Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Gross misstatement

Please correct the following error:

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 open to pedophiles."

As clearly shown in the reference document [adopted December 4, 1983], this should read:

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."

24.4.208.52 03:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please correct the reference in your first paragraph. The reference should read, http://www.nambla.org/welcome.htm NAMBLA: Who We Are . This comes at the end of the paragraph:

NAMBLA's webpage states that: "NAMBLA does not provide encouragement, referrals or assistance for people seeking sexual contacts" and that it does not "engage in any activities that violate the law [or] advocate that anyone else should [violate the law]."

July 17th 2007 NAMBLA's webpage states NOTHING. The site has been shoved off the internet yet again. I vote we remove this article, nambla dot org is now a dead site, and will stay that way. - alt.hackers.malicious

LBGT?

Unfortunately it seems that there's an underlying fear by some, that including NAMBLA in the LBGT catagory will somehow lead the reader to conclude that all the propaganda is correct, and that every homosexual person is a child molester. And so there's a lot of nit picking in the disscusion page about reclassifying them as a paedophile/pederest group. I've not seen anyone refute the impliction, of the History section of the article, that group traces it's roots in the gay rights movement during the late 1970's to early 1980's. Evangium 14:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

While NAMBLA may have started with a connection to the LGBT community in the 1970s, that connection has been severed by every other LGBT organization. - Will Beback · † · 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Most people seem to agree on this... so why hasn't it been changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.102.182 (talk • contribs)

As I understood it, the RfC resolution was to remove the LGBT category tag but continue to list the article in the list of LGBT-related organizations. I haven't been following the debate religiously, but my read of the discussion above is that that was the resolution reached. --Ssbohio 10:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• As distasteful as I find NAMBLA and its members, Ssbohio is correct; that was the compromise. --David Shankbone 12:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My respect for Wikipedia was already hanging by a thread, and that thread just broke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.214.116.156 (talk) 04:17, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Formatting to remove scrollbar

I'm not sure how (or else I'd do it myself) but there seems to be an issue with the page have an unnecessary (and, in my view, unprofessional and kind of annoying) left/right scroll bar because the 26th note is not wordwrapped. I have this problem using the latest version of Mozilla Firefox, so I'm not sure what it's like in IE but I'd imagine it would be easy to fix. Thanks. Thepopularloser 04:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. --Askild 09:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Civilized Countries"

There are many references above to "civilized countries", as if only countries with the age of consent to sex with an adult set at 18 or above are civilized. A very brief examination reveals that there are plenty of countries with running water, a sewer system, and succession of power and leadership that does not involve decades of tribal warfare that have an age of consent well into the pre-teen / early teen years. Lowellt 18:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you source this? SqueakBox 18:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Japan is 13; Canada, Austria, Iceland and Italy are 14; Sweden and France 15 - see here. Most European countries, Australia and NZ (and much of the US) are 16. Natgoo 12:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

"Some gay groups, Christian groups, anti-sexual abuse organizations, law enforcement agencies and other critics see NAMBLA as a front for the criminal sexual exploitation of children."

Some? So like the majority of them condone the NAMBLA??

The problem with most wikipedia articles about these sick cults in general is that anyone reading them would think they are a widely accepted organisation with many members.

86.158.84.187 15:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Move

I propose to change the name to North American Man-Boy Love Association or something similar. We use slashes to create temps and sub-articles and its use here is inappropriate, SqueakBox 23:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This hasn't been the case for a long time. There are lots of articles with slashes in the title, such as OS/2, Victor/Victoria. --FOo 02:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I took this to AN/I and yeah, I revoke what I said, no need for a move! Sorry, I should have brought this here much quicker, SqueakBox 02:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I realise how much most people hate and loathe paedos and this is really just a question of correct wikipedia-ness on my part and should not by read as suggesting that I am a paedo-enabler at all. I'm not sure how we could present this subject neutrally. That said, is the current start of the lead section NPOV or too anti-paedo? This is it at the mo:-

"The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization that advocates the legalization of criminal pedophilic sexual relations between adult males and young boys. NAMBLA defends what it claims to be the right of minors to explore their sexuality more freely with older men. It has resolved to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships," in spite of the overwhelming consensus that such relationships are child sexual abuse where the minor is unable to give consent."Merkinsmum 21:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV means balancing notable views, if it is anti-pedophile (I cant see it) then that is as shoul;d be because the antui-pedophile stance is so much more notable than the pro-pedophile stance. NPOV absolutely does not mean giving equal balance to 2 views when one ios much more notable than the other, SqueakBox 21:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The usual pattern for an intro on a controversial group is to first describe the group as they would describe themselves, then to give the other viewpoints. We can see this treatment in articles like Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's what I mean I think, a less anti view should come first, plus it would actually strengthen the anti-paedo sentiment for that to conclude the lead, as it would summarise how wrong their views are to most people. As it is the conventional view is then undercut by their opinion. I think it is the phrase "in spite of the overwhelming consensus" too that seems a bit wrong, as we don't tend to use words like 'overwhelming' in an encyclopedia (even tho/if it's true, it's just that it's stylistically not neutral.) It's also not needed as 'consensus' is enough. If there's a consensus it doesn't need another word, I was thinking 'majority consensus' but even that would be an unnecessary as it's implied in consensus. Anyone get my point? I would edit but it's such a sensitive issue I wanted to discuss first.Merkinsmum 00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw seems to have fixed these small problems- thanks.:)Merkinsmum 17:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Mb

In order for the caption reading that a capital M and a small b represent a Man and a boy we must have a reliable source for the specific relation of man and boy to the capital and small letters, SqueakBox 23:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not set in stone, in other words, exceptions are allowable. The caption has to be something that enchances the information for the reader. Fighting for Justice 23:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also please read WP:CAP. I think you'll find it very enlightening. Fighting for Justice 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont doubt the interestingness or notability of this information, we just need a source for it. And if there are to be exceptions to RS this isnt one of them. Thanks for the CAP page, I hadn't seen it before. Nothing in there makes me feel any different about this exceptt hat we should probably have a sentence about the MB in the text with a ref and keep it out of the cap. A ref from NAMBLA itself would certainly be fine in this case, SqueakBox 23:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

it most certainly does belong as an exception. We are not saying the MB is Marie and Bob. We are saying it is man boy; something they fight about. Fighting for Justice 23:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is obvious we don't need to say it and if it isn't obvious we need a source for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fighting, please do not re-add unsourced and controversial material as it is clearly contrary to policy and indeed looks to me like a classic bit of OR, as your defence of it clearly relies on OR. I really would like to see this caption remain but uunsourced material must be removed and the onus is on the person whop adds to justfiy with a source. Please do so, it can't be that difficult, and if it is that difficult it shoudn't be there anyway, SqueakBox 00:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I will add again in 24 hours. Original research is material that is unpublished. I'm not giving OR. My defense for it is WP:CAP. It is consisted with the rest of the article. Things that are obvious do not necessarily require a source, especially for something as harmless as a captioning. Fighting for Justice 01:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You keep referring to WP:CAP but I don't see where it allows original research. Can you quote the part of the guideline that you think applies here? Note that it cannot override WP:NOR or WP:V. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The caption breathes life into the picture by providing context and adding depth. The picture draws attention to the caption, and the caption bridges image and text. The caption helps the reader build a story around the picture. The caption combined with the picture often provides new information not found in the article text. Relevant words in the caption might be Wikilinked. It is not OR. MB stands for Man Boy in that organization. I'm not making that up. Fighting for Justice 04:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Source:[1]. This was the only site I could find that wasn't a blog or forum, and I did 4 searches,checking 7 pages of results for each search. Jeffpw 05:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That source looks fine to me, a bit difficult to find on the poage but very clear oncce found. So I have restored the caption but with a source. Fighting, if you had done this in the first pklace we would not have had an edit war so in the future please do find and add sources rather than revert the removal of unsourced material, SqueakBox 17:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Logo

What evidence do we have that this is NAMBLA's real logo? It's not on their website. As far as I know, it originated on the Daily Show. The reference provided is hardly convincing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mqduck (talk • contribs) 05:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this before. It is on their website. You obviously didn't look carefully enough. Jeffpw 06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone find that logo unsettling? If that is their official logo it needs reworking, BADLY. Sneakernets (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material, red links, and see also section

I removed some red links that didn't really seem like they would have their own article. I also removed an unsourced paragraph that was just added and removed 2 entries in the see also section that were already linked above. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that paragraph, Tom. I did several Google searches for both names, and came up zilch. Surprises me that the paragraph was allowed to stand so long with so many eyes watching the article. Good job. Jeffpw (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --Tom (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

makes no sense

This makes no sense - if they are advocating to lower the legal age of consent, then it does not make sense that they advocate for adult male - under-age sex, it would not be underage if it were legal. Please make this article logical. I don't agree with the politics, but don't use this space to confuse the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.176.4 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The protection date is expired

Somebody remove protection, the date on which it was supposed to be removed has already passed. 71.76.153.217 (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Err...this article is not protected at all, though from the amount of vandalism it attracts, it might not be a bad idea <off to go ask for protection...> Jeffpw (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Include under Pedophilia category

Pedophilia seems like an appropriate category for this article. The page wont allow edits so I can't add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.6.153 (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV in the intro paragraph

Linking here from ACLU, I found POV in the intro paragraph. Saying NAMBLA takes a given position "...in spite of the fact that such relationships are seen as child sexual abuse..." is judgmental. I changed this to "Under current US law, such relationships are seen..." Chester320 (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Terrible paragraph under Criminal Cases

The first paragraph under Criminal Cases ("A landmark case...") is a breathless, lurid account. Completely inappropriate and unsourced to boot. Removed it. I've moved it here for reinstatement if somebody wants to clean it up instead. Chester320 (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

unsourced, defamatory text deleted

This was a rather disgusting thing for us all to have missed. It was inserted on the 20th of last month by an IP editor. BLP violation, names an alledged child molestation victim, libelous, unsourced, ... having this in the article for that time was just horrible. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged this page for WP:BLP as BLP issues are a regular feature of this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Text moved to talk

I find this all overly detailed and completely off-topic. NAMBLA was founded in 1978--nothing that happened in 1977 was a response to NAMBLA. The order of events is wrong--NAMBLA formed in response to Anita Bryant et al, chronologiaclly. If anything, NAMBLA's formation in 1978 in the political climate of the time is evidence of NAMBLA's total lack of facility with public relations/cultural tone deafness. The backstory re other groups tmi; not directly relevant. (Maybe some of it could be included, if summarized and the sources make a correlation between NAMBLA/other groups).-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Immediately following the Stonewall riots, some U.S. and Canadian gay rights organizations advocated the abolition of age-of-consent laws, believing that gay liberation for minors implied the permission to engage in sexual relationships. The Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), a group which splintered from the Gay Liberation Front in December of 1969, opposed age-of-consent laws and hosted a forum on the topic in 1976. In 1972 Chicago's Gay Activists Alliance and New York's Gay Activists Alliance jointly sponsored a conference that brought together gay rights activists from eighty-five different gay rights organizations and eighteen states. At the conference these approximately 200 activists coalesced to form the National Coalition of Gay Organizations, and drafted and passed a "Gay Rights Platform" which called for the "repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent." The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Rights Coalition, also known as the National Gay Rights Coalition (NGRC), supported eliminating age-of-consent laws, as did Gay Alliance Toward Equality (GATE).

The relative acceptance or indifference to opposition of the age-of-consent began to change at the same time as accusations that gays were child pornographers and child molesters became common. Only weeks apart in 1977 both Judianne Densen-Gerber, founder of the New York drug rehabilitation center Odyssey House, and former beauty queen Anita Bryant launched separate campaigns targeting gays. Densen-Gerber alleged that gays produced and sold child pornography on a massive scale, while Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign sought to portray all gays as child molesters. "The recruitment of our children," Bryant argued, "is absolutely necessary for the survival and growth of homosexuality." Bryant's campaign focusing on the alleged "recruitment" of boys by gay men succeeded in overturning a law that had protected civil rights for gays in Dade County, Florida. As a result, the age-of-consent issue became a hotly debated topic within the gay community, and disputes over the age of consent issue within and between gay rights groups — many of which directly or indirectly involved NAMBLA — began to occur on an increasingly frequent basis."

Logo

I've still yet to find a single source saying that the supposed NAMBLA logo depicted here is used by, or even originated from, that organization. A citation was added that linked to the home page of a fathers' rights organization, with nothing anywhere about NAMBLA. As best I can tell, the supposed logo originated on The Daily Show. Someone give a citation or let's take it down. --MQDuck 03:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I found what is claimed to be a transcript of a Daily Show episode. It includes this:

>> Jon: THE NORTH AMERICAN MAN-BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION, OR NAMBLA.

I KNEW I'D GET IT RIGHT AT SOME POINT.

HOW MANY POINTS DOWN IN THE FOURTH QUARTER DO YOU HAVE TO BE BEFORE YOU

THROW THE "HAIL NAMBLA"?

THAT LOGO.

>> I WANT TO POINT THIS OUT. THAT IS NOT THE ACTUAL NAMBLA LOGO.

THE ACTUAL NAMBLA ORGANIZATION HAS A HARD TIME FINDING GRAPHIC DESIGN

--MQDuck 03:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You aren't seriously proposing the Daily Show is a reliablesource? I don't know where the logo can be found now, but when I first edited this article several years ago the website was still up and it had the logo. Maybe it's still available in the Internet Archive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The logo is still on a few of their pages: http://www.nambla.org/readings.htm --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"You aren't seriously proposing the Daily Show is a reliablesource?" No, but I had a hunch that was created *by* that show. Anyway, case closed. --MQDuck 05:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion into category Modern pederasty? - request for comments

I am not an expert on Nambla, but I was under the impression that nambla was a pedophilia ("boylove" as i think they call themselves) organization wheras pederasty refers to a type relationship (sexual or non-sexual) between adolescent/post-puberty males and grown males. If nambla was more of an ephebophilia group I could see the connection here, but it seems a stretch to have a self-described boylove group into a pederasty category. --User0529 (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Having no knowledge of the organisation, i can only speak generally. But this cat seems appropriate. The splitting of pedophilia into many different types confuses the issue to non-"experts". Historically pederasty has included boys of an age that today would be considered pedophilic. Also some boys go through puberty at 10 years, sex with one would be in both cats, no?Yobmod (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that pre-puberty the boys stayed with their mother or birth family, and didn't pair off into a pederastic relationship until (or after) they hit puberty. Non-experts (as you referred) branding anything under the age of 18 as pedophilia only confuses the issue and history, leading to people like (former US congressman) Mark Foley being called a pedophile for chasing 17-19 year old congressional pages (which is rediculous considering pedophilia actually means attraction to pre-pubescent children). --User0529 (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

But this organisation is for "boylove", and i don't think they draw a strict line at puberty. an 11 year old boy is still a boy, but may be pubescent and sexually active. Hence the organisation is both pedophilic (with pre-pubescent) and pederastic (with pubescent).

Or do they have rules against sex with boys who are sexually developed and have started growing pubic hair etc?Yobmod (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to fuss and bother, but to include this article in the Pederasty (in my view), gives it a sense of respectability it does not warrant. Perhaps someone could ping Haiduc, and ask him to weigh in. He knows much more about the subject of Pederasty than most of us, and has done an excellent job of maintaining those articles. Jeffpw (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note for Haiduc and generally defer to their take on these nuances and why they matter. Banjeboi 11:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeffpw echoes my sentiments... if there were a pederasty community or activist group me thinks they might not want to have nambla lumped in with them. but like jeff said, i also am not going to fight over it. --User0529 (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This would seem to be fine. My hunch is those categories have lots of overlap anyway and many articles should correctly be listed in both. Banjeboi 10:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the NAMBLA people cross the line between the two categories (as well as a number of other lines), I have to agree with Yobmod that this organization is both pederastic and pedophilic. Thus it appears that it belongs in both categories. I have no objection to including it in "Modern pederasty," it is one of those unfortunate dead ends of the homosexuality spectrum that we have to document no matter how off the wall it may be. Haiduc (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

removed RFC template----- may not agree, but am in a small minority here, deferring to Haiduc's judgement. --User0529 (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The LGBT Wikiproject tag

Please stop edit warring over this. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT_studies#NAMBLA - to tag or not to tag.2C that is the question with overwhelming support to have the tag here. We should be spending our energy more constructively than removing a project tag on a talk page against consensus. Banjeboi 21:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that the tag does not signifie that the subject of the article is part of the LGBT community. It signifies that it comes under the umberella of LGBT studies - which means that there is some connection with LGBT issues, not that the articles subject is affiliated, and so this tag can in no way violate wp:blp as someone has suggested elsewhere. It's not a categorisation as part of the LGBT community - it's a tag that says it comes under the remit of LGBT studies, which it inarguably does. Crimsone (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be me (at least in one case). The two groups are in no way affiliated, nor is there any form of documentation (V) to tie them together. Nambla is a ped group, LGBT is , well a Les, Gay, Bi & Tranny Group. Inserting that category suggests a relation where none exists (again V & BLP.

I realise a concensus was reached on the LGBT page, however, because it exists in violation of the two policies aboves, policy must trump the consensus.

See ya on the flip side! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 12:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK... a couple of points... man/boy is still a same sex relationship, and thus under the remit of LGBT studies.

There is a historical connection between Nambla and LGBT groups - not for long, but it was there, before NAMBLA was ostracised for obvious reasons.

LGBT people are affected by anti-LGBT people using NAMBLA as an example of the inherant sinfulness of the "gay lifestyle", so it affects LGBT people

LGBT people have psrticularly strong feelings about NAMBLA, which first resulted in it being ostracised shortly after inception, and now result in This sort of carry-on, where LGBT people are so repulsed by seeing a "LGBT studies" wikiproject tag that they feel they must shoot on sight - it's NOT and "LGBT community" tag, nor does it categorise the subject of the article as a part of the LGBT community. It designates that it's an issue that has a significan't connection with LGBT studies, which it does, at least academically, and thus encyclopedically. NO policies are violated by placement of the tag, for the tag actually serves it's purpose quite correctly.

A further revert, in light of the facts, let alone the consensus against you, will be an act of vandalism. Don't.Crimsone (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

First, Wiki is about what you can verify, not about "facts". However, if you want to talk about facts, same sex relationship does not equal pedo "relationshipships". There is no relationship between Nambla and LGBT, they are two totally different groups. I love how you assume in LGBT --- I'm not. As there is no relation between Nambla and LGBT the idea there's a connection between NAMBLA and LGBT studies is also false.

Also, watch the use of the word vandalism. It's not vandalism to enforce policies like WP:V or WP:BLP.

That being said, I know full well that if I remove the category at this point it could be construed as edit warring, so I'll leave it be for now.

See you on the flip side KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 14:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No... A same sex relationship is a same sex orientation is a same sex oriaentation, regardless of whatever the age of it's object. There is a historical connection between Nambla and the LGBT community, and even if there were not, there is an issue of sufficient notablility between Nambla and the LGBT to warrant academic study. Once more, we are not talking about any "LGBT group with the tacg, but the LGBT studies wikiproject, and it's remit covers all things LGBT or queer (in an academic context, not in the context of people or groups!), and as such, this is an article rightfully tagged as under the scope of that project. WP:BLP does not apply to the legitimate tagging of this article, reasons for such have been stated repeatedly. Tagging of the article by the LGBT wikiproject does not imply inclusion of Nambla under the umbrella of the LGBT community. The foundation and resulting animosity, ostracism, and dissassociation between Nambla and various LGBT people and groups makes it a notable subject in the academic study of LGBT issues. For this reason, it is in reality something noted by academia.

WP:V is not in anyway broken by the tagging - look in the article is all one needs to do to see a certain amount of warring between nambla and LGBT people and groups. That animosity is self evident throughout history.

I have been an editor here for a long time - I choose my words carefully. It has been explained to you that there is consensus, against which you have repeatedly reverted. That consesus has been explained to you. The points you raise have been explained to you, including some of the reasons that WP:BLP and WP:V are not contravened.. The nature of the wikiproject (which is quite clearly not what you appear to think it is) has been explained to you. The nature of project tagging has been explained to you - to continue to remove/revert the tag in light of that would indeed be vandalism. Crimsone (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've boldly added some formatting so it's more clear who is stating what (per WP:talk if policy is needed). KoshVorlon, you are correct in questioning the tag but not in overriding consensus to keep it. This subject is simply part of LGBT history whether anyone likes it or not. To reiterate points made elsewhere, the early stages of the modern LGBT movement were intertwined with NAMBLA by some within the LGBT communities as well as, or perhaps mostly by opponents of the LGBT movement - this has continued to this day. Evidence does support that most pedophiles are heterosexual but that has rarely stopped using pedophiles and child molesters as slurs against the LGBT community as a whole. And to the tag itself? We have a tag on Jerry Falwell, as another example of LGBT history, not because he was gay but because he is considered the "father" of the "anti-gay industry" which specializes in using subjects, like NAMBLA's existence, as a way to demonize and inflame resentment against LGBT people. Banjeboi 20:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To claim removing the tag is vandalism will get you nowhere as it is clearly not the case and such a statement sounds like a good example of trolling, vandalism is specifically bad faith edits and the removal of this tag is not in bad faith so please drop the ridiculous vandalism claim. To claim that "man/boy is still a same sex relationship" is patent nonsense, man/boy "relationship" is child sexual abuse, nothing more, nothing less. I note at least one editor from a right-wing Christian viewpoint is supporting the tag, presumably on the basis that gay people are pedophiles. Unfortunately this fringe belief does exist and it is a real shame that certain LGBT people are merely helping to portray such an insidious belief as fact. This is shameful. Thanks, SqueakBox 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What is shameful, Squeak, is that you are butting in on matters that you seem to have (at best) an imperfect understanding of. The article makes it quite clear that it is part of LGBT history, there is consensus within the project (which you still have not signed onto inspite of your disingenuous tacking of the label onto your userpage) to keep the project tag. This has been debated ad nauseum, and to perpetuate it is truly wehat trolling is, not your accusation against Benji. Jeffpw (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that a numbe rof editors are still unhappy with this tagging, which kind of counter-claims your trolling claims. Stating "man/boy is still a same sex relationship" is the real trolling where abuse victims are labelled "in a relationship", which is, IMO, no more than pro-pedophile advocacy. Thanks, SqueakBox 11:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Where in the tag does it state anything about Man/Boy sex being a same-sex relationship? We're discussing the tag here, Squeak, not the contents of the article. Your comment seems to imply that I and anybody else who supports tagging this article as in the scope of the LGBT project is a pro-pedophile activist. Is that what you really meant to say? If so, I'd be very careful if I were you. I, for one, am fed up to my eye teeth with having that label thrown at me for my defending articles to which I have added no meaningful content. Please clarify or retract your statement. Jeffpw (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Note; Child abuse and same sex orientation (relationship is your word) are not mutually exclusive. There is no argument, for example, over suggesting that most cases of child abuse are of a heterosexual persuasion. Further, no edit, unsupported by policy and against consensus, especially after repeated clarification and explanation, can be claimed to be "good faith"... I've been here long enough to know thankyou very much. Further, as rightfully pointed out, there is more than one reason why the article falls under the remit of LGBT studies, including historical association, negative connotation by association, and animosity between groups. Might I suggest getting down from your Squeakbox, stop the trolling per Jeffpw's quite correct call of "ad nauseam", and go and look at the consensus in the discussion over the issue on the project talk page... if you feel so strongly, feel free to oppose if you can honestly deny every supporting rationale (which is logically impossible). Many people are not happy about it... and those that look at it objectively and dispassionately support the tagging whether they like it or not. It's not about what people like - it's about whether or not it logically comes under the remit of the LGBT studies project, which it quite clearly does. Crimsone (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I see where you got relationship from (and indeed, it does apply in the form that a romantic relationship between a man and a boy does not have to involve any physical contact whatsoever, but that's not what I was getting at.)... basically, it's down to my crap typing... it should have been "A sexual orientation is a sexual orientation" - which it does say, albeit in the middle of a sentence that doesn't really make sense.

Of course, I now have to ask, where was your assumption of good faith before you decided to accuse me of "pro-pedophile advocacy"? I certainly gave you no grounds to make such an accusation other than a very screwed up sentence as a result of poor typing (I have a habit if starting a sentence before I finish the next, often accidentally overwriting half of the sentence before... it's this darned laptop). Just more of the same moral panic (and no, that deviant group in the lede doesn't refer to pedophiles per the linked article... it refers to people that take a dispassionate and reasoned view per fact and definition without assigning values or views who are thus accused of advcating chld molestation having done nothing of the sort) that has no place on an encyclopedia... what has a place on an encyclopedia is fact. Male on male is homosexual, regardless of age. That doesn't mean that Nambla is part of the LGBT community, but it does make it a subject of of LGBT studies - and solid though it is, that isn't even the strongest of all reasons for tagging. Crimsone (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't waste too much time arguing with SqueakBox. In his eyes, anyone who disagrees with him has a "right-wing Christian viewpoint" and is naturally wrong. Bulbous (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, let's not go there. I may not agree with SqueakBox on the issue of (sigh) a wikiproject tag on an article (deep sigh) but I respect their right to disagree. However Jeffpw is quite right in that this has been discussed quite a few tims actually, and the consensus was clear to keep it. Blurring the discussion by implying the teh project thinks this or that is irrelevant, it's a project tag on an article within interest of the project. Is it a core topic? Is it required reading? Does is represent our best hopes and dreams? No. But it is by consensus now an article within our project along with hundreds if not thousands of others. Banjeboi 19:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I went silent for a bit (three days) to see if anyone else supported what I was saying, and if no one else stepped up, I'd simply shut up, because I'm not really interested in edit warring. Looks like I'm not alone.

Don't get me wrong, I'll leave the tag up (I said I didn't want an edit war, and I'll do my part to not start one up), however, I disagree that the tag belongs here:

First per WP:V
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia {emphasis, mine} is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
Is this verifiable ? I see no source for this (nor has any been offered). I realize this may seem like common sense, but bear in mind, someone attempted to place a category of "hate group" into both Westboro Baptist church and Fred Phelps and this was turned away under WP:V and WP:BLP. The same as this category is being questioned. If you can verify this (WP:V) I WILL stand down. Thanks KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 12:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it amazing that you continue to miss the point despite the fact that it has been repeated several times. Your analogy is completely flawed - the tag does not simply say "LGBT". The tag says "LGBT studies". This tag does not in any way suggest that NAMBLA is an LGBT group. It merely suggests that they have some shared history with the LGBT world - and this is supported by the body of the article. To quote your very own example, and serving as a much better analogy - Fred Phelps has an LGBT Studies tag. Bulbous (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bulbous, You would do better if you actaully looked at the policy regarding categories, as the category tag itself fails WP:CAT #7 & #8,

1. 7 Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.
   
   
2. 8 An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there. For example, avoid placing a category for a profession or award unless the article provides some verification that the placement is accurate. Use the {{Category unsourced}} tag if the article is in a category but no sources demonstrate the category is appropriate.
   
   which once again goes back to WP:V (among other things). The

consensus to keep this category is , again, in violation of WP:CAT #7 & 8. Sorry, it can't be here. The two groups have no history, they're not at all related and even adding "studies" on the end doesn't change that. Once again, policy trumps the consensus and therefore the category has the be removed. I trust you'll do the right thing. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 12:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's merely your opinion, though. In my opinion, the fact that NAMBLA is an LGBT organization is prima facie. It's even evident from the name of the organization itself - "Man/Boy Love" implies homosexuality. To suggest otherwise would involve a debate in semantics - and then it becomes your burden to prove that you are correct. And unfortunately, you haven't come close. Bulbous (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bulba,

Actually, it's policy, not my opinion, which I've backed up as such. Nambla and LGBT (studies or not) are not the same. One (NAMBLA) is about pedastry, pedastry does NOT equal homosexuality . therefore homosexuality is not implied, infered or whatever you want to say. Second, per the above guidelines, the burden is actually on the poster. Third, I have proven, per policy WP:CAT WP:V WP:BLP (by the way, WP:CAT # 7 & #8 actually concern themselves with WP:V and WP:BLP) that the category in question doesn't belong here and should be removed. Perhaps you have policy showing otherwise ? I would be interested in seeing it. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 16:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, and probably most damaging to your argument, is that there is no such thing as pedastry [sic]. Secondly, no one has ever said that pederasty = homosexuality. The two are not equals. Pederasty is a sub-type of homosexuality (see Pederasty), much the same as Cheerios is a sub-type of breakfast cereal. Of course, you are free to pursue the semantic argument that "Pederasty is not a type of homosexuality", but you will have difficulty doing so. I wish you luck! In the meantime, you have failed to meet your burden. Bulbous (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, your argument is as follows: "NAMBLA is a pederast organization, not a homsexual one, and therefore should not be tagged as within the scope of LGBT studies". Well, here's yet *another* way to debunk that argument: Pederasty itself has an LGBT Studies tag! Bulbous (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see before my eyes, WP:CAT is a guideline, not a policy. Equally, it applies to categories - a wikiproject tag is not a category, and certainly not in the sense of WP:CAT (and what were #'s 6 and 7 again? Crimsone (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with this. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not there are good reasons to remove the LGBT Wikiproject tag from this talk page, WP:V certainly isn't one of them. WP:V is a policy that governs the content of articles, and has nothing to do with Wikipedia's Wikiproject tags. There has never been a requirement for a Wikiproject to offer up a source to prove its tag is applicable, and if a Wikiproject decides it wants to include an article within its scope, that's the project's right. This has nothing to do with morality, pedophilia advocacy, or trolling; it's a project tagging an article. - auburnpilot talk 14:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Crimsone, , look down, see that category header that says LGBT project ? It's being generated by the tag itself, so yes, it's a category, which as I said, violates WP:CAT 7 & 8. Essentially, I have showed with policy why this category shouldn't be there. YOu have offered nothing in the way of policy, guideline or proceedure to show it's correctness. If you have any policy, guildeline or other rule or proceedure that shows it's correctness, I'll be happy to listen.

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 11:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories on talk pages are not the same as categories in article mainspace much as the standard for what is allowed on talk is simply different for content within an article. As for guideline here is from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide:

• "[I]t is important for all parties to remember that beyond simply being WikiProjects, they are also collections of people with specific abilities and competencies which might not be available within other groups."
• "[I]t is a good idea to welcome any banner placements on an article provided that the banner is actually at all relevant to the subject. The fact that these other projects may also regularly "check up" on the article for improvements, vandalism, etc. can also be beneficial."

Yu are correct about article categories but these are considered talk page categories for maintenance purposes. The vast majority of all readers don't see these let alone need a clear justification for them supported by references, etc. Perhaps that was teh misunderstanding all along. Banjeboi 12:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)