that's lesbian and gay but not transsexual in the subcategory Lesbian and Gay organizations and so on, since apparenetly any group that is not simultaneously lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual does not merit inclusion in the top category? Tomyumgoong 00:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA is LGBT (Don't ask me)

Ask Rebecca Mae Solokar, who contributed a chapter titled "Beyond Gay Rights Litigation" to the edited volume Sexual Identities, Queer Politics (2001, Princeton University Press). She writes:

"Within the larger LGBT movement, we have witnessed the development of a number of interest groups that fit the stricter classical sense of the term in that they are organized, have readily identifiable leaders and memberships, and are specifically seeking political change either through litigation, legislation, administrative policy change, or grassroots activity. Many of the well-known interest groups have taken on broad-based policy agendas -- Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), or the Log Cabin Republicans -- but there are other organizations that are more specific in their policy focus. The People With AIDs Coalition (PWAC), North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association direct their political efforts at more narrow policy arenas, but are still part and parcel of the larger movement." (Pages 260-261)

So much for the idea that only pedophiles or The New Republic readers believe this. Corax 05:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As I've pointed out on other pages recently, there are two ways to look at categories: as classifying the article or the topic. The article North American Man/Boy Love Association seems to me to belong in the LGBT category because people reading it might gain further insight on the many topics in the article by browsing the category. The singular topic, "North American Man/Boy Love Association", can be classified under LGBT as you point out, but it's a debatable point. As long as people insist on viewing categories as classification of the topic, we'll continue to have these pointless debates, and we will continue to ignore the needs of our audience (a sin no encyclopedia should commit). -Harmil 02:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, definitely does not belong in the LGBT category. First, on an abstract level, NAMBLA supports the recission of age of consent laws for everyone, whether the activity involved is homosexual or heterosexual. Second, to include this organization would be to include CATO, Amnesty International and other groups under the LGBT category, and they do not belong there. I will remove the category link if no one objects within the week. Gibbsale 04:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, had to remove it temporarily after looking at the talk pages. Pederasty, yes, pedophilia, yes, but LGBT? That is highly misleading. I await comments. Gibbsale 04:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection - can you please clarify? I've reverted your removal of the category. Natgoo 09:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

LGBT, as a category, simply does not involve NAMBLA. First, with respect to age of consent laws, NAMBLA appears to support this for everyone, whether the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual in nature. Second, support for specific aims of the gay rights movement (and this is why I included the Cato Institute and Amnesty International) is not equivalent to being part of the LGBT category. Similarly, it would be inappropriate to include NAMBLA under the category of Pacifism or similar areas, even though they support pacifism. The mission of NAMBLA may include pederasty and/or pedophilia, but that link is not exclusively homosexual in nature. NAMBLA does not discriminate between males and females when it comes to laws regarding consent to sexual activity. If you include NAMBLA in that category, it must be added to a variety of categories, including pacifism, love, etc. There is no picking and choosing. Gibbsale 12:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that the articles on Amnesty International and the Cato Institute belong in the category: LGBT organizations then you should discuss the categorisation on the talk pages of those articles; this page is for discussion of the article on NAMBLA. Have you read through much of the discussion on this page (including the archived pages)? Please do so - but to summarise, an article on an organisation advocating for the rights of "men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships" and contains the title 'North American Man/ Boy Love Association' belongs in the category:LGBT organizations by default. Contrary to your statement above, NAMBLA do not advocate for people who aren't men or boys in gay relationships - if you have evidence otherwise please discuss it here. If you feel that NAMBLA's activities and aims warrant inclusion of the article in other categories of Wikipedia, please feel free to also discuss those here on the talk page. Have you considered Creating an account for Wikipedia? If you're a new user, you might also find the Help page useful. (Oops - please sign your contributions using four tildes (~~~~) - thanks!) Natgoo 14:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Natgoo gives a good statement of one viewpoint on the issue. Others believe that a better category would be something like "pederasty organizations". There's been many discussions, so editors wishing to make changes should review the archives. -Will Beback 19:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been reading the archives, and I still cannot contemplate why this is considered LGBT. The male/male aspect of NAMBLA is not what makes the organization relevant or controversial, it is the age stance. NAMBLA's advocacy is limited to age-structured relationships. It is also unclear from their own website exactly what kind of relationships are advocated (pederasty and pedophilia being separate categories). But it is clearly POV to include them within the LGBT category. It is equally absurd, as I noted above, to include Amnesty International or the Cato Institute under the LGBT banner, even though they advocate for LGBT rights. Why? Because that is not the aim of either organization. NAMBLA advocates for pederasts and perhaps pedophiles, so there should be a category there, but not LGBT. NAMBLA also purports to be a feminist organization; should it be included under that banner? What about Children's Rights as a category? NAMBLA claims to support the rights of children, so that should make it an organization under that category. The possibilities are truly endless, once you open up one controversial categorization. --Gibbsale 21:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You can automatically sign with a datestamp by typing four tildes in a row. (~~~~) JayW 01:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Very informative article"

This article was added, the editlog pitching it as a "very informative article". While it may have some value, I don't exactly think it's a very fair and unbiased article. Quote: On its Web site, NAMBLA says it opposes abuse and coercion of young people and does not advocate illegal activity. ... The organization links itself to the gay-rights movement, but mainstream gay organizations disavow such a parallel. Delores A. Jacobs, who heads The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center of San Diego, said her organization does not "support or in any way condone the sexual abuse or exploitation of minors by adults." Eh well, neither does NAMBLA, so what's her point? Oh well, I guess any fair coverage of this organization is not easy to come by -- the question is, should a supposedly objective encyclopedic article link to such material? Clayboy 19:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This just confirms the fact that, if certain editors had their way, the NAMBLA article would be nothing but a long repository of people's mischaracterizations of and accusations against the group, and would have almost no substantive information (for some idea, just look back at the early incarnation of this article). As unbelievable as it sounds for a supposedly encyclopedic project, it is a constant war trying to keep this article clear of people inserting the same accusations over and over again into every part of the article -- or, when that fails, "stacking the deck" with the links instead of the article, by including only the links that repeat said accusations over and over and over again. Corax 21:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an article in a major newspaper. It covers the arrest of several NAMBLA members and has quotes from the FBI. I suppose those are what some editors call "mischaracterizations". Yes, I think it's an informative article. It is far more informative than the links to pedophile forums, which other editors insist on adding to related articles. -Will Beback 21:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless the pedophile forum has a section witch factual content about NAMBLA, there is no reason to link it to the NAMBLA article. Similarly, articles devoted to FBI agents stating opinions that are not based on fact should not be linked to the NAMBLA article. Corax 22:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Saturday, the FBI arrested three NAMBLA members at Harbor Island as they waited for a boat that undercover agents told them would sail to Ensenada for a sex retreat over Valentine's Day with boys as young as 9.
• The FBI said four NAMBLA members were arrested in a Los Angeles marina where they also planned to set sail to the bogus rendezvous.
• The FBI says at least one of the men is a member of the group's national leadership, a second organized the group's national convention last year and a third said he had been a member since the 1980s.

Which of these statements is an opinion not based on facts? -Will Beback 22:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement not based on facts is probably "undercover agents told then would sail ... for a sex retreat ... with boys as young as 9." Since clearly, these are unlikely to be the actual words of the FBI to the people taking the tour. If I sign up for a tour, and then someone mentions the existence of underage prostitution in the locale I'm visiting, does that mean I am taking a "sex tour with boys as young as 9?" Given the FBI's long history of deliberately lying about NAMBLA, I'm sure the FBI said as little concrete as possible, and hoped the circumstantial evidence of having targeted NAMBLA members in their little sting operation would create a case. Absent some quotes from the people targeted as to what they were actually told about their vacation plans, all we have is a news story about the FBI arresting a bunch of NAMBLA members, and claiming to have told them something the exact wording of which we are not privy to. Big deal. This is tabloid fodder, and until further proceedings take place, unworthy of inclusion in the article.Hermitian 06:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have a source that disputes the FBI assertion then please add it. But the blanket claim that the FBI lies about NAMBLA is not a reason to exclude newspaper reports about the FBI's comments. -Will Beback 10:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that these are facts, even though the FBI's mischaracterizations of NAMBLA as an organization do raise questions about other comments they are making about the alleged relationship between the arrested men and the organization. Soon I will be adding a citation-filled section to the "History" part of the article detailing the Etan Patz affair, which was a previous attempt by the FBI to harass and disrupt NAMBLA by lying about it and its members.

What I'm contesting is the addition of the article to the external links subsection. The article in question deals with facts already in the body of the article, so, if anything, the article should be listed under sources. But as I said, some people won't be happy unless the article and the accusations contained therein are reproduced over and over again.Corax 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to toss "the FBI" around when dealing with left or radical groups, because it's known that the FBI has acted to disrupt some such groups; there's evidence e.g. from the Church Committee reports. However, I think we'd need some kind of evidence specifically about the FBI trying to disrupt NAMBLA. For what it's worth, I've heard leftists (specifically ISO members) claim that NAMBLA itself was created at the instigation of J. Edgar Hoover to discredit the gay-rights movement and to frame activist (and leftist) gays as pedophiles. But conspiracy theory springs eternal; if we're going to make claims about FBI activity we'd better have solid evidence. --FOo 07:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Red links

I removed a bunch of red links from that long list of guys. If there are any important ones, replace them, but I'd rather see them linked as the articles appear (if they ever do) as it is easier on the eyes. --DanielCD 02:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Despicable organization

I am a little confused by the first discussion.

Perhaps I missed some finer points about the existence (or lack thereof) of hard evidence but it seems to me that NAMbLA's sole purpose is to promote a particular sexual activity that is in fact illegal.

Therefore, the organization should be treated as the criminal enterprise that it is, no different from any other pedophile ring.

Furthermore, the activity in question has been made illegal because the vast majority of us consider it despicable, crossing a line into the extreme, and thus it stands little chance of ever becoming legal -- even with changing times.

Anyone associated with the organization should be watched closely.

Omega Man 02:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of organizations which advocate the legalization of particular actions which are today illegal. For instance, NORML advocates the legalization of marijuana use. Various anti-tax organizations advocate the legalization of not paying taxes (that is, they advocate reducing or eliminating various taxes). Doubtless, during Prohibition, there were organizations which advocated the re-legalization of alcohol.

The fact that a person advocates the legalization of an action does not make them a criminal. There are plenty of people who advocate the legalization of marijuana who don't smoke pot themselves (myself, for instance) and likewise there are plenty of people who might advocate for the liberalization of age-based sex laws who are not a bunch of freakin' pedophiles.

Please be aware that implicitly accusing people who contribute here of being criminals or "despicable" is against the rules here. This is not an open discussion board; this talk page is here to assist in working on the article itself. --FOo 03:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! I didn't expect anyone to morally equate efforts to legalize marijuana, with an organization of grown men wanting to rape 8-year old boys. That's what I meant by "crossing into the extreme" earlier.

I concede the point, however, that I misunderstood the purpose of this forum. I guess that renders my postings moot. Oh well, thanks for listening! Omega Man 02:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There were very large organizations during Prohibition which supported the re-legalization of alcohol, including many prominent American politicians, including New York Governor Alfred E. Smith and Mayor Anton Cermak. The marijuana legalization movement is also quite large and includes a number of noted public figures, albeit, unlike the anti-prohibitionist movement of the 1920s, few current elected officials at the present time. However, groups like NAMBLA and its (defunct?) predecessor, the Rene Guyon Society, clearly advocate harmful practices that do not involve consenting adults (unlike groups against the prohibition of alcohol and marijuana) and have NO chance of ever getting support. NAMBLA's agenda is as likely to succeed as that of Bob Avakian's Revolutionary Communist Party - like the RCP, they are marginalized, with zero support from any sectors of the larger society, and it is a good thing that such organizations lack support.

Category:Pedophile organizations

I've added the article to this category. It seems entirely accurate, and the group openly promotes "the removal of legal inhibitions towards adult-child sex" as the category decribes in its guidelines for inclusion. Harro5 04:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA is a pederasty organization, not a pedophile organization. 24.224.153.40 20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree that the group openly promotes "the removal of legal inhibitions towards adult-child sex"? If yes (it's the only response anyway), this is a correct category. Harro5 22:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Harro5 has a point. Unless the group only advocated "removal of legal inhibitions towards adult-teenage male sex" would it qualify as purely a pederast organization. -Will Beback 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm no NAMBLA connoisseur, but AFAIK NAMBLA promotes relationships between adult men and teenage boys, not adult men and prepubescent boys. They also believe age-of-consent laws are problematic and that no relationship should be criminalized solely because of its participants' ages. But they're still in it for the adolescents.

Likewise, ASFAR is not a pedophile organization. 24.224.153.40 02:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA frequently refers to sex between adults and children on their site. Can you provide a citation indicating that they only advocate in favor of sex with post-pubescent minors? -Will Beback 04:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wanting to remove Age-of-Consent laws is not the same as claiming that all children of any age can consent to sex. Opposition to age-of-consent laws does not necessarily have anything to do with pedophilia.

We've had this debate a thousand times before; we've voted on the categorization; we underwent mediation; and we arrived at a consensus. It might be understandable that some Johnny-come-lately who has no idea of the precedent regarding this matter has rehashed an argument that has already been thoroughly analyzed and debunked repeatedly. What is not understandable is why Will Beback thinks he can opportunistically get behind this issue, in effect changing sides on the inclusion of content with which he raised no objections in the past, without anybody calling him on it. Corax 01:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't engage in personal attacks as a replacement for collegial editing. There are many instances in which NAMLBA refers to adults having sex with children. What definition of "Pedophile organizations" doens't include organizations which advocate for legailized sex between adults and children? -Will Beback 03:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if there are "many instances" in which NAMBLA refers to adults having sex with prepubescent children (I believe you should provide proof of these many instances), I would to remind you that -- as another editor has pointed out to you above -- that pedophilia is a medical condition in which one's idealized sex partner is a prepubescent child. It's not some term you can interchange with sexual activity with children, which is more often then not a crime of opportunity perpetrated by otherwise normal heterosexual adults. So even if NAMBLA does mention "many instances" of "adults having sex with [presumably prepubescent] children," this does not necessarily have anything to do with pedophilia per se. Corax 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

By that definition, is any organization pedophilic? If what you're saying is true, just because a group advocates for sex between adults and children they are not necessarily pedophilic. "Pedophilic" also has a common meaning, adults who want to have sex with children. NAMBLA certainly fits in that category. -Will Beback 06:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You have absolutely no references for your claim that there are "many instances" in which NAMBLA refers to sex between adults and prepubescent children -- the kind of sex that one might associate with pedophilia. Although you seem fixated on this idea that NAMBLA "advocates for sex between adults and children," NAMBLA does not advocate for anybody to have sex with any one else. What NAMBLA advocates it the repeal of age-of-consent laws, a change in the law that would not necessarily lead to pre-pubescent children legally engaging in sex with adults. Prepubescent children would still be protected by rape and assault laws that adjudicate one's ability to consent on a case-by-case basis rather than through the use of blanket, age-based proscription. In other words, NAMBLA's position is not the equivalent of saying that sex involving young children should not be criminalized. Its position is that criminalization of child-sex should be based on something other than the age demographic. Thus to call NAMBLA a pedophile organization on the basis that it promotes or seeks to legalize sex with prepubescent children demonstrates an utter disregard for the facts regarding what NAMBLA actually advocates.

Also a pedophile organization is presumably one that is tailored to and created for only for people who have a sexual attraction primarily toward prepubescents. NAMBLA allows anybody to join, and has an extensive platform that is shared by non-pedophiles (ephebophiles, certainly, but also people who agree with groups like ASFAR). So it would be highly misleading to claim that NAMBLA is a "pedophile organization" simply because "pedophilia" has been miscontrued in popular culture to mean anything remotely related to underage sex, and because NAMBLA advocates that underage people not be subject to age-based discrimination of their sexual expression. If that is the criterion for being labeled a pedophile group, then ASFAR is one also. Corax 15:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You are defining "pedophile organization" so narrowly that no organization fits the bill. You also previously argued against categorizing this a "pederast organization." I suppose you'd be happy calling it a "children's rights organization". -Will Beback 17:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the Pedophile Information Exchange (P.I.E.) and the Danish Pedophile Association (DPA) are clearly pedophile groups, as their names indicate. But a pedophile group NAMBLA is not. The best categorization for NAMBLA is LGBT -- since NAMBLA's main purpose is to decriminalize certain forms of gay sex regardless of whether the people engaging in said sexual acts consider themselves straight, gay, bi or none of the above. If people want to add NAMBLA to children's rights organizations also, that's fine. But I think the history of the group, the political context in which it formed, and the founders who established it all suggest that it is first and foremost a gay rights org. Corax 20:54, 21 April 2006(UTC)

So you don't think that MARTIJN and René Guyon Society are pedophile organizations too? What references do you have for it being more of an LGBT group than a pedophile group? Are many lesbians involved? When they refer to sex between adults and children they don't always include males genders. -Will Beback 21:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to play this little game of categorizing every group besides NAMBLA with you. As far as the references are concerned, the fact that NAMBLA has an entry in the GLBTQ encyclopedia is probably a good indicator. Also, you obviously haven't read a remark I made on this very talk page here in which I give an academic source calling NAMBLA an LGBT group. So there's an implicit and an explicit reference, both academic in nature. I am not aware of who is and is not a member of NAMBLA. Nor am I aware of the sexual orientations of members of other organizations of which I am not a member. Suffice it to say that there have been gay people in the organization, since the group was formed by gay rights activists in the 1970s -- back before gay rights became what somebody here once called an "adults-only parody of itself." And if it is a gay-oriented organization, I don't see how it can't be classified as LGBT, considering that LGBT was a label adopted to be inclusive of transgenders, not exclusive of groups who focused on gay male or gay female issues. Whatever you might say regarding NAMBLA's statements dealing with heterosexual relationships between age-differentiated partners, a cursory perusal of NAMBLA's web site proves that it is clearly focused on same-sex relationships. Now would you care to beat the dead horse any longer?Corax 22:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

The inclusion of this organization in with gay organizations is disputed. Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same. As long as this article claims that NAMBLA is a "gay" (adult-adult) organization, this article will remain in dispute. Please to not remove the disputed tag from this article, until this issue is resolved. See: Wikipedia:vandalism - Davodd 18:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC) REVISED DISPUTE: This article fails to explain why NAMBLA is listed as a "gay organization" despite the fact that it has been rejected by every major gay organization. Davodd 08:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same, because most homosexuals aren't pedophiles, and most pedophiles aren't homosexuals. But they're not mutually exclusive either, and this organization belongs to the overlap. "Gay" does not mean "adult-adult", it means "male-male" (and sometimes "female-female"), and the very name of the organization, North American Man/Boy Love association shows its area of interest is male-male relationships. So yes, it's a gay organization. Pais 20:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the strict definition of "homosexual" (male-male sex activity) and sexual orientation. Many forms of homosexual behaviors and paraphilias exist which are not "gay" per se. Davodd 20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This argument is old hat by now. What's NOT "gay" about a twenty-five-year-old guy who wants to have a relationships with a sixteen-year-old guy? Claiming that males who are attracted only to other males older than the age-of-consent have a sexual orientation, while maintaining that males who are attracted to other males not quite at the arbitrarily decided age-of-consent are paraphiliacs suffering from mental illness, is itself a POV judgment (not to mention that it ironically ignores homosexuality's history of being branded a disorder until thirty years ago). A POV judgment call is certainly not the basis for deciding the categorization of groups. The only definition of "gay" that ellides the political use of "orientation" is the definition that describes behavior only. And according to this definition, NAMBLA is gay. Corax 20:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are misunderstanding my objection. The implication of the category is that NAMBLA as a part of the gay community. By calling it a "gay organization" Wikipedia is being both inaccurate and is publishing unverifiable information. What I have been able to verify through Google and in my recent LexisNexus research is that the group has been shunned by the gay community; it is banned from all the major Gay Pride parades and it cannot meet at gay community centers. That's about as "homosexual but not gay" as you can get. The inclusion of this category is wrong for this article in that it appears to be less about being academically accurate and more about pushing a political agenda. - Davodd 09:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Davodd, I see you have altered the categorization once, and have now thrown up a factual accuracy dispute tag at the very top of the article. Have you read the talk page and its archive (as instructed by the comment in the categorization)? If so, you would have realized that about three months ago there was an extensive debate on this very issue, complete with mediation and voting. In the end the current categorization of the article was decided upon. So I really don't see much wisdom in rehashing an old debate.

But if you do insist on rehashing the debate, at least get your facts straight. NAMBLA is a group that advocates eliminating age-of-consent laws. Documentation on the group (including its web page) suggests that the primary reason for this is an interest in legalizing consensual same-sex (that is, homosexual) relations between people on opposite sides of the age-of-consent barrier. As this barrier is as high as 18 in some locales, this hardly requires any association with "pedophilia" (which is properly defined as a predominant attraction toward prepubescent children). Cheers. Corax 07:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove dispute tags posted by someone else from articles until the dispute is resolved. This dispute is not resolved - even then, it should be removed by the person who posted the tag. The removal of a dispute tag in this instance is a form of vandalism. Previously this form of vandalism has resulted in people being blocked from editing Wikipedia. This dispute will remain active until a respected academic source supports your proposition. Until then, it is either an opinion in violation of the WP:NPOV policy or uncited original research, which is in violation of WP:V and WP:NOR policies. Davodd 20:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to dispute the categorization of the article, then the appropriate tag to use is {{disputed-section}}. The {{disputed}} tag is intended for use in articles where a number of facts strewn throughout multiple sections are being disputed. My correction of this is ''not'' vandalism. Please try to pay attention. Corax 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Cite an academic source that says NAMBLA = gay, please. Davodd 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, it seems you haven't done your homework as the comments in the article instructed you to do. JUst read the discussion above this one, and you'll see me reference two academic sources: "As far as the references are concerned, the fact that NAMBLA has an entry in the GLBTQ encyclopedia is probably a good indicator. Also, you obviously haven't read a remark I made on this very talk page here in which I give an academic source calling NAMBLA an LGBT group. So there's an implicit and an explicit reference, both academic in nature."

I removed the tag because the very dispute you're bringin up has already been resolved -- it was resolved three months ago. And it was resolved in favor of its present form because the only argument that people opposed to the categorization could put forward was the kneejerk mantra "homosexuality isn't pedophilia." If you had read the comments embedded into the article before editing it, you would have realized it. Are we now going to have to keep the tag up indefinitely for as long as people dislike the decision that was reached by the wikipedia community under the guidance of a wiki moderator?

As far as the typical argument against the current categorization goes: No, homosexuality isn't pedophilia. But there is such thing as a homosexual pedophile, and NAMBLA -- as mentioned above -- does not necessarily have anything to do with pedophilia. The founders of NAMBLA were far more concerned about teenage males who were being harassed by the Boston police department in the early days of the gay lib movement. So even if pedophilia and homosexuality were mutually exclusive, it would have little bearing on the classification of NAMBLA. Corax 20:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is not about what is and is not homosexual behavior. Not all people who engage in clinically homosexual acts are considered to be gay or members of the extended gay community (i.e. those who practice same-sex prison sexuality, a form of situational sexual behavior). In fact, NAMBLA the article (which is very well-written in parts and cited well in general) goes out of its way to show that the gay community has overwhelmingly rejected NAMBLA. But for some reason, it is listed as a "gay organization" without an explanatory reason or a citation as to why. That is the dispute. Davodd 22:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've given you your academic source, you're still not happy. Instead you've decided to recycle another old argument that has been addressed countless times in the past.

Your comment about not labeling situational encounters as indicative of orientation makes sense. But not all people who have sex with sixteen-year-olds are engagin in situational sexual behavior. They are guys who prefer sex with other guys. That one of the two guys happens to be younger some arbitrarily selected age does not strip either of the participants of their gay orientation.

What we're seeing here is just another iteration of the argument that the "gay community gets to decide which people to exclude and which people to include." The problem with this argument is that, in order for that community to make decisions of membership, it must itself be recognized as the legitimate "gay community." And to make such distinctions between legitimate gays and illegitimate gays is inappropriate for a "neutral" encyclopedia. Corax 22:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that NAMBLA members choose to have sex with pre-pubescent youths doens't make it a pedophile organization either, according to your logic. If one reference to NAMBLA as a gay organization is sufficient to call it a "gay organizatoin", then sources which call it a "pedophile organization" should receive equal respect. -Will Beback 22:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Two references suggest that NAMBLA is a gay or "LGBT" organization. I'm sure some Republicans have sex with pre-pubescent youths, but that doesn't make the GOP a pedophile organization. Nor do we call it a white organization, even though the vast majority of its members are affluent and white. Instead, we classify it according to the substance of its platform. Neither the GOP nor NAMBLA has a platform that says that eight-year-olds should be able to have sex, or makes any reference whatsoever to prepubescent sexual activity. So neither group is a "pedophile" organization. Corax 00:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, Wikipedia makes hair-thin distinctions between and among groups all the time. For example (in a completely unrelated area), we have separate categories and lively debate in our biographies as to who is a Scottish-American, and who is Irish American and who is Scots-Irish American. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is evolving. As it grows, categories and the way we categorize will need to adapt as our quality and accuracy improves. The appeal to tradition, that this issue is mooted because it has been "addressed" in the past is fallacious in many senses; the most important being that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy inasmuch as there are no "votes" among editors that settle things on a permanent basis. Additionally, unless it is a core policy of the Wikimedia project, such as WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, any past decision by or consensus of editors is always open to debate. Davodd 23:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You might want to re-read what I said. I'm not arguing that Wikipedia makes no hair-thin distinctions between nation-states. I argued that, if wikipedia wants to classify people based on sexual practices or orientation, the only way to do so is to lay down objective criteria against which individuals and groups can be judged. "Because the people I consider to be legitimate members of the gay community say so," is not an objective criterion. If you want to start a petition that defines "gay" to mean only homosexuals over the age of 18, by all means do so. But until then, stop trying to pretend that same-sex relationships involving adolescent males have nothing to do with being gay. As far as the "appeal to tradition" is concerned, I think you may be over-extending the reach of that policy. We're not talking about a debate that transpired years in the past. This was a few months ago. The fact that you continue to recycle the very arguments that were made (and debunked) at that time shows me that you have not done even the most rudimentary of work in trying to come to terms with the various perspectives on this issue. Corax 00:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I read what you said. You still haven;t justified why NAMBLA is a "gay organization" when every major gay organization rejects the group aside from some anti-establishment rant, which true or not, is no more than original research as best or, more likely, unverifiable POV'. Davodd 08:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have justified it repeatedly both here and in previous discussions. Your argument that NAMBLA isn't gay because other "gay" organizations do not like it is spurious. It presupposes that those other organizations are "gay," and thus assumes a pre-existing definition of gay. What is that definition, so we can apply it consistently in categorizing articles? Inquiring minds want to know. Corax 14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

<< The matter of whether NAMBLA is a gay or pedophile organization is central to the entire article, not simply its categorization. Therefore placing a {dispute} tag at the top is appropriate. -Will Beback 00:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The only portion of the article that deals with whether NAMBLA is a gay or a pedophile group is the categorization. As such, the disputed tag belongs in that part of the article, not at the top. Accusing me of vandalism when I am simply adjusting the tag to more accurately reflect the situation is an irresponsible abuse of your authority. Corax 00:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't take an administrator button to accuse someone of vandalism. Please be careful about your accusations. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. But accusations of vandalism obviously carry more authority when they are leveled by people in a position to do something about it. This is the abuse of authority to which I was referring. Regards, Corax 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've discoverd a number of sources which call NAMBLA a pro-pedophile organization, so have added that info plus a category to match. Please don't edit war. -Will Beback 00:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Will, if you want to re-add the information in the beginning calling NAMBLA "pro-pedophilia," feel free to do so. I will simply add that it is an LGBT group, with the appropriate citation (this one academic, unlike yours). I am giving you a chance to pull back. Please act wisely on this matter. Corax 00:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that you'll bargain, removng the "gay organization" category if we also remove the "pedophile organization" category? -Will Beback 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that is acceptable. If NAMBLA is ever re-introduced into the "Pedophile Organizations" category, I will not hesitate to place back into the LGBT organizations category.Corax 00:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a very strange bargain. In any case, please don't revert war. You have reverted this article six times today. -Will Beback 01:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We already had a mediation on this subject, and the subcategory "Gay Organizations" of LGBT organizations was created in that process. Users should not unilaterally revert changes made in the course of multiparty mediation. Please review the archive. Tomyumgoong 01:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how NAMBLA can be considered a "gay organization" since the organization has been kicked out of every major gay umbrella group worldwide. Additionally, the group's claim that it merely is lobbying for the elimination of age of consent laws instead of advocating any specific sex act, by its own admission, lends it to be less one of the Category:Gay organizations than one of the Category:Advocacy groups or Category:Lobbying groups. Davodd 08:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are we rehashing this tired old subject all over again? Are we going to have this argument repeatedly every time someone reads the article, and starts mechanically chanting the "homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia" mantra? This issue was settled a long time ago, and correctly in my opinion. NAMBLA was an essential part of the gay rights movement and is a gay organization. Today's politically convenient revisionism of gay history by gays fleeing in terror from right wing talking points is irrelevant for encyclopedic purposes. Hermitian 01:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There are just as many, if not more, sources which call NAMBLA a "pedophile" organization as call it a "gay" organization. Please do not remove source, verifiable information. -Will Beback 04:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The question is not what something is called, but what it is. If you call a tail a leg, a dog still has four legs, not five. Wikipedia wouldn't have enough room to hold the entire list of things various right wing cranks consider to be associated with "pedophilia." Your point is moot. Hermitian 06:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is not moot. We rely on sources at Wikipedia. Many sources identify it as a pedophile organization. We can also decide that for ourselves, but that isn't necessary. Not everyone who calls it a pedophile organization is a " right wing crank." -Will Beback 06:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because something was addressed in the past does not mean it was addressed correctly. Also, the mediated answer was a dispute involving other parties - so it doesn't apply here, except as a starting point. Davodd 08:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the result of that mediation and the fact that the parties involved are mostly still here, you will have to escalate to mediation to produce any result that will supplant the prior decision. Tomyumgoong 08:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to work to come to a workable and accurate consensus. I will concede that NAMBLA would be involving advocacy of a subset sexual minority culture of homosexual activity - my issue is the categorization and de facto inclusion of the group as a part of the gay community with its categorization as a "gay organization." NAMBLA is banned from gay pride parades, gay community centers, and gay umbrella organizations. This is not merely my personal opinion; it is easily verifiable using Google - or even calling a random LGBT community center. Either the article needs a different category or the category needs a new name. Perhaps we should change Category:Pedophile organizations to Category:Pedophile and Pederast organizations to be more inclusive of NAMBLA? - Davodd 09:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If the "gay community" bans or criticizes a gay organization for political purposes, that does not make the discriminated against organization less gay. NAMBLA was formed by gays, for the purpose of gay liberation, to fight mistreatment of gays. All its original founders and celebrity supporters were gay icons. Until the right wing decided to use NAMBLA to target the gay community, and gays decided that gay rights wouldn't happen with NAMBLA attached to their movement, NAMBLA marched in gay pride parades, and belonged to many gay unbrella organizations. Gays do not get to cherry pick those parts of gay history which they think will pacify their critics, and retroactively declare some of their former activities "non-gay." That would be like the NAACP declaring Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition to not be a part of the Negro community. Hermitian 14:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a hard time fathoming that gay umbrella organizations do not have some magical authority to decide who or which groups are gay, and who or which groups are not gay. In other words, gay groups do not control the definition of the word "gay." The way to decide dispute is quite clear. We need a working definition of "gay" that we can apply consistently across a whole spectrum of articles, and then we should apply that definition to NAMBLA's goals and target constituency. If the definition is inclusive, NAMBLA belongs in "gay organizations." If the definition is exclusive, NAMBLA does not belong there. Corax 14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The basic error of that argument is that (aside from being a red herring), is that it fails to address the possibility that the current scheme of categorization for this article could be improved. Are you suggesting that there is no need for improvement to this article? My motivation is to make Wikipedia articles better - this includes the NAMBLA article and its categorization scheme. A categorization that is basically refuted by the cited facts of an article is at conflict with itself and I suggest to a reasonable person, would seem to be an error. The article states - with multiple citations - that NAMBLA was expelled from gay organizations - but for some unexplained reason, a few editors seem adamant that the organization be categorized as a gay organization. This smells of a advocacy-type political stance against the way things are. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - Davodd 21:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So you're arguing that an organization can be gay one minute and not gay the next, depending on its popularity and which way the prevailing political winds are blowing, and that encyclopedia content should be constantly varying, according to the instantaneous reading of some sort of gay-o-meter? For the purposes of documenting history, this is probably not the right definition of "gay" to employ. At a rally trying to make a persuasive argument for gay rights, it probably is. Since Wikipedia is factual knowlege, and not a rally, the gay community doesn't get to vote on the daily gayness of gay things, and that includes NAMBLA, which is a gay organization.Hermitian 22:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm arguing that if a Wikipedia editor is going to categorize an article, the content of the article must support the category. AND if the facts presented in the article are contrary to the category, then the proposed categorization should not be used. Davodd 03:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha. You think it's a "red herring" to define the word gay before we start categorizing articles as being "gay organizations"? Could it be that you are afraid of where this quite logical and fair suggestion would lead? What do you have in mind instead? Oh, that's right. We should classify organizations based on whatever suits the gay rights agenda. Sorry, but that's not encyclopedic. Corax 22:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to use logic, then may I suggest your penchant for ad hominem attacks may not be a wise move. The dispute is simple: If an editor claims X is part of Y - but the citations of the article show well-regarded members of Y claim X is not a part of Y, then the editor's decision to categorize X as Y is suspect. This is a generic dispute - it applies equally to any WP article. See: (WP:CITE). - Davodd 03:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have only characterized your position, not you. Thus I have made no ad hominem attacks. The dispute is simple, but not as simple as you claim it to be. If an editor claims X is part of Y based on the information in an article, and another editor claims X is not part of Y based on the information in an article, the appropriate way to proceed is to define carefully the characteristics of Y in order to see if those characteristics match up with the characteristics of X. Yet you refuse to do this. Why? Corax 03:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Because as a Wikipedia editor, it is my job not to engage in original research. WP:NOR. - Davodd 03:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pedophile and pederast organizations, that's a good idea. I don't know why we didn't think of that before. -Will Beback 10:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

The comments of the attorneys in the Curley case belong in that section, and so have been moved. The intro should note that the organization is controversial, but we have a section on that subject. The current introduction primarily decribes (but does not endorse) the organization's views and mission statement. This factual basis is the appropriate content for any organization's introduction. I mostly just rearranged existing content -- it can still be edited for style and improved. Tomyumgoong 02:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA as a pedophile organization

Hi. This is the talk page. Two subsections above this one, you will find the dispute that is currently taking place regarding proposed changes to the categorization of this article. Any attempts to insert the changes without first building a consensus run counter not only to the instructions of this talk page, but all those of the mediator who dealt with this case. If you insist on ignoring these instructions, I will contact Guanaco to remedy the situation. Furhtermore, making the changes while blantantly lying about the presence of a dispute here is not only immature, it is clearly an attempt by you to contravene the mutual, good-faith efforts being made by the Wikipedia community. In one word, STOP. Corax 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There is additional info regarding NAMLBA as a pedophile organization, including the a comment by the co-founder, and official minutes from an umbrella organization with "pedophile" in their name, calling NAMBLA their largest member. Please respect the fact that there are numerous sources which call NAMBLA a pedophile organization. -Will Beback 02:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA has also been described as a "psychotic child rapist organization" and a "youth rights organization." I'm not seeing how that makes it either. 24.224.153.40 17:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We've already established that there are sources calling NAMBLA a gay organization, and sources calling NAMBLA a pedophile organization. While this might be accurately represented in the article itself ("According to Source A, NAMBLA is a pedophile organization."), this is not how categorization works. The Wikipedia community ultimately decides how things are classified, not third-party sources. So we editors need to define what a pedophile organization is, what a gay organization is, then start classifying organizations accordingly. Corax 02:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We have just as many sources, and of similar relevance, that call NAMBLA a pedohile organization as call if a gay organization. If you want to remove the "gay organization" category while you decide what that means feel free. But please don't keep removing the "pedophile organization" category unless you can refute the sources which identify it as one. -Will Beback 03:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should we remove the "gay organizations" category, but allow the "pedophile organizations" category, if both have sources? Corax 03:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't removed the "gay organizations" category. Flip the question around. -Will Beback 03:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC: Pedophile organization

Should NAMBLA be included in category:Pedophile organizations?

Evidence:

• Nambla has been called a pedophile organization, directly or indirectly, by these varied sources:
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34694]
• Reviewing "Boy-Love" and "NAMBLA" pdf
• [7]
• [8]

• In 1996 the umbrella group, "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation", referred to NAMBLA as its "greatest member".[9]

• In that same year, the co-founder wrote: "The Bulletin is turning into a semi-pornographic jerk-off mag for pedophiles." Other members insisted that the group only had a minority who were pedophiles, with the majority being pederasts. The Bulletin editor responded to Thorstad by saying "I well remember visiting Mr. Thorstad's NYC apartment in the early '70s, and viewing in his library books and magazines . . . [that] featured nude boys apparently between 6 and 16, and I can assume Mr. Thorstad has since shredded these artifacts of our culture, at which time he became a good pederast, only interested in age-appropriate teens, leaving the rest of us bad 'pedophiles' behind, in much the same way as the larger gay movement left him." [10]

• A 1999 article in the NAMBLA Bulletin included the remark, "To paraphrase Queer Nation: We're here. We're pedophiles. Get used to it."[11]

• Last year seven NAMBLA members, including a steering committee member, were arrested in a sting operation when they went on a cruise to Mexico in order to have sex with boys. They requested that the boys be as young as eight years old.[12]

So, NAMLBA was founded by a pedophile, has pedophiles as members, its magazine pandered to pedophiles, and it is widely called "pedophile" by the media. On that basis, I believe that we should include it in the category:Pedophile organizations. -Will Beback 03:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

So long as Category:Pedophile organizations exists, NAMBLA definitely belongs in it. The name itself, with "Man/Boy Love" makes it quite clear that this organization is dedicated to pedophilia. I'm not sure what argument one could make against this, as it also being a "gay organization" does not preclude it being a pedophile organization. siafu 03:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, NAMBLA should be included under Pedophile Organizations, no question. It may be primarily pederastic, but certainly pedophilia is a big enough part of its makeup. I recall that on their web site, there is a page... something like "boys speak out" or whatever... most of the quotes were from teens, but there were some quotes from boys as young as eleven. This does not preclude it from being included under other categories as well. Herostratus 07:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow this logic. If an 11 year old supports the Republican Party, does that make it a pedophile organization? There are two reasons not to have a category called "pedophile organizations" with NAMBLA in it. First, pedophilia is the condition of having prepubescent minors the primary focus of ones sexual attraction. While there is some small overlap between this and NAMBLA's focus, it really isn't the most accurate single characterization of the group. Second, in the United States, the word "pedophile," having been overused by government and law enforcement to label virtually everything negative having to do with minors and sexuality, is in the midst of a transition from a clinical value-neutral term to a slur and hate speech directed at people based on their perceived sexual attraction. We should remember that words like "nigger" were once commonly used value-neutral nouns, and acquired an extremely negative meaning by their constant use in association with derogatory remarks, and are no longer considered acceptable. Anticipating this, if we want Wikipedia content to stand the test of time, calling something "pedophile" should really only be done if we are quoting something someone else has said, and having "pedophile" categories into which things are stuck for the purpose of labeling them should not be done at all. If we want to create a category in which to stick groups like NAMBLA and Martijn, it should employ a much more accurate value neutral term like "Minor-Attracted Adult," not "pedophile." Hermitian 17:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, why do you say the overlap is small? The founder was a pedophile, the bulletin is or was pedophilic, and its current members are pedophiles. That is not a small overlap. Regarding your second point, when "Minor-Attracted Adult" becomes the standard term we can use it. In the meantime the standard term is "pedophile", so that is the term we should use. -Will Beback 21:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The correct scholarly use of the word "pedophile" is the DSM IV Definition, namely a person to whom sexual gratification is dependent almost exclusively upon fantasy or sexual activity with prepubescent minors. The popular use of the term, to refer to anything and everything having to do with sexual child abuse, is a pejorative one, and is the one most individuals exposed to the mainstream press embrace. Since most child sexual abuse is situational, and not committed by pedophiles, this use is a misnomer. The adjectival use of the word "pedophile", as in calling every group to the left of center on AOC laws a "pedophile organization", all authors of books on the subject "pedophile authors," and accusing everyone who doesn't parrot the CSA party line of "advocating and promoting pedophilia," is most definitely a pejorative one.

Now, if you wished to argue NAMBLA was a "pedophile organization", you might argue along two lines. One, that its membership is primarily composed of DSM IV pedophiles, or that it advocates primarily on behalf of DSM IV pedophiles. As for the first, while there may be a small percentage of clinically diagnosable pedophiles who are members of NAMBLA, most members are gay men attracted to adolescents and teenagers, as well as their supporters and friends, and the occasional nun, 11 year old kid, or die-hard socialist who thinks supporting the group makes a political statement. Supporters of NAMBLA include academics, writers, and artists like Gore Vidal and Allan Ginsberg, whom, to the best of my knowlege, have not been diagnosed as pedophiles by anyone with a medical degree. NAMBLA provides support to people who have run afoul of sex laws, advocates legislative reform, and publishes a bulletin, and while again, a small number of the people their activities benefit might be DSM IV pedophiles, most aren't, and that is not the purpose for which they exist.

So in the context of "pedophile" being the name of a DSM IV psychological diagnosis, it is proper and scholarly to refer to people who have received that diagnosis by someone with a medical degree as "pedophiles." Calling things "pedophile" because you wish to label them for the purpose of discrediting what they have to say, in order to link them in the minds of readers to child sexual abuse and criminal activity, is neither scholarly nor encyclopedic. We should legitimately suspect the motives of people who insist the word "pedophile" be used to label an organisation, a person, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or a point of view, and that no other word will do.

It's much like wanting to place a law firm in a category called "Murder Organizations", because they've defended a few murderers, even though 95% of their work is DUI and divorces. Wikipedia is not WorldNetDaily, and is not the place to employ anything other than the scholarly clinical meaning of the word "pedophile." Pedophile should be used to refer to people diagnosed by qualified medical professionals with pedophilia, not as a name you call persons or things whose sexual ethics are more liberal than your own. Hermitian 23:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the DSM. It is an encyclopedia for ordinary people. The ordinary, dictionary definition of "pedophile" is "An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children."[13]. That will definition will do fine. -Will Beback 00:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Reputable dictionaries also define "child" as a human between the ages of infancy and puberty. This is in conflict with the legal definition of a child as anyone under 18, an arbitrary age picked by legislators. Being attracted to 15 year olds doesn't make one a pedophile, and answers.com is not where I go for scholarly research. Hermitian 00:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Most laws refers to minors, not children. I don't think "child" has a legal definition. The common definition of pedophile is an adult sexually attracted to a child or children. It doesn't matter which dictionary you use. -Will Beback 01:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the dictionary says that a pedophile is an adult sexually attracted to a child. Hermitian responded by saying that reputable dictionaries define a child as a prepubescent. Corax 01:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no dispute about that. -Will Beback 02:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Where do you make this stuff up? NAMBLA did not have a single founder. Read the article. It was established by several dozen people at the end of a meeting in Boston. If you mean "founder" to be David Thorstad, how do you know he is a pedophile? Has he told you this, or are you blindly leaping to that conclusion based on an article in the NAMBLA bulletin that said Thorstad had in his art colleciton some pictures depicting nude prepubescent boys? Corax 23:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that the meeting which led to the founding of NAMBLA came in reaction to the bust of a sex-ring that included sex with 8-year old boys. Wanting to have sex with an 8 year old, or look at pornography of 6-year olds, is pedophilic on the face of it. In any case, there are multiple causes to call NAMBLA a "pedophile organization", not just Thorstad, who is basically called a pedophile by the editor of the Bulletin. -Will Beback 23:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What I note is that you have failed to address my point. NAMBLA doesn't have a "founder," much less one that can be proven to be a pedophile. The excerpt from the NAMBLA bulletin you quote doesn't mention anything about underage pornography. It mentioned that Thorstad, one of the founders of NAMBLA, had books which included photographs of "nude boys," some apparently as young as 6. The meeting which led to the founding of NAMBLA was part of a series of meetings protesting what many in Boston's gay community considered to be a fabricated witchhunt by a homophobic district attorney running for re-election (See this for instance). It was not a meeting of people trying to defend sex with eight-year-olds was okay. Again, the article makes this perfectly clear. Your penchant for arguing by inventing "facts" out of whole cloth suggests that your purpose here is not to achieve a neutral, factual article. Corax 00:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, so Thorstad is a co-founder rather than a founder. He is quoted as calling the NAMBLA Bulletin a "a semi-pornographic jerk-off mag for pedophiles". The editor talks about "leaving the rest of us bad 'pedophiles' behind". A later articles in that Bulletin calls NAMBLA members "pedophiles." So there are three instances of self-identificaiton of the membership as pedophiles. -Will Beback 00:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he said that the magazine was turning into a "semi-pornographic jerk-off mag for pedophiles." If we take this comment at face value, as you desire to do, this means that prior to the general period when Thorstad made his comment, the magazine was not a "jerk-off mag for pedophiles." In constructing your argument, you've actually illustrated yet another of its weaknesses. Corax 02:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thorstad is describing the readers of the Bulletin, i.e. NAMBLA members, as "pedophiles". The Editor of the magzine describes himself and other members as pedophiles. A writer for the bulletin describes NAMBLA members as pedophiles. If the members call themselves pedophile, if others call it a pedophile organization, and if the members are arrested for seeking to have sex with pre-pubescent sex, then that all adds up to a pedophile organization. -Will Beback 02:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Thorstad's intention in the quote is not to call NAMBLA members pedophiles, but to suggest that the recently published NAMBLA Bulletins would appeal to pedophiles. Corax 02:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if you don't think the Thorstad quote is germane, that leaves plenty of other evidence. -Will Beback 02:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is a problem with the name of the category (i.e., if the name is pejorative), take it up on the category talkpage, or at CFD. siafu 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Any interpretation of "Pedophile Organizations" sufficiently broad to include NAMBLA, would also include organzations like the Roman Catholic Church. 63.219.98.138 18:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to incoude the Roman Catholic Church that discussion will have to tak place on another talk page. The two organizatoins are markedly different, and I don't think your point is valid. -Will Beback 21:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the category. I also note that this article was in that category for most of 2005 and half of 2004. It was only removed to replace it with pederast organizations, which editors objected to. -Will Beback 23:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC) I further note that there has never been a consensus to remove the "pedophile" category from this article. -Will Beback 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If that's how you want to approach it, I still remember there not being a consensus to remove the article from LGBT organizations. So I suppose if we're going to put pedophile organizations back in, we should put LGBT organizations back in also. Which way do you want it? Corax 03:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The two are separate issues. -Will Beback 03:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The two are not separate issues. If your position is that we must include NAMBLA in pedophile organizations because it had been listed there without any consensus to remove it, then NAMBLA still belongs in LGBT organizations for the exact same reason. The only way in which the two are different is in how much you like the consequences. Corax 03:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

All the problems with calling NAMBLA a "pedophile organization" still exist. "Pedophile" has become pejorative. It refers to a narrow age range. It refers only to people who have that narrow age range as an exclusive sexual interest. The word is used for name-calling these days more than it is used accurately. I could live with "Boylove Organizations", if you absolutely must stick it somewhere having to do with sex between adult and minor males, although I think "gay organizations" is just fine to discribe it. I think we need to avoid finely categorizing things to the point where we have categories with only a few things in them, and the public confusion between "pedophile" as a type of sexual interest, and "pedophile" as a kind of sex offender, makes the word unsuitable for categorization purposes, as it is unclear which context is being implied. Hermitian 03:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Very few call NAMBLA a "boylove organization". However, if you'd like to add that category as well I wouldn't object. The fact that some pople regard "pedophile" as a pejorative is no reason to keep it off this article, any more than we would remove "neo-Nazi" from groups because some people think that is a pejorative term. Our categories are clear - we have separate categories for child sex abuse, child molesters, etc. No one is proposing adding this article to "child molestation organizations." There is plenty of evidence that NAMBLA members, officers, and editors consider themsleves and each other pedophiles, and that they have sexual interest in pre-pubescent boys. -Will Beback 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Google NAMBLA boylove = 555 hits

Google NAMBLA pedophile OR pedophilia =97,700 hits.

Therefore, "pedophile" is the more common usage in regard to NAMBLA. -Will Beback 04:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Polls are not facts, particularly Google polls. Is Jewwatch authoritative on Judaism because of its high ranking? People call things names both to identify them and to disparage them. I might easily note that a search on '"Judith Reisman" pedophile' returns more hits than '"Judith Reisman" heterosexual' although I doubt we should use that fact to try and characterize Dr. Reisman's dating behavior. No one here is denying that "pedophile" is a name a lot of people call NAMBLA. But name-calling does not a fact make. Hermitian 04:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not categorizing NAMBLA as a "pedophile organization" solely because of Google, or even because of Google at all. We are categorizng it that way because of numerous instances in which it has been called "pedophile" by responsible commentators, by members and founders, and because there is ample evidence that members and founders are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. -Will Beback 04:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean if I get a lot of hits for "George W. Bush war criminal," that we can add George W. Bush to a category called "war criminals"? Corax 04:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If there were members of the administration who referred to themselves as "war criminals", if they called each other "war criminals", if they were indicted as war criminals, and if their publications pandered to war criminals, then yes, it would be appropriate to refer to the Bush administration as "war criminals". -Will Beback 04:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So if John Wayne Gacy prefers to call himself a "children's entertainer," that is the terminology we must employ when categorizing him? I don't think so. Hermitian 04:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And are you saying we shouldn't call him a "serial murderer" because that is a pejorative term? No, we'll call him a serial killer because that is what he is commonly called, and because there is objective evidence that he killed many people. If he was also a child entertainer then we should also apply that category. -Will Beback 04:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And a google search shows that Bush is commonly called a war criminal. Your "objective evidence" is nothing more than subjective opinion. Corax 04:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we categorize NAMBLA as "pedophile" simply because of Google - I was just pointing out the "Boylove" is a rarely-used euphemism. To repeat, if there were members of the administration who referred to themselves as "war criminals", if they called each other "war criminals", if they were indicted as war criminals, and if their publications pandered to war criminals, then yes, it would be appropriate to refer to the Bush administration as "war criminals". -Will Beback 04:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a few instances of individual NAMBLA members calling each other pedophiles. That is not proof that NAMBLA considers itself a pedophile organization. NAMBLA has not been "indicted" or otherwise legally designated a pedophile organization, and your argument that the publication "panders" to pedophiles is so subjective that it doesn't bear further comment. Corax 05:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

<<<NAMBLA was described in the official minutes as the "greatest" member of the International Pedophile and Child Education group. NAMBLA would not have joined such a group if they were not a pedophile organization. -Will Beback 05:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a very large leap in logic, the same kind of leap that would suggest that, if NAMBLA were a "pedophile group," all its members would have to be pedophiles. Does IPCE openly state that it requires all its groups to identify as pedophile organizations? Or is possible that IPCE identifies itself as a pedophile group, and its associate groups merely identify with most of its objectives? Corax 05:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

All of that is possible. If you have a soure showing that NAMBLA joined the International Pedophile Child Education group while not considering themselves pedophiles, then please share it wish us. If you have a source showing that the editor was fired for calling himself and the membership pedophiles, then please share it. If you have a source showing that the steering committee members arrested for soliciting pre-pubescent boys were denounced by the other members, then please share it. So far all of the sources provided, by me, indicate that the members call themselves pedophiles, call each other pedophiles, are called pedophiles by the media, and are arrested for acts consistent with pedophilia. Unless you can provide some sources to the contrary, please respect the sources that we do have. -Will Beback 06:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, Will. We have no idea one way or the other why NAMBLA joined IPCE. Unless you have a source confirming the reason they joined, and that source is unequivocal in that NAMBLA joined because it considered itself a pedophile organization, NAMBLA's presence in IPCE is not evidence of anything besides its sympathy for IPCE's objectives. So I guess the appropriate question is: do YOU have references? As for your other statements, what I said above applies. Those are isolated statements by isolates members. Their opinion of the group is no more valid than yours. What matters is the group's official position. Corax 06:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No, a group's euphemistic view of itself does not determine our coverage. While we should include their own self-assessment, we must give primary deference to the most common view. We don't call David Duke a "european-american rights advocate". We don't call Rush Limbaugh "god's gift to radio audiences". Or any similar nonsense that people and groups try to foist off about themselves. -Will Beback 06:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Wikipedia should concern itself only with facts, and not public relations spin. The irony here is that the position you are advocating is the product of a right-wing PR coup that managed to redefine NAMBLA for the purpose of furthering a highly conservative, anti-sex and anti-youth political agenda. This redefinition of NAMBLA casts it as an organization that advocates sex with children (it does not), an organization that says all minors can consent to sex (it does not), an organization that publishes and distributes the "rape and escape manual" (I have seen no evidence of this), an organization that has "sex before eight or it's too late" as its slogan (it does not), an organization that has a million members (it does not), and countless other lies. The ultimate of these lies, of course, is that it is a pedophile organization. By dubbing the group a gang of pedophiles, the government and media enhance the notoriety of the group that much more by exploiting the negative connotations of the word while simultaneously ignoring its actual meaning. The right-wing then gets to portray itself as the defender of the poor, threatened children. It gets to crack down on children's rights in general, obscenity/pornography in general (under the guise of fighting kiddie porn, of course), and effectively shift political focus to bogeymen.

Your position is the one short on facts, and long on conclusion-leaping and similar conjecturing. The facts are as I have outlined them above. You have ZERO (0) references of NAMBLA calling itself a pedophile organization. All you have is your opinion of what its publications are, a few isolated quotes from individuals, NAMBLA's cooperation with another organization that has the word "pedophile" in its title, and a slew of links mostly from right-wing websites of the ilk I outlined above. Sorry, but that's a case by innuendo and juxtaposition if I've ever seen one. Corax 08:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

<<<The idea that NAMBLA is "pedophile organization" is not just "my position". It is the idea of numerous journalists, of the editor of the Bulletin, of a writer for the Bulletin, and most Wikipedia editors. It is an identification which is born out by sources and facts, like the pictures of prepubescent boys in the Bulletin, the lack of any statement defining a lower age limit for sex, and the arrests of members and steering committee members for sex on charges of having or seeking sex with prepubescent boys. And "Wired" is not a right-wing website. Your other strawmen don't change matters either. -Will Beback 09:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish this was a strawpoll. I'm certain that a supermajority of people would agree that "pedophile organization" is an acceptable NPOV term for NAMBLA. In any case, that's where my views, based on available evidence and common usage, lie. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Common usages

After looking through old stories, it's clear to me that the common public opinion -- and common usage in public discourse -- is to call NAMBLA a pedophile group. Regardless of what NAMBLA thinks of itself, judging from this sampling of news reports, the majority of the public who know what NAMBLA is judge it to be a pedophile group, its own rhetoric notwithstanding. Because of this, I think the categorization is fine. Here is a sampling of news and magazine reports from publications both large and small and how they described NAMBLA. This could have been much larger, but I only chose one story from each publication to show the breadth of coverage rather than the depth of coverage. References to NAMBLA as a pedophile group are international and have been consistent for more than a decade.

Alberta Report, Jan. 2002: North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a U.S.-based pedophile group

AP, April 2001: The lawyer for the family of Jeffrey Curley, the boy raped and killed by two men, says he will file a motion Wednesday in the family's lawsuit against a pedophile group that includes affidavits claiming it trained members to rape children.

Washington Times, Oct. 2000: E-mails from a secretive pedophile organization were presented yesterday to a Massachusetts court by parents whose son was murdered by two men, one of whom was associated with the group.

Newsbytes Aug. 31 (Newsweek): NAMBLA is arguably the most recognizable pedophile group in the United States and has been a lighting rod for attacks since its creation.

SJ Merc Aug 2000: HEADLINE: PEDOPHILE GROUP TO GET ACLU HELP IN LAWSUIT

Boston Herald July 2000: The pedophile group that Jeffrey Curley's family blames for inciting one of the boy's murderers may soon face a massive lawsuit from thousands of other victims, according to the Curleys' lawyer.

Scripps-Howard, May 2000: A paralegal and reported member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, a notorious pedophile group,

NY Post April 2000: State Arbitrator Thomas Rinaldo upheld board disciplinary charges against 60-year-old Peter Melzer - a teacher for 37 years and a leader of the North American Man-Boy Love Association. The 93-page ruling - dated last Saturday and obtained by The Post yesterday - said Melzer's association with the pro-pedophile group made him unfit to be in contact with children.

NYDN Aug. ’96: The child endangerment case against a former spokesman of a national pedophile group ended in a mistrial yesterday.

The Record (Waterloo, Ontario) May ’95: Then there's Popert, who labelled "without apparent foundation in principle, squalid and cruel in its execution" the expulsion of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and other pedophile groups

Canadian Business and Current Affairs Sept. ’94: 30 voting members of the International Lesbian and Gay Association recently voted against expelling NAMBLA and two other pedophile groups from their ranks

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March ’94: HEADLINE: FILM ON PEDOPHILE GROUP DRAWS FIRE IN N.Y.

Agence France-Presse, Jan. ’94: US officials charged Thursday that the United Nations was supporting a pedophile group and threatened to halt funds to the world body if it did not cut off those ties.

Knight-Ridder, Dec. ’93: HEADLINE: Man who belongs to pedophile group fights for teaching job

Time, Nov. ’93: HEADLINE: FOR THE LOVE OF KIDS; What should be done with a teacher who belongs to a pedophile group but has a spotless record?

US News & WR, Oct. ’93: New York's Channel 4 News showed some footage last March of a pedophile group having a quiet chat in the busy atrium of the Citicorp building in midtown Manhattan. The pedophiles were all members of NAMBLA,

LA Times, March ’93: Echols, a self-styled children's rights crusader, made headlines in early 1992 (View, March 10) by infiltrating a NAMBLA chapter in San Francisco and surreptitiously videotaping some meetings of the secretive pro-pedophile group

SF Chronicle, Feb. 92: The policy is designed to give the public ample warning of library meetings of all groups, including controversial organizations like the North American Man-Boy Love Association, a pedophile group that has been meeting at the Potrero District library for two years.

· Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 10:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you're absolutely right that those flogging the right wing Sex Abuse Agenda, including the US Government, run around calling all sorts of things "pedophile", and that this usage has leaked into the mainstream press and through the press into the conventional wisdom of the typical American. Groups that challenge AOC laws are called "pedophile groups." Books that criticize sex abuse hysteria are called "pedophile books." Researchers who do population based studies and challenge anecdotal sex abuse "science" are "pro-pedophile researchers." Journals that accept papers on the subject of child sexual abuse which don't parrot the party line are "promoting pedophilia." We hear that a sting operation has rounded up "100 pedophiles." People also call each other pedophiles at the drop of a hat, if an opinion is expressed that is even slightly to the left of center on the sexual rights of minors. After all, that's how witch hunts work. "Pedophile" and "pedophile promoter" are kind of the 00's version of "Commie" and "Pinko" from the McCarthy era.

In fact, this modern use of the word "pedophile," much of it pejorative, is likely to completely supplant and replace the word's dictionary meaning if things continue, and the press continues to hype child abuse and sex offenders under every rock and shrub.

I'm just saying that for scholarly purposes, a word which is now value-laden and pejorative, whose meaning varies all over the map, is inappropriate for a single word category label, where context as to how it is being used cannot also be provided.

I would, by the way, have the same problem with a category like "Neo-Nazi Organizations." While I could Google you thousands of examples of various things being called "Neo-Nazi" because of everything from mild criticism of Zionist politics to advocating genocide, and we can certainly use the term in an article, it's inapproprate as a category label, because it's imprecise and pejorative and causes lots of people to instantly dismiss anything it's attached to, and it's something people run around calling other things for political purposes. Category names in an encyclopedia should be non-political and unambiguous as to precise meaning, and not be words people also use for hate speech. Hermitian 16:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, if I google "bush war criminal" and get thousands of hits, does that mean we can categorize him in a category called "War Criminals"? What makes the opinion of uninformed journalists any more privileged than those of us editors? You claim that the majority of the public who knows what NAMBLA is, call it a pedophile group. But if the public knew what nambla was, how do you account for all the lies that are spread about the organization and its objectives? All that those stories prove is, once again, that the government and right-wingers were successful in redefining and lying about NAMBLA. It doesn't prove that NAMBLA is a pedophile organization. Corax 15:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

All those "uninformed journalists" write for publications Wikipedia consders reliable sources, your own idiosyncratic views notwithstanding. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 15:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Journalists are just as prone to reporting false information as any other human being, especially when they are reporting on a group that has been so politically marginalized that it is not in a position to raise objections to how it is portrayed in newspapers or other media. I have academic sources calling NAMBLA an LGBT group, including another online encyclopedia which I suggest Wikipedia do more to imitate in terms of objectivity. Corax 15:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly humans make errors in general, but your base argument is just illogical, otherwise all sources would be excluded because of the potential for human error. The bottom line is that Wikipedia considers these reliable sources. I haven't said anything about whether or not NAMBLA should be classed a gay group, so please don't introduce an unrelated concept into this particular discussion. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 15:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources? Echols was a former author, a mentally ill homeless man, and a self-styled child sex abuse dilettante who hated NAMBLA and maintained a Web-based list of people whose Internet postings he didn't like under the heading of "NAMBLA Members." He died in solitary confinement after being arrested for dropping his pants and waving his penis at a cop, and had an extensive criminal record including a terrorism conviction for threatening to disable the transit system. Now tell me again exactly how Echols' activities in harrassing NAMBLA, or fluff mainstream media reporting on them because pedophile-bashing sells newspapers, rise to the level of "reliable sources" for an encyclopedia? Your citations are either sex abuse nutballs, newspapers writing fluff articles about sex abuse nutballs, or talking points of the anti-porn anti-underage-sex Republican administration. One wonders if Wikipedia had existed in the 1950, if it would be putting things in a category called "Communist Organizations" and parroting the extensive biased press coverage of everything said by Richard Nixon and Roy Cohn. Hermitian 17:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Echols is not being quoted. Many of the sources above are Canadian, and are thus not under the influence of the Republican party. siafu 17:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We have positive descriptions of the antics of Echols, a certified loon, with no mention of his criminal record, tabloid muckraking over Peter Melzer, an exemplary teacher unjustly fired because he joined NAMBLA, a political advocacy group, Larry Frisoli, a right wing ambulance chaser who calls NAMBLA's chronicling of American sex laws "The Rape and Escape Manual," and various inflammatory things done by a certain TV station during Sweeps Week to create public hysteria over NAMBLA meeting in a public library. Explain to me why any of this nonsense should be considered authoritative on NAMBLA. Hermitian 17:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There are neither positive views of Echols or negative views of Melzer presented in the quotes above, nor any mention of Mr. Frisoli at all. If you're going to attack these sources as biased, please at least use facts to do it. siafu 18:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The only fact in play here is that these are all considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's policies. These statements do not characterize any of the above named peoples' personal opinions of NAMBLA. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 18:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That's absurd. Clearly any article that mentions Echols in any context other than "dangerous lunatic roams the streets" is spun towards Echols POV, and is probably written using material on Echols provided by his supporters. That such an article should go on and on about "pedophiles" and "pedophile organizations" is singularly unremarkable. Similarly, any article that mentions Melzer in any context other than "great teacher has his career ruined by anti-pedophile hysteria" is similarly biased. Now that all news has become tabloid-enabled, and "Infotainment", you have to pick through it very carefully to find the occasional fact, particularly on hot button issues. Hermitian 18:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So, in short, any article that does not adhere to your rather stringent POV, using such hyperbolic terms as "dangerous lunatic" (apparent you have no problem with a public stigma against mental illness?), "great teacher", and "anti-pedophile hysteria" (which, btw, if applicable, would make Melzer a pedophile, reinforcing the case for calling NAMBLA a "pedophile organization"), is absurd. It may be difficult for you to believe, but journalists, like wikipedians, do attempt to present the news from an objective point of view, and so any article with statements anything like the ones you've put forward would be rather suspect. siafu 19:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination is defined to be based on a "perception of ones sexual orientation," not actual fact. If I hit someone on the head with a 2x4, and call him a lisping queer, it doesn't matter if he's married with 5 kids, and has never had a homosexual thought in his life. It's still a hate crime. Similarly, being the recipient of anti-pedophile bias doesn't make one a pedophile, it just means someone has decided to call you one. generally for reasons that have more to do with politics than your sexual behavior. We will soon be defining a "pedophile" as anyone who won't allow the NAMBLA article to be filled full of lying by juxtiposition, innuendo, and omission. Hermitian 20:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Peter Melzer was a victim of anti-pedophile hysteria doesn't make him a pedophile anymore than being the victim of Mcarthyism made those who careers were destroyed actual communists. Also, the media may try to be objective, but you know very well that it isn't. Classifying an article is effectively professing that an association between the category and the article is a fact, not just a sourced opinion. In other words, placing NAMBLA in "pedophile organizatons" is the same as saying "NAMBLA is a pedophile organization." It's not the same as saying, "Some people believe that NAMBLA is a pedophile organization." So a slew or news articles calling NAMBLA a pedophile organization is not a compelling reason to place NAMBLA in that category. It still remains to be determined whether the articles are making factual statements. Thus what we are debating here is whether the sources calling NAMBLA a "pro-pedophile group" contain reliable facts. Hermitian has explained quite convincingly why the veracity of the sources is suspect. And you've yet to offer a single shred of argumentation to counter his points. Corax 19:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

All Hermitian has done so far is cite some large media conspiracy as if it were simple fact. I don't disagree that there exists a stigma against pedophilia, and even homosexuality. I don't disagree that the media is not perfect, and often use news as a vehicle for editorial. However, Hermitian has provided no evidence or reasoning to indicate that these particular sources are incorrect, save for the rather circular argument that any article that does not present his own POV is incorrect. siafu 19:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if you ignore his opinions about the people being commented on in those articles, the fact still remains that being able to provide sources for claim does mean that the claim is true. Kate and Will have sources calling NAMBLA a pedophile organization. Good for them. But I can provide sources calling George W. Bush a war criminal. Whether or not NAMBLA should be placed in the pedophile organizations category is not a question to be determined by what the greatest number of sources say, but by using reasoning. And in that department, neither you nor will nor kate has made any sort of dent in the position that NAMBLA at best has only a tangential relationship to pedophilia. Corax 19:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this right: if one can find newspaper sources of journalists labeling people or organizations a certain way, then editors are free to add said organization or person to the corresponding category on Wikipedia? My base argument is not illogical. It has not been addressed. Instead, people have resorted to throwing out sources that have a long history of lying about the organization. Calling NAMBLA a pedophile group is just one example of this. Corax 16:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Not one, eighteen. siafu 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so what's the minimum number of newspaper sources one needs labeling something a certain way in order to make that label appropriate as the basis for categorization on Wikipedia? And where is the written Wikipedia policy on this? Corax 16:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

<<<These eighteen, plus the six references I listed earlier, give us two dozen. Those are on top of the citations by NAMBLA members and leaders calling themselves and each other "pedophiles". And the proof of their arrests and actions indicating pedophilia. I have never seen a better-sourced categorization in Wikipedia. -Will Beback 07:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Having a dozen, two dozen or even more sources calling NAMBLA a pedophile organization does not make NAMBLA a pedophile organization. And having NAMBLA in the pedophile organizations category is not saying "Some people think NAMBLA is a pedophile organization." It is saying that "NAMBLA is a pedophile organization." Therefore you need to do more than produce sources. You need to argue the point by using reason and logic. You have not done this, so I see no need why NAMBLA should be in the pedophile organizations category. Corax 15:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already gone over the logic of the matter. They were founded in response to a raid on pedophiles, their founders included pedophiles, their current members include pedophiles, their Bulletin shows pre-pubescent boys, they belong to a pedophile umbrella group, They say they want to remove age of consent laws, but they never indicate any minimum age that they find acceptable. For those reasons, NAMBLA is a pedophile organization. Your refusal to acknowledge numerous sources, and obvious logic, particularly when you've offered no sources to the contrary, amkes it appear that you are not editing in good faith. -Will Beback 21:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. None of the facts you cite in your argument stand up to even a minimum amount of scrutiny. The "raid on pedophiles" was a round-up of mostly married professional men who had sexual encounters with teenagers. THe idea that these were men who had a sexual preference for prepubescent boys is a product of your imagination (or political agenda). You have no proof that any of their founders were pedophiles, although you do have proof that one of the thirty founders used to have an art book that contained nude pictures of children as young as 6 (and into their late teens). If opposition to age-of-consent laws makes a group of pedophile organization, you'd better add ASFAR into the category also. In other words, you keep citing random events and people as proof that NAMBLA is pedophilic, but you haven't put forward an argument to prove that those people or things are pedophile-related. You just expect us to accept it on your word, I suppose. Corax 21:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The raid was on a child sex ring that included pre-pubescent boys. If ASFAR's members are routinely arrested for seeking to have sex with pre-pubescent children then perhpas it should be int he category. Both the editor and and writer to the Bulletin called the membership "pedophiles" and the Bulletin pandered to pedophiles. NAMBLA beleonged to a pedophile umbrella group. Those are facts. Don't take my word for it. -Will Beback 22:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

All but one or two of the arrests stem from sexual encounters that these men had with teenage male hustlers. Characterizing this as a "raid on pedophiles" demonstrates one of three things: that you are willing to sink to outright deceptions in order to have your way on Wikipedia, that you are citing as a "fact" a raid about which you apparently have almost no knowledge, or that you think married men who have occasional sexual encounters with teenage males are "pedophiles." The first two prospects are disturbing, and the last is so silly that it again does not warrant further comment. Your other "fact" is that one of the editors of the NAMBLA called some NAMBLA members pedophiles. In effect, then, your argument is that if the editor of the Bulletin says it, then it must be true. Even if we accept his statement at face value, the presence of pedophiles in NAMBLA does not make it a pedophile organization anymore than the presence of pedophiles in the Republican party makes it a pedophile organization. Your opinion of what the Bulletin "panders to" is not a fact upon which to base categorizations of wikipedia articles. And, lastly, NAMBLA belonged to an umbrella group whose objectives it agreed with. Unless you can provide a source that shows IPCE admits only "pedophiles groups," into its ranks, this is hardly the smoking gun you are making it out to be. Corax 00:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Which objectives of IPCE did NAMBLA agree with when it joined, other than pedophilia? -Will Beback 00:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when is "pedophilia" an objective and not a condition of being? In any case, I have no idea why it joined, but neither do you. Until you come forward with evidence showing that it joined because it considers itself a pedophile group, its membership in IPCE is irrelevant to this discussion. Corax 01:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone joins the Democratic Party, I'd assume they are Democrats. If someone joins the Methodist Church, I assume they are Methodists. If an organization joins a pedophile umbrella group, I assume they are a pedophile organization. It is you who are asserting that they are not pedophiles even though they joined IPCE. so it is up to you to show that there is a basis for that assertion. -Will Beback 07:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

These are legitimate analogies if you can show me that IPCE is an umbrella group for "pedophile organizations." Where does IPCE assert that it is an umbrella group for pedophile organizations? Corax 14:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

On the Other Hand

I note that Wikipedia has the categories "Neo-Nazi Organizations" and "Anti-Semitism" and virtually every organization on the planet which promotes domestic nationalism and supports the Palestinian side of the Middle East conflict has been stuffed into these two categories. On the other hand, Hamas and similar groups belong to something called "Palestinian Militant Groups" rather than "Terrorist Organizations." So it would seem that Wikipedia doesn't have a consistant policy on avoiding POV political labeling when making categories, and manages to hold the high ground some of the time, and pander to conventional wisdom the rest.

It will be interesting to see whether the resolution of this debate is an example of the former or the latter.

As I said during the Justin Berry discussion...

"Wikipedia is a large cache of conventional wisdom and urban legends which could collectively care less about where the real truth lies."

In Jimbo Wales' own words...

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." :Hermitian 19:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The NY Post, LA Times, Washington Times, Newsweek, and the SF Chronicle do not represent a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority. They represent the majority view on this matter. They probably agree more on this issue than on any other. -Will Beback 07:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing his point, which is that Wikipedia cares more about the popularity of an opinion than its truth. Corax 15:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

To an extent, that's correct. We have no way of determing what is "true", only what is verifiable. Encyclopedias should contain mainstream ideas. In this matter, the common, mainstream view is that NAMBLA is a pedophile organization. -Will Beback 21:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean if I have links verifiably calling Bill Clinton a mafioso that we can add him to the category "organize crime figures"? After all, the links would be "verifiable." The only thing that is verfiable is that you have a bunch of articles in which NAMBLA is referred to as a pedophile organization. That does not make NAMBLA a pedophile organization anymore than my dozens of links verifiably calling George W. Bush a war criminal makes him a war criminal. And because that doesn't make NAMBLA a pedophile organization, you either need to remove NAMBLA from that category or come up with an argument that consists of more than just showing that other people hold the same opinion you do. Encyclopedic facts are not decided by public opinion polls, and mainstream views are often wrong -- particularly, as has been shown, with NAMBLA. Corax 21:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] We've been over this before. If, in addition to the sources you mention that call Bush a "war criminal, his administration belonged to a "war criminals" umbrella group, if the members of his administration called each other "war criminals", and the members of the administraiton were indicted for committing war crimes then it would certainly be correct to place Bush's administration in a war criminals category. In addition to the dozens of sources calling NAMBLA a "pedophile organization" there are also the facts that they belong to a pedophile umbrella group, that the members are arrested for seeking sex with pre-pubescent children, and that the Bulletin carries material to appeal to pedophiles. There are sources, and more than sources. You haven't provided anything but rhetoric to oppose the categorization. -Will Beback 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

We're really getting into what Chomsky calls "Concision," which is that popularly held possibly untrue beliefs have short abbreviations, and exact expositions of the way things really are tend to be more long-winded. "Pedophile Organizations" has a short emotional appeal, and "Organizations Advocating Reform of AOC Laws," which explains the situation correctly, takes more characters. To decide whether to include NAMBLA in "Pedophile Organizations", we first need to define what a "pedophile organization" is, and then see how NAMBLA measures up. Unless you consider name-calling encyclopedic, in which case, virtually everything the right wing doesn't like about kids and sex is pedophilic, I can think of two criteria which a "pedophile organization" must meet. It must be an organization whose membership is composed primarily of pedophiles, in the medical and clinical sense, or it must act primarily on behalf of such individuals. As we have previously discussed, NAMBLA's membership is diverse, and includes many people who support its ideals, and are not sexually attracted to minors, let alone prepubescent minors, and its activities certainly don't benefit pedophiles to any great degree. So we must conclude that the large number of people, many in the mainstream media, yelling "pedophile" in NAMBLA's direction are engaging in name-calling, and not journalism. I once said NAMBLA is the only organization in the history of the country that has never had anything remotely truthful written about it in the popular press. Name-calling is not encyclopedic, and pejorative words whose popular meaning is in a state of flux should not be used on Wikipedia as category labels. Hermitian 22:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that nothing printed about NAMBLA is true? Are you omniscient? Do you know the truth? It's swell if you do, but we cannot use original research. We have to rely on reliable sources, and the mainstream media is considered reliable. No, the definition of "pedophile organization" does not require that a majority of members have been clinically diagnosed as pedophiles. We certainly don't put that requirement on whether it is a gay organization. -Will Beback 22:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Being a mainstream media source and being a source of factual information are often two different things. Encyclopedias like Wikipedia should conern themselves with facts, not popular misconceptions. Scrutinizing mainstream media sources' characterization of a group about whom is has routinely lied is not "original research." Corax 00:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So you guys are just making a sweeping generalization that all mainstream media coverage of NAMBLA is a lie, without any evidence. -Will Beback 01:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is here is making absolute statements that all coverage is bogus. I have contended that NAMBLA is often lied about in the mainstream media. How? Just look at the final comment I made the subsection above this one about "promoting sex with children," "having a million members," and other rubbish. These are, of course, the more tame lies. IN the early 80s Rupert Murdoch's New-York area rags called NAMBLA "a sex club" and other such calumnies. Corax 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, that's exactly what Hermitian said: "I once said NAMBLA is the only organization in the history of the country that has never had anything remotely truthful written about it in the popular press." I interpret that to mean that all coverage is bogus. -Will Beback 06:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Conveniently, you keep ignoring the two questions whose answers will do the most to move this discussion forward. What is a pedophile group? And what is a pedophile issue? I don't see why we should accept your argument for categorization if you can't even tell us what it entailed by the category. Corax 07:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This threadlet is about how one editor of this article says that not a single true word has been written about NAMBLA in the mainstream media. If that is the case then we have serious problems with the article that go beyond any category. So I'd like to hear how Hermitian knows that all news stories about NAMBLA are totally false. -Will Beback 07:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We call organizations "gay organizations" because they are formed by and are composed of people who self-identify as gay, and because they address gay issues. By this criteria, NAMBLA is certainly a gay organization. Hermitian 22:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA addresses pedophile issues (age of consent, etc), has pedophile members, and belongs to a pedophile organization. -Will Beback 23:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's stop beating around the bush here, Will. What is a pedophile group? and What are pedophile issues? Once we clarify the terms for our discussion, resolving this issue will be much easier. Corax 00:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, it is irrelevant whether you, or anyone else, believes the mainstream media lies about NAMBLA. Wikipedia considers them reliable sources. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 01:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The press, which is market driven, and seeks equilibrium between saying things that sell papers and not getting sued, simply repeats likely lies said by other sources, which it doesn't bother to fact check, because no one ever got sued for making misstatements of fact about pedophilia, child porn, NAMBLA, or any other related subject. It's kind of an intellectual laziness. So we see serious-sounding articles on people like Echols, claims that child porn is a $30 billion dollar business, that there are currently 100,000 child porn Web sites, that NAMBLA is a sex club where pedophiles exchange grooming and rape tips, or that one out of every five children is propositioned online by an adult seeking sex. Whenever Ernie Allen or John Walsh opens their mouth and nonsense comes out, no one ever bothers to ask if it makes sense. So press reports on subjects like sex between adults and minors require additional skepticism, over press reports on subjects where there is at least some attempt at two sides, and not a total suspension of disbelief and critical thinking.

Watching the mainstream press on the subject of NAMBLA is like watching FOX News on the subject of WMDs in Iraq. Hermitian 02:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources for categorization? Where is this written? Corax 01:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

One other point. Another problem with categories like "Neo-Nazi Organizations" or "Pedophile Organizations", is that they represent a form of false argumentation called an "Operational Definition," where something is used simultaneously as a definition of something, and an explanation for it. It's like saying "Johnny is claustrophobic because he screams when we lock him in the closet," and then responding to someone asking "Why does Johnny scream when you lock him in the closet?" with "Because Johnny is claustrophobic." This creates the illusion of insight and explanation, but it's only an illusion, because there is no model and prediction. There is merely one thing used simultaneously as both definition and reason.

So supporters of Israel want everything critical of Israel in the "Neo-Nazi Organizations" category, and non-supporters of reform of age-of-consent laws want everything advocating such reform in the "Pedophile Organizations" category. Yet the first thing out of these peoples mouths should anyone show any indications of taking anything these groups say seriously will be, "Oh, nothing they say matters," because "they're a pedophile organization," or "they're a Neo-Nazi organization."

That's a good reason why, as I pointed out earlier, words used for the names of categories on Wikipedia should be not be pejorative or have several meanings, or have a popular perception which differs from their dictionary meaning. Hermitian 02:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said. And I would like to add that categories that try to define organizations based on the demographics of the members of those organizations, and not the purpose of those organizations, is suspect. We don't call civil rights organizations "black people organizations" or "colored people organizations," although clearly the majority of members in those groups fit that description. We don't call the Republican party "rich white men organizations," although most Republicans are rich white men. And, even if NAMBLA were composed mostly of pedophiles (which hasn't been proven), it shouldn't be called a "pedophile organization." Corax 02:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The criteria of the category can be found at Category:Pedophile organizations. -Will Beback 07:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't see how NAMBLA meets the first criterion. It doesn't "promote pedophilia." Also, while it opposes AOC laws on principle, it does not supporting removing other laws restricting adult-child sexual contact. So I don't see how it meets the second criterion either, which presumably means the removal of all legal inhibitions against adult-child sex. If you want to include NAMBLA in the category because it argues for elimination of AOC laws only, then you have to include ASFAR also. In fact, I've added ASFAR and other groups which support abolishing age-of-consent laws to the category. Corax 14:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't even think the category makes sense. "Pedophilia" refers to the almost exclusive attraction to prepubescents, and "removal of legal inhibitions towards adult/child sex" clearly refers to the legal definition of child, as in "child porn", which is anyone under 18. So it's apples and oranges as far as the description goes. You're labeling as a "pedophile organization" for either of two things, one of which is pedophilia, and one of which isn't. It's like the Saturday Night Live sketch about the product that is simultaneously a dessert topping and a floor wax. I think we need a category for "Organizations Advocating Reform of AOC Laws" in which we can place civil liberties groups that do not advocate toddler-boning. Hermitian 15:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

ANMBLA certainly does seek to remove inhibitions against adult child sex, according to our introductory paragraph:

• The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization that opposes the use of age as the sole criterion for deciding whether minors can legally engage in sexual relations. NAMBLA defends what it asserts to be the right of minors to explore their sexuality on a much freer basis. It has resolved to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships", and calls for "the adoption of laws that both protect children from unwanted sexual experiences and at the same time leave them free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences.

If they don't seek to remove such inihibition, what do they seek? -Will Beback 23:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the apples and oranges wording of the "Pedophile Organizations" category, a state legislature that lowered the age of consent from 18 to 16 would qualify as a "Pedophile Organization." Surely this is not what you are proposing. Hermitian 04:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that this may come as some surprise to you, although you've been following the goings-on in this article for over year, but please try to pay attention: even if age-of-consent laws are removed, other laws that currently apply to "adult" sexual relationships would still apply to minors. And NAMBLA does not advocate removing those obstacles. So when the category mentions "removes inhibitions," it needs to be more specific. Does it mean only one, or all? If it means only one, even groups that advocate a lower age-of-consent would have a place in "pedophile groups." Corax 00:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete NAMBLA's Entire Category

It is wrong to give them an forum to express thier point of view like this. It is wrong for children to hear about them on TV and then have a place to go on the Internet to learn about them. These people are sick criminals and should not be treated like humans. If we had an orginazation that kidnapped people and roasted them alive and ate thier flesh... would you give them a forum to come and tell the world thier justification for it or would you hunt down the bastards and kill them. Same here! This Talk Makes Me sick! I was molested at age 7 by a guy who had piles of ponography all over his house and a Nazi flag in his den. It was SICK, SICK, SICK, Dont come off and tell me its harmless as long as ITS CONSENTUAL. Your Sick! Normal Pornography, when in the hands of these bastards... "infatuated with children" can cause them to do "EVIL" things that they might not have done otherwise. These buttholes are criminals should be "CASTRATED" while awake, "REAMED" and then sent to jail with tattos on thier heads that say "Child Molester!" There is a conection between pornography and child molestation... wake up and see it! --merlinus 16:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

While I understand your opinion, it cannot be the basis upon which Wikipedia decides the content or the existence of articles. Please see WP:NPOV for further explanation of this. Corax 19:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

How amusing. Are you familiar with any organizations promoting kidnapping and cannibalism that we have failed to document on the wiki? If so, please point them out and we'll be glad to write an article. Tomyumgoong 19:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

An excellent example of how molestation, imagined or real, causes people to lose touch with reality, and project upon other people and things events that never occurred, and words that were never uttered. We ought to put the number of a mental health professional at the end of the NAMBLA article, so nutters will have someone to call after they read it. Hermitian 20:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that's a respectful comment to somebody who claims to have been molested? So maybe he just made it up, but you don't know so where are your fucking manners. Mackan 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Hermitian. Although I can't stand behind NAMBLA's goals, I have to say that Merlinus' comments are a prime example of the nature of the continuing problem of child abuse present-day. Although such deep resentment is understandable, the public at large seems quite satisfied with simply shaming pedophiles and treating them as badly as possible as a consequence to the deeds they've committed, apparently doing nothing to alter the future behavior of many offenders. The rehabilitation of pedophiles, especially those prone to violence, is one of the most under-funded research areas in psychology today. As a result, the treatment options available are either quite ineffective or barbaric to say the least. I also believe it quite presumptuous that one could claim "pedophiles can never be cured and should be killed/locked away forever", as this would require complete knowledge of the psychological mechanisms involved in the attraction towards children, elements which probably vary on a case-by-case basis, and then proof that they are inalterable. At present, we have too limited a knowledge of the human mind and even the brain itself to be making such assertions. But to assume that we have reached the pinnacle of human achievement in this area of treatment is simply to be misinformed and/or extraordinarily unfaithful in humanity's ability to progress, something which is ever-constant in this world. My point being that pedophiles will always exist, and only when we are able to be humane, rational, and scientific about the problem can it really be addressed on any meaningful level. If it's a disease, treat it like any other disease that we seek to cure, otherwise get out of the picture because you're just detracting from future solutions.

Kst447 (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok so what the fuck is wrong with you people? even if this dude wasnt molested still there are people who have been! alot of them! orginizations like NAMBLA just blanket these criminals. YES what these men do is a CRIME! They've have had sexual relations with a minor! Lets drive that point home most of these minors are under 12! I highly doubt these childeren, yes thats what they are, know how to fucking do what these men do to them so I HIGHLY doubt any sex is concenual! If you protect Nambla whats not to stop someone form opening a eating people orginization? So FUCK NAMBLA and FUCK those people like you fuckers who protect it!

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We document them solely for the reason that they exist. There are many, many other examples of repulsive topics in Wikipedia that are in the encyclopedia because of similar reasons. We don't remove the "child molestation" article, for example. These are not forums for pedophiles to congregate; these are academic discussions to aid in, say, a college student doing a paper for his or her psychology class. Also, this talk page is used for discussion about matters pertaining to the maintenance of the article, not an actual discussion of opinions on the topic. If you look at the talk pages of other controversial subjects, you'll find editorial discussions. Remember, an article documenting an organization in a neutral point of view does not endorse the organization or its goals. Please respect Wikipedia for what it is, an encyclopedia. Dtemp 15:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed Pedophile Orgs category from page

Will Beback explained above that the criteria for listing a page under Pedophile organizations was on the Category Page, which defines pedophile organizations as "organizations that promote pedophilia or the removal of legal inhibitions towards adult-child sex" (notice the "or" indicating that only one of these criteria must be met for classification to obtain). Because NAMBLA has called for the elimination of age-of-consent laws, and the elimination of age-of-consent laws represents a removal of one of the potential inhibitions (or prohibitions, which I think is what the author of the category meant) against adult-child sex, it would appear that NAMBLA belongs in the category.

However, other organizations also call for the removal of age-of-consent laws, meaning that they also meet one of the criteria set down by the category's page. One such organization, ASFAR, was added to the category accordingly. For some inexplicable reason User:Will Beback reversed this addition to the category, advising the editor not to use Wikipedia to prove a point. Yet the only point the editor was making was that, according to the criteria set down on the Pedophile organizations category page, ASFAR belongs in that category.

It seems that the only person making a point in regards to the categories is User:Will Beback. And that point is that the criteria listed on the category page is irrelevant. The only thing that matters, it seems, is whether Will Beback thinks an organization is a pedophile organization. Perhaps he should add "Will Beback must agree with the categorization" on the category page so that it reflects the content of the category.

In any event, I have removed NAMBLA from the category until Will can straighten out what criteria we are supposed to be using to determine what organizations/articles belong. Until that is clarified, re-adding it while excluding others which meet the existing criteria is tantamount to vandalism. Corax 03:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the category "Pedophile Organizations" should be nuked. We should make a new category for organizations that advocate reform of age of consent laws, which all such organizations, including ASFAR and the socialist folks, may happily occupy without feeling that they are being accused of promoting rape and murder. Hermitian 04:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I found out about NAMbLA from a South Park episode. I came to Wikipedia to find out exactly what it was.

Now I've found out. I was sickened, NAMbLA is wrong in so many ways. I don't know how such an organisation can exist. They claim they're not encouraging anyone to break the law but they support men who have sex with underage boys.

I know this organisation is in America but surely that can't be freedom of speech, the encouraging of man boy sex.

The test for an age appropriate relationship should have reference first to the relevant age of consent laws for the particular city/state/country you're in. The relative differences in age and the participants maturity. If the age difference is inappropriate for a hetrosexual couple. The age difference would certainly be inappropriate for a homsexual couple.

It is without doubt, inappropriate for a 12 year old girl to date a 22 year old man. I cannot see how it would ever be appropriate for a 12 boy to be with a 22 year old man. NAMbLA encourages 12 year old boys to be with adults. This can never be right.

Even NAMbLA through it's offical logo recognises the power imbalance in the relationship between a Man and a boy.

Any Wikipedia entry regarding NAMbLA should be concise. The wording could be, "NAMbLA is an acronym for North American Man boy Love Association. This organisation advocates the abolition of age of consent laws in support of men/boy sex. NAMbLA considers a boy to be aged and under (insert relevant age). NAMbLA operates in North America where the age of consent for homsexual sex is (insert relevant age).

I'm an Australian.

Compromise

Since no one has objected to the previously-proposed compromise category: category:pedophile and pederast organizations, I propose we move forward with it. The distinction between pederasty and pedophilia is sufficiently small, and since their is significant overlap, it appears to be the best solution to this dispute. -Will Beback 04:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I object to the creation of yet another apples and oranges category with "pedophile" in the name. Hermitian 05:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How are pedophiles and pederasts "apples and oranges"? They seem to have enough overlap that it'd be easier ot have one category to handle the field of child-adult sex organizations. -Will Beback 07:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the category used to label the groups' personal members' demographics isn't broad enough to encompass pederasts. The problem is with the fact that organizations are being classified based on the perception of the demographics of their members instead of their political objectives. To repeat what I've said above, we don't call civil rights organizations "black organizations" or "minority organizations" although the vast majority of their members are minorities. We don't have the ACLU placed in the "white liberal organizations" category, although almost all members of the ACLU are white liberals. Similarly, even if the majority of members of MARTIJN and DPA are pedophiles, we should not place them in a category called "pedophile organizations." If there is anything notable enough about these organizations to tie them together into a category, it is that they advocate reform of Age-of-consent laws, not that they consist of pedophiles. In fact, the criteria listed on the category page states that calling for reform of "inhibitions against sex with children" (which, according to your newspeak, is advocating elimination of AOC laws) is sufficient for categorization as a pedophile org, indicating that the composition of the membership is not as important the group's objectives. This is why, by the way, we now have the spectacle of socialist/marxist parties properly being categorized as pedophile organizaitons. The problems with the pedophile organizations category cant be remedied by simply tagging "and pederasts" into the title. Your proposed solution itself suggests that the most notable thing about the groups is their lobbying for changing AOC laws, for what else do pedophiles and pederasts have in common besides an attraction for people under the age-of-consent?

I suppose if you wanted to get down to it, we could create a category called "pedophile and pederast and homosexual and gay organizations," and we wouldn't have to debate NAMBLA's categorization any longer. Corax 11:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the category then why are you adding it to additional articles? I'd take that to be a sign that you think the cateogry is useful. -Will Beback 19:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The fuzzy-sweatered homosexuals would riot if "pedophile" and "homosexual" appeared in the same category. Hermitian 16:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This Discusion Proves my point

• The Whole Catagory must be deleted or modified to show the damage that pedoplelia can do to children and its lifelong affects on people.
• Some jerks that believe that consentual child rape is OK would say that the "VICTIMS" are at fault! This is not so. It is these same people who kept denying that Catholic priests fondled children over the years. It is self evidenly wrong and corrupt and evil and Wikipedia should not give forum to these people. I say delete or put it under the category of Child Predators That would be acceptable. --[[User:Merlinus 15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You've just stated the Neoconservative notion that truth should be defined by whether it advances ones cause, rather than by what the facts are. I am not aware of NAMBLA denying (some) Catholic priests molest kids. You may not be aware that one of the two "sex predators" located in an online registry, and killed by a vigilante in Maine, was a man who at 19 had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. Something that would be perfectly legal in Canada, but gets one (incorrectly) called a "pedophile" in the United States. Yet, you would advocate that anyone suggesting that age of consent laws need some changes be called a "pedoplele"(sic), be listed under "Child Predators," and be denied a voice to state their opinion, because you think their views are "wrong and corrupt and evil." Well, I think YOUR views are wrong and corrupt and evil. Should you be denied a forum to express them? Hermitian 16:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense?

Canada, US, France its all the Same. I will not get into name calling with a pederast. OVER AND OUT! --172.153.88.61 18:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course you're mistaken that sex laws are the same in Canada, the US, and France. Calling someone who corrects your mistakes a pederast is a bit of a stretch as well. Hermitian 18:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Laws different/Immorality same

Legality has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of moral issues. Frankly I would oppose it just as much if there were no laws in any country that forbade it!--merlinus 20:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So Canada is a country of pedophiles, because the age of consent is 14? Hermitian 21:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

According to most definitions, pedophiles would be those who are attracted to those well under the age of 14. I don't think anyone is proposing that Canada is a country of pedophiles. -Will Beback 22:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to Merlinus, who just stated that attraction by a 35 year old to a 15 year old is pedophilia. Please try to pay attention. Hermitian 17:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see Merlinus making any such statement, though an anon did a couple of sections ago. Are the anon and Merlinus the same user? -Will Beback 21:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

categories template

Since the template in use didn't explain what the dispute was over, especially as it was placed at the part of the page where the categories were listed when editing but not where shown, and given that there are other controversies over categories, I have created a new dispute notice specifically for categories that can be displayed directly under them and which allows the reader to know what the dispute is actually about. It is now in place. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks really nice. Corax 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Identifying sources in the text

In the event that information in an article comes from an unexpected or otherwise indirect source, an editor may want to include information about that source in the text. The way to do this is to include information that relates to its reliability -- which is, after all, the reason the source is being identified in the text. So, for example, when describing Larry Frisoli's accusations against NAMBLA, the appropriate information to include is Frisoli's role as an advocate on behalf of parents suing the organization for millions of dollars. After all, Frisoli's role as an interested party creates an incentive for him to distort the truth -- or at least to mislead.

If one wants to identify the source of some of the material in "Platforms and Positions," the appropriate information to include should similarly have some bearing on the reliability of the source. How would Roy Radow know the positions cited in the text? Why should we believe him? Identifying Radow as a "self-identified pedophile," does as much to answer these questions as dubbing Frisoli "a self-identified heterosexual" informs readres about the reliability of his accusations. Rather, it is clearly an example of disrupting Wikipedia (hypocritically) to make a WP:POINT. If somebody wants to identify Radow to place a source in its proper context, the appropriate identification should be "a former NAMBLA spokesperson." Corax 15:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In this instance, it would appear to increase Radow's credibility, since it shows he's one of them. It is certainly important to explain that the source is an email, which we generally do not consider a relaible source. I don't know what the source would be to call Radow a "former NAMBLA spokesperson." Do you have that source? In the context of that sentence, where NAMLBA purportedly, "opposed corporal punishment, rape, and kidnapping,", it is important to note that the writer is being sued on behalf of NAMBLA for condoning just those behaviors. It certainly calls the whole matter into a different light. -Will Beback 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

While the fact that the person asserting the position is being sued is important to note, the colorful "self-identified pedophile" nonsense is not. Insisting on including it is a violation of WP:POINT, and is clear evidence that you are editing in bad faith. Corax 18:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Corax, you are pushing the limit of good faith editing yourself with statements such as these. Please stop. Given that NAMBLA tries to distance itself from pedophilia (couching instead in terms of age of consent laws), it is imminently relevant that a former NAMBLA officer identifies himself as a pedophile. I will revert you, again. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 18:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is inherently POV on your part to think that a NAMBLA spokesperson who happens to be a pedophile discloses some great insight as to NAMBLA's inner motivations, as opposed to, for instance, a spokesperson who happened to be a foot fetishist or tulip gardener. This is the time worn anti-NAMBLA propaganda that NAMBLA's only real interest is in obliterating age of consent laws to enable old perverts to bugger young children, and every other thing NAMBLA stands for is some sort of clever smokescreen to conceal their real motives. Roy Radow was a NAMBLA Spokesperson on Usenet for years, and has been interviewed on CNN speaking for NAMBLA, and NAMBLA's history and its wide variety of other members and supporters, speak to the organization's origins and motives. Cheap innuendo about how Dr. Radow chooses to describe his own sexual orientation can go in his article, not in the NAMBLA article. Hermitian 21:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid we'll likely never see eye to eye on this. It seems entirely relevant to me to mention someone's self-identification in this instance. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 21:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, given that the Curley thing is a crackpot lawsuit, against people who had no knowlege of the events, based solely on the notion that polite advocacy of legal reform has some magic power to inflame others to commit rape and murder, I think it already gets far too much space in the article. Bear in mind that "incitement" must always pass the "reasonable person test." Namely, that it be so blatant that a reasonable person, suffering from no mental or other defect, would be at high risk of resorting to some action which puts others at risk or violates the law. I see no evidence that scholarly discussions of the unfairness of absolute consent laws have the potential to cause an otherwise normal person to go nuts. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. So far, this lawsuit appears to be little more than a right wing publicity stunt. Hermitian 21:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Odd Edit

Why did someone move this page to a temp page, move it back, and then delete the temp page? Sounds like some sort of attempt to make modifications that didn't show up in the page's edit history. It was done by someone named "Guettarda." Enquiring minds wanna know. Hermitian 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda apparently did that to remove a couple of revisions which contained personal information. JayW 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. Probably should have explained in my edit summary. Sorry about that. Guettarda 13:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Defense of Criminals Rights

Notwithstanding that our views apropos of pornography and its relation to child sexual abuse are altogether contrary, notwithstanding that I oppose all age of consent laws and think that's one consent to sexual activity need only be de jure (cf., informed, de facto, or reflecting a meeting of the minds, and notwithstanding that it's likely gauche (if not plainly untoward) for me to query you apropos of your personal views (even as you make these views very plain here), whereupon I certainly will understand your failure to respond, I wonder if you might essay an explanation of how you simultaneously support Amnesty International (an organization with the aims of which I'm generally in accord and of which I'm a member, even as I certainly don't support the social justice activities increasingly undertaken by AI), to whom you otherwise ascribe the appellative sick criminals and whom you suggest should not be treated like humans; that sentiment seems, IMHO, to run contrary to those generally expressed by AI. Jahiegel Joe 23:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• What's apropos mean?
• Why do you oppose age consent laws that protect the innocence of children?
• How can an innocent child of 6, 7, 8 or 12 be informed enough for your (meeting of the minds... its insane) A child can not comprehend sex yet and thus can not consent.
• Are you part of NAMBLA? You use words like (apropos), (appellative) and (hereto) are you a lawyer who represents NAMBLA? Can the children of 6, 8 or 12 understand that type of talk when you ask them to consent to sex with you? What type of persuasive kiddy talk do you use to persude a child to have sex with you. That's the real question. What do you people do to contact a child and persuade them to sleep with you. Its very unethical at best... more likely extreemly criminal! If they go on a date with you... Is it date rape reguardless of what they have been convinced by your persuassion? I'm sure its easy to persuade a child what you want, but it does not make it right or legal!
• everyone should be treated like humans under the law, even those who espouse the doctorines of child molesters. The law should adress that these people are dangerious preditors and they should be reprted to the Department of Justice... not physically dealth with by vigilaties of the victims families... though many do deserve a good old fashioned lynching!
• Note: Even liberals and Amnesty International people like me want the police to enforce laws that will keep the US safe for thier kids and many conservitives are conserned about the personal freedoms of law abiding US citizens. Thus you have the right to defend criminal acttions with without fear of yourself being arrested. If you "acted" on these beliefs though and did more than espouse them I would be "obligated" to turn you into the proper police officials!
  • PS: Jahiegel/Joe/ NAMBLA: My point is that when people "TALK" like you about the rightness of molesting children... by... believing that young children; who are protected by the statuatory laws; can "consent" to be your "toys" is "criminal talk." You might consider it a legal intilectual discusion (ha) but it leads sick people down the road to devious ilegal behavior. How would you like a terrorist intellectually talking about blowing up your home city on the internet. Would you accept it or would you contact the police. Its the same thing to me! --merlinus 15:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC) --merlinus 13:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey everybody, we're not here to discuss NAMBLA or our opinions of NAMBLA. This page is only here to discuss the article and how to improve it. Discussions unrelated to that topic should be moved to user talk pages, email, the corner coffeeshop, or some other suitable venue. Thanks, -Will Beback 19:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Roy Radow's Arrest

While I don't have time to dig it up, I think we need to include a bit more context in Will's section saying "Roy Radow was arrested for masturbating in front of a 12 year old," which makes it sound like something he did in the toy section of K-Mart. :)

While technically true, here are a few additional facts on Roy's case, and CNN's treatment of NAMBLA.

CNN approached NAMBLA a number of years back, claiming that they wanted to let them "tell their side of the story" and Roy Radow and Leland Stevenson recorded several hours of comprehensive interviews with CNN, in which they explained NAMBLA's history, platform, agenda, and answered various questions from a CNN reporter?

CNN then presented a hysterical report on abused and missing children, and followed it with the voiceover intro "But some child molesters don't think there's anything wrong with what they do."

Then they cut to a couple of sentences by Dr. Radow edited out of context in which he made some comment about not everything the law calls sexual abuse being universally harmful to kids.

So that's what CNN considers a "fair and balanced" story on NAMBLA, culled down from several hours of material.

It's highly unlikely Roy gave another interview to CNN after that screwing, so any comments on the Curley case were just further mining of the old interview footage for something inflamatory to use.

Roy's New York neighbors were not fans of NAMBLA, and were constantly searching to get something on him. At that time, Roy was helping out a single mom with a young son, who had fallen on hard times, by helping them get a car for transportation, and various other things. The kid was spending the night at Roy's apartment one day, and one particularly obnoxious neighbor made a claim to have peeped through an almost inaccessible window at, I think it was, 2AM, and claimed to have seen Roy masturbating while the kid was asleep. A clever story, since it didn't require the alleged victim's confirmation, and was enough for criminal charges to be filed.

The prosecutor, thrilled to have gotten his claws into an actual NAMBLA spokesperson, tried all sorts of pressure to get the kid and his mom to say what he wanted them to about Roy, including threatening to take the kid away from her, and accusing her on the stand of "selling her child to a pedophile for a car" The whole thing was complete bullshit, and the mom and the kid were forced to participate in the resulting circus even though neither of them had anything but kind feelings for Roy, and both felt he had never engaged in any inappropriate behavior towards the boy.

After an inflammatory and contentious trial, the jury was deadlocked, and the charges went nowhere.

So I think reducing this entire story to "arrested for masturbating in front of a 12 year old" is deliberately misleading. Anyone can be arrested for anything, and only arrests that result in convictions or plea bargains have any evidentiary weight. Hermitian 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a much fuller story available which it might be worthwhile to include. Can you tell us your source for this information? -Will Beback 01:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I followed this story in the news as it broke years ago. I don't know what, if anything, remains of the coverage on the Web today. It was a short-lived news event, and after its 15 minutes of fame, it disappeared. I doubt anyone made it a Web page. As I stated earlier, I'm just providing some additional context, because I remember the case. I'm not volunteering to go digging, nor do I plan to personally alter the section you wrote on it.

I think adding information about an arrest based on another person's likely lying and wishful thinking, which didn't result in a conviction, in order to impune other statements made by a person, is poor journalism. Shall we visit Clinton's article, and augment his name with ", once impeached for letting a 22 year old intern suck his cock and lying about it,"?

You might email Roy, and ask if he saved clippings. I don't know his email. Perhaps someone else knows how to get in touch with him. Hermitian 02:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As for Clinton, I'm sure our articles covers his impeachment fully. Apparently the newspapers covered the Radow incident in some detail. I'm kind of surprised that the neighbor was identified as "obnoxious", the window as "almost inaccessible", or the feelings of the neighbors towards Radow as "kind". Those seem more like assertions that the defendant would make. -Will Beback 03:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're putting things in quotes which I did not. Shall I assume bad faith in your request for more information? Hermitian 03:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I put them in quotes because they are your words, not mine. I am surprised that the press would cover it the way you have indicated, or that they would convey those details. Since it was so long ago you may not recall, but those appear to be the types of details that the defendant himself would put forward. -Will Beback 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

And accusations stripped of all context (such as the motivations of the accusers, etc.) sounds like the kind of story a prosecutor would relate. Why are you surprised that the press would also cover it that way? Do you think that the press is skeptical of sexual abuse charges -- neutral and non-judgmental of the accused party? Even you must admit that the press has frequently fanned the flames of hysteria by playing the role of public prosecutor, uncritically and unquestioningly reporting accusations without any important context, to the point where satanic sex abuse rituals were once believed to be real occurences. The fact that the press so often engages in this activity, combined with the fact that Wikipedia relies on mainstream "sources" for all its information, demonstrates why Wikipedia has the accuracy of Oprah when it comes to political or current affairs subjects. Especially those that involve the sexuality of minors. Corax 04:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that essay, but it does nothing to allay my skepticism about Hermitian's information. He seems to be confirming that the press would not take a sympathetic view, while saying that all he knows is what he got from the media - it doesn't add up. How would you propose we improve our coverage? What sources are more informative and accurate? -Will Beback 04:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is simple: your skepticism of Hermitians is conditioned by a constant stream of uncritical press coverage that assumes that all sex abuse charges -- especially those leveled against people with unpopular political opinions (i.e., NAMBLA members) -- are based in truth. Of course you're going to take a skeptical view on anything that suggests that an allegation of a sex crime might have been concocted by jerks with a political axe to grind. Corax 04:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying "Masturbating in front of a 12 year old boy" and "a neighbor reported peeking in the defendant's window in the dead of night, and claims to have seen him masturbating in the same room as a sleeping 12 year old boy" convey completely different impressions. I'm sure someone with access to one of the pay newspaper databases can at least verify from coverage of the case the following facts. "Window peeping", "sleeping boy", "allegation made by third party." I checked the Web, and there's no longer anything detailed about the case on it.

Given that it was a third party allegation made under suspicious circumstances which the alleged victim couldn't even confirm, which did not result in a conviction, I think it's inappropriate to use it to try to color an individuals other comments.

We're in the usual Wikipedia loop where nothing officially exists unless you can point to a URL which states it. Hermitian 05:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I learn something new every day from wikipedia

I saw the South Park episode with them... but I never knew they were real. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 01:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, they exist all right, and if you ever meet one of them, keep your eyes on it and dial 911. Then alert the media to its presence in your community.

When Wikipedia works, it's a wonderful resource. Hermitian 01:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you refering to as "it"? NAMBLA members? --DanielCD 01:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Same; I just found out today.--Faraz Parsa 02:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Me to, I wonder if Richard Stallman will help contribute to this article. I hear he's big on open source stuff like Wikipedia. --RucasHost 16:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

quite a discussion

I'm just as liberal as the next (conservative) guy; and find the sheer bulk of discussion regarding this topic amazing. Man/Boy love was a part of ancient culture. Our modern societal mores render it more than just somewhat passe. In this age of Priest misconduct with acolytes and choirboys, internet pedo-predators (Man/Boy included) featured at length on Dateline, as well as the portends of grief and woe appertaining thereto I cannot believe that this is supposed to be a real intellectual discussion for the edification of the masses. As the last comment I read on the discussion page most astutely surmises: this is a topic more suitable for ridicule by a South Park episode than a serious scholarly article. The material is well written; but alas I feel severely misguided. With apologies to Marlon Brando ...

Willie29171

Slavery, human sacrifice, and many other apalling things were part of ancient culture, too. What's your point?

A question

May I ask what the writers of this topic hope to achieve by giving this spawn (NAMbLA) a forum to state their depravity?

(Frater Sepa 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

I'm not one of the writers on the article (or a NAMBLA person, thank God), but the fact of the matter is that NAMBLA, in part due to the association of "depravity" (here I use quote marks not as sarcasm but to note I'm quoting you, Frater), and its role/effect on the early versions of the GLBT movement, and due to the references (however increasingly rare they may be) in popular culture (such as a particular episode of South Park), it is in fact a "notable" organization. Wikipedia does NOT shy away from controversial topics; instead, it is intended to cover them in as neutral a manner as possible, e.g. present the facts (cited, of course) and summarize the important aspects of a subject without giving any one point of view any weight or showing any preference to any side of the debate (for instance, the article cannot say the organization "is depraved", but it can note and quote instances where people have referred to them as depraved). The reason for this policy is clear - in order to provide a balanced, useful online encyclopedia, POV must NOT seep in, no matter what said POV is. The policy seems restrictive or difficult to implement on this kind of topic, but it also extends down to simple things, such as referring to things as "interesting" (what with something being or not being "interesting" being a matter of opinion), and the reason for it is that even well-intended POVs can cloud the basic facts of a situation. Besides, the Wiki still doesn't cover up the fact that several NAMBLA members have been arrested and convicted of things ranging from pedophilia to sexual assault on a minor.

And if you're referring to the Talk page... it can't be helped. Talk pages are an integral part of Wikipedia, and ones for controversial subjects are bound to end up with arguments on them. Just look at the Talk page for Scientology, for instance! :P 07:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions like that don't deserve a response. Skinnyweed 09:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Doubled information?

In the "Criminal Cases" section, there is what MAY be some doubled information of sorts:

John David Smith, of California, was arrested in 1996 for possession and distribution of child pornography. It was subsequently discovered that he had molested an 11-year old boy, for which Smith was convicted. Smith's membership in NAMBLA was raised at trial to prove his lascivious intent. [7]

...

John David Smith, a San Francisco man convicted of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old boy he was babysitting, unwittingly spoke of his crimes to an undercover investigator who had infiltrated NAMBLA. Upon obtaining a warrant, the investigator also found child pornography in Smith's apartment [10] [11].

Same exact name, San Fran is in California, convicted of molesting an 11-year-old boy... sounds like the same person to me (I imagine that the chances of TWO men with the EXACT same name of John David Smith, both living in California, both having been convicted of molesting an 11-year-old boy, and both being members of NAMBLA... are rather low, don't you?). Does this not seem like a single entry weirdly split in two? Shouldn't the second one be smooshed into the first as a continuation or elaboration? As it stands now, at least, they're seperated by another unrelated case's entry (about a Catholic preist who was a NAMBLA member and molested a kid, but who was NOT named John David Smith), which makes no sense at all, really. Runa27 07:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they're obviously the same case. I've merged the two entries. Thanks for mentioning it. -Will Beback 08:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Raising a Fuss

I'm sorry, but I'm not happy with Ssbohio's partial reversion of my change. Though measured in tone, I don't think the restored language is really ideologically neutral or factually accurate.

To say that activists opposed aged of consent laws because they thought gay liberation applies to all ages carries the very clear meaning that those who support age-of-consent laws do not apply gay liberation to those under eighteen. This is a very serious and insulting charge against the majority of the gay movement.

And it's false. Gay liberationists who support age-of-consent laws, as I do, believe not that "liberation doesn't apply" to teenagers, but that the liberty of teenagers is best safeguarded by protecting them from abuses of power in unequal relationships with adults until their moral and legal agency is fully developed.

The fact that it was lesbian feminists who led the move away from sexual permissiveness for teens in gay activism strongly suggests that the change was motivated by the critique of heterosexual marriage being developed by the feminist movement at that time. A heterosexual marriage appears to be a consensual relationship between two willing partners--but when the female partner is in a state of economic dependency and the male has greater cultural and social authority, the woman's agency in the relationship is an illusion. The same argument applies to apparently consensual relationships between adults and children.

Of course, I DON'T argue that this should be the perspective presented in the article--clearly, it is not ideologically neutral and is by no means universally accepted. However, at the moment the article, by suggesting that supporting age-of-consent laws means opposing child liberation, factually misrepresents the actual beliefs of many who hold this position.

So I'm going to wait a little while for replies and then change it back.

Please remember, the issue is not the correctness of either point of view so arguing about that is pointless. Rather, the issue is that the article presently misrepresents what one point of view is.

Also, I apologize. As Ssbohio back-handedly points out, my use of the word "license" was non-encyclopedic and non-neutral. I'm changing it to "permission." DanB DanD 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've had no replies so I went ahead and changed it back. Please respond here if you disagree.

DanB DanD 17:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding sooner, but I decided to take some time to refocus my thinking about Wikipedia after a couple of unfortunate encounters with an admin. I largely agree with what you have to say above, in the limited context to which you refer.

That said, somehow, in your response above, my statement related to what beliefs were evidenced by people who were involved in the early days of both the gay liberation movement and in organizations like NAMBLA. Your response seems to be arguing whether the link between the sexual liberation of gay adults & the sexual liberation of children actually existed. For the record, I don't think it does. My statement was meant to convey what I gleaned from the materials I read about what the founders of NAMBLA believed, not what I believe. I do not hold with the radical idea that age of consent laws should be nullified, but that doesn't stop me from writing about those who do.

The second point that concerns me in your (detailed and well-thought out) refutation of my revision is that you take my phrase because they thought gay liberation applies to all ages and use it to state that I was painting those who didn't agree as holding that "gay liberation doesn't apply" to teenagers. The logical pronblem is that the set all ages does not equate to the set teenagers. For example, I can (and do) simultaneously believe that gay liberation applies to teenagers without applying it to all ages. This transition introduces a logical fallacy (however innocently) that derails the rest of the argument. The conflation of children and teenagers is at the heart of the arguments others have used (& still use) to restrict the sexual freedom of teens.

Clearly, there is a diversity of opinion on teenagers and sex, particularly on teenagers and gay sex, as evidenced by the variety in legal restrictions and age-of-consent laws. Teenagers are in a transition between childhood & adulthood. This is not true of children. Children (specifically preteen) are in a state of emotional and material dependence on adults that severely strains any argument that there can be consent on their part. This is recognized almost universally and can be deduced from observations about children.

This argument rooted in the dependency of children also mirrors the feminist argument about heterosexual marriage. I agree with you whole-heartedly that adult-child relations has yet to find evidentiary support or acceptance except in the pedophile subculture. The fact remains that a refutation focused on teenagers isn't applicable to an argument made about children.

Finally, the argument, notwithstanding the above, doesn't answer the fundamental point: That this is what the founders of NAMBLA espoused, whether it was right, wrong, or neither. NAMBLA is connected to the gay liberation movement in that it expresses a radicalized view which it bases upon its own interpretation of tenets held by the larger movement. Reporting that belief is not the same as adopting it or proffering it as anything other than what it is, a piece of the story which helps readers understand where NAMBLA came from & what it espoused as its philosophy. --Ssbohio 18:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Organization of the article

I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia. I looked up NAMBLA in response to a discussion I'd had with a neighbor about the ACLU defending NAMBLA. I have to say that the entry is very poorly organized at this point,e.g. citing the Curley lawsuit early on with no context coming until much later in the entry, and it does seem to include what are being referred to as POVs, which I believe do not belong in a reference work. Also, it's dismaying to see what is largely a pissing match between a few people on this discussion page.4.238.253.159 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC) My apologies; I'd not signed in prior to making the above comments.Mikekev58 13:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and placed these comments under their own heading, as they didn't seem to be a response to DanB DanD's statement above. Feel free to remove the heading if I've misinterpreted. As for your comments, it's a phenomenon seen on many controversial articles' talk pages. It devolves to a push-pull between entrenched proponents of the sides of the dispute. I'm not here because I care one way or another about NAMBLA. I've looked at the arguments being advanced and reached some conclusions based on my interpretation of what Wikipedia is & is not. In general, a reader of this article shouldn't come away with the impression that Wikipedia favors or disfavors pedophilia or NAMBLA. Most of the time, that goal isn't completely achievable, but progress toward it must still be made. --Ssbohio 18:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Proper/improper associations

I have read on more than one occasion a post-war over whether or not NAMbLA encourages non-consentual pederastic relationships. Officially, I am well-aware that the answer is "no", nowhere in its official stance does it encourage rape. And I also believe very firmly that the comparison between "pedophilia" and "child abuse" is about as valid as a comparison between "sex" and "rape". That said, it is important to note that such beliefs do exist for the purposes of an informative article.

My point is that a belief or ideology often espoused by members of an organization, and also associated with said organization by outside observers, is important enough to be discussed in this article. After all, the KKK has no "official" stance with regards to the mistreatment or degradation of black people, their official stance is merely "the promotion of white people". However, I doubt anyone would say that an association with anti-black sentiments on the KK article's page is invalid for Wikipedia.

Nambla works the same way. Even though it officially has no ties to non-consentual sex, it is associated with said action by the media, the public, and most importantly the actions and beliefs of a large number of its members. A disclaimer would be needed to specify that these are not OFFICIAL stances, of course, but it's bias to not include the vast amounts of information indicating the tie between NAMbLA and child molestation, even if it is NOT official.

There's a huge problem with discussing informal "ties" like that, with any organization: they tend to be difficult to verify. Because, as you note, they are based on "associations" drawn by the media and the public -- rather than the definitive actions or statements of the people so accused -- they are inevitably bound up in hearsay and rumor.

For a similar example, consider allegations today that a group is "linked with al-Qaeda", or in the 1950s that someone had "ties to the Communist Party". During the Red Scares, "ties" could mean that the person had a friend who was a Communist. And we all know about the Bushies' about-face on the subject of Saddam Hussein's supposed "links" with al-Qaeda.

We really don't need to accept rumors and hearsay as evidence here. In fact, we have verifiability rules that say that we must not do so. --FOo 03:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case, we should change the KKK page to remove all information linking them to the disparaging of black people Toxikator 15:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Writer Rabbi Alan Horowitz

Hello there,

Is it possible to add a section about the most popular writer of Nambla who is Alan Horowitz married with a child!:

http://theawarenesscenter.org/Horowitz_Alan.html

rgds

Hello

It seems to me that the awareness center does mean that the rabbi is married, and has one child and seven step-children. Otherwise, it would probably read "he is married to a child, and has seven step-children"

Regards

Yes, it appears that this individual would fit under "Criminal cases". I don't know how we'd know that he is "the most popular writer of Nambla", but the info in your link appears reliable. -Will Beback 02:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why u have this here?

Hey, do you have any idea of what this guys are doing? Man, making this article public, it´s like if you´re supporting them! you should quit this article.

Listing NMABLA members who have been prosecuted isn't really supporting them. -Will Beback 02:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA definitely promotes illegal activity

Look at their crappy website. They want society to accept sexual realtionships between grown men and boys 12-18 years old.

Sure, they want laws to be changed, but what they are advocating is against the law.

They are not trying to protect the rights and freedoms of boys. They are trying to protect "boy lovers," also known as "pedophiles." A boy who has sex with a man will not be prosecuted--there is no existing persecution or oppression of boys in that regard.

In such cases, it is the man who faces prosecution, not the boy.

The laws describing statutory rape and sexual misconduct with minors exist for very good reasons.

A relationship between a 21 year old man and a 12 year old boy will always be a relationship of unequal power.

Society already allows 12 year old boys to explore and experiment with their sexuality.

But we don't let 12 year old boys vote, run for public office, get married, carry concealed firearms, join the military, drink, drive, or choose to have elective surgery without parental consent.

It's about informed consent.

Cyclopiano 22:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You write: "Sure, they want laws to be changed, but what they are advocating is against the law." But this is also the case with any organization which proposes the decriminalization of anything.

It's surely the case, for instance, for NORML, which proposes decriminalizing the use of marijuana. Since that's currently illegal, they're supporting something which is now against the law.

Likewise for any tax-reform organization, which proposes that people should pay substantially less in taxes than they do today. Right now, to do that would be against the law -- but the point of reform or liberalization is to make things legal which are today illegal.

The values that you seem to propound -- that we should be suspect of any group that advocates something which is right now illegal -- would forbid us from taking seriously any proposal to decriminalize anything. This does not seem to me to be a very good deal. --FOo 06:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

While I don't know much about tax reform, I do know several members of NORML. Every one of them is an eager practitioner of the illegal activity they advocate decriminalizing. 69.3.238.184 06:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't smoke marijuana, but I do support NORML. I see the issues being very different. NORML is trying to change laws that define a victimless crime. The other is about trying to change laws that protect minors from victimization. I don't have a problem with kids experimenting with their sexuality. I just think they should do it by themselves or with other kids, and I think their parents have a right and a duty to act as gatekeepers.

NAMBLA isn't about protecting the rights of minors; it is about giving carte blanche to those who would victimize minors.

Tell you what. If we ever have a "million boy march" in Washington, D.C., with hundreds of thousands of 12 year old boys demanding that 40 year old men be allowed to have sex with them, I might soften my line on this one. Cyclopiano 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that bro!!!!!!

south park

oh dear,i first heard of it in south park.And i onestly thaut that it was part of the usual south park "political incorectness".Even,the name,i was convinst that some writer thaut of the name in 3 seconds :-O.--83.182.215.60 17:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this is real! I also saw it in south park, it's absurd an organisation of this nature can exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.165.112 (talk • contribs)

As officer Barbrady said, "Wow, they've got activists for everything these days." And that's one of the wonders of democracy. Clayboy 17:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

South Park is usually quite an accurate show. Although, it's sort of a way to send messages to the public by Matt Stone and Trey Parker. I love that show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.211.246 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)