Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Pedophile topic mentorship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

PedMen archive established

New archive box added to page header; first PedMen archive page established with content prior to July 2008. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this while all of the mentors appeared to be busy IRL. It needed done. hmwithτ 21:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV reversions

This is a complaint about Jack-A-Roe's recent reversions to the pro-pedophilia activism article. While I appreciate things like the work on archival, I can't overlook the obvious NPOV in his recent reversion of User:EmilianaMartin's edit, and my attempt to make a compromise between both of their statements. This is an example of the most recent one. This is a completely unsourced statement: "there are no pro-pedophile activists who are not pedophiles". To prove this, you would need to prove clinically that every single person involved in an activist movement has been diagnosed with pedophilia. This first sentence is completely unsourced. I don't want to enter into a revert war, so I am cite-tagging it for now to bring attention to the lack of sourcedness in the initial sentence. I brought this up on the talk page, I hope JAR tries to resolve it there, because these immediate reversions lack tact and treat the two of us like common vandals. Tyciol (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack is clearly correct here. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a vote Squeak, you need to support WHY he is correct. As I said on your talk page the burden of proof is on you. Hopefully the mentors here will be a little more NPOV and understand how proof works. I'll also note, I tried to further compromise with -fact- tag and that was simply removed, if these two were the same person they would have violated the 3RR policy in under 4 hours. It's clearly tag-team edit warring and there's been no attempt to explain the justification for the opening sentence, instead I am burdened with locating proof to prove a negative, this is requesting me to counter something nonfalsifiable. Tyciol (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on me? Where did you get that idea from? What do you mean by understand how proof works? That would imply someone with a background in philosophical logic. Actually all it is is 2 editors disagreeing with you, the paranoia conspiracy theory isn't necessary. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on whoever makes the assertion or supports the person making the assertion. I called a fact check on an unsourced statement (there are some sources now, but I've got problems with their vaguness, brought them up on talk page). This may be solved by changing the topic's title to reflect this opening statement's description. Also, I do apologize for going on about the 3RR (good faith was shown, the tag wasn't removed without supplying references first) and the comment was not intended to imply you're the same person (which is why I said 'tag team' not Kage bunshin). Tyciol (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I generally stay away from that article and don't really read it, so I'm only commenting because this was posted here. While empirically the assertion can't be proved, it cannot be disproved either. Granted, a non-pedophile advocating "pro-pedophilia" views strikes me (admittedly subjectively) as highly unlikely. Psychologically, it simply does not compute to me. But that's just my feeling on it.Legitimus (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand the issue. The title is "pro pedophile" NOT "pro pedophilia". The former would be inclusive of those promoting defending the freedoms or welfare of sick people, the latter would be inclusive of those who are promoting the paraphilia as if it had some kind of merit. As you can see, these are discrete issues with no need for overlap, you can have a pro-pedophile activist who is simultaneously an anti-pedophilia activist. That's why I've advocated the need for separate descriptions of both views, because lumping the stances together would be misleading to readers. Tyciol (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, that much I follow you on. I understand the promotion of treating over persecuting. I simply didn't get the impression that the article's contents as a whole were directed in that manner. They struck me as encompassing both, but with a much stronger emphasis on the latter concept (not so much that pedophilia has "merit" per se, but that there are those who make efforts to promote its acceptance as normal and non-harmful).Legitimus (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the impression I got from reading the article too, and that would be better-represented by -ia than -e. Is there really a movement to make it seem 'normal'? That would mean to me arguing that the majority of people have it or at least that it is as common as other sexual tastes, and that seems like a silly argument to me, most people consciously react to and embrace reactions to post-pubescent or maybe pubescent but not prepubescent forms. Promoting acceptance as non-harmful sounds more in line with what those groups are doing. I can see how it is potentially harmless for people who don't break the law, but being harmless wouldn't mean that something should be accepted, because things can be harmless but still unfairly biased, wrong or obsessive. Like, collecting newspapers until they pile up in an apartment may be harmless, but it is also sorta unproductive and a potential fire hazard unless you have good organizational skills, so people shouldn't accept it unless they're convinced it is well managed. Tyciol (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Cut to the chase

Wikipedia is supporting (or certainly not acting against) editors who hold strongly to the unsupported belief that it is impossible for someone who is not sexually attracted to children, to make statements for or on behalf of them. This deeply-held conception of pedophilia as "other" and unsupportable leads to some pretty ugly cases of cognitive dissonance when alternative evidence is presented. For as long as this (and the maintenance of an absurdly conflatory article on a barely-existent movement) go on, I see little reason to continue editing on this, or related articles.

If anybody solidly agrees with me, I'd be happy to continue working for as long as the articles remained untouched by those to whom "this can not be said". EmilianaMartín (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As somewhat of a lurker on this page, let me say that I think it's more of an over-eager generalization than anything else. While of course it would be impossible to assert that only pedophiles support this kind of activisim, it is not an unreasonable conclusion from observation that this movement is advocacy by pedophiles. Virtually all these movements are full of people who have been charged or convicted with offenses from molestation to child pornography; North American Man-Boy Love Association and Danish Pedophile Association being good examples but far from the only ones. Reliable sources like the New York Times article point to many activists who are pedophiles. I'm not aware of any specific examples of known activists who aren't pedophiles, though there are probably plenty who have never been charged with anything. So I think you are making a flawed assumption: it's not that we can't imagine that a non-pedophile could ever do this, it's that a great many of the advocates are pedophiles. Mangojuice^talk 18:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole assumption that there exists a coherent movement of pedophiles who campaign for political change is flawed. That many of the individuals mentioned by the article have criminal convictions is inescapable due to the fact that this is what the media focuses on, and this is what Wikipedia focuses on. In a sense, Wikipedia is (in concept only) recruiting activists to this non-existent movement on the basis of having criminal convictions and defending some form of activity or state of mind that may through study or (mostly) prejudice be labelled "pedophilia". There are the following factors at play:

• A very small fringe of contemporary websites, largely reducible to the terms "BoyLove", "GirlLove" and "ChildLove" deserve mentioning. But only briefly so, in an article that addresses their aim - the support of pedophiles and the de-pathologisation of pedophilia.
• 20+ year old manifestations of the sexual reform movement and "pedophile activism" groups, sometimes weakly allied to the now reformed gay-rights movement did exist. These, along with the tiny remnants should be mentioned either a) in Age of consent reform or equivalent law reform articles for any legal campaigning and b) in a Destigmatisation/depathologisation of pedophilia article for any social or medical advocacy for pedophilic attractions.
• Modern sex-offender activism and go-alone elements that have their own points of view. These typically incorporate families and writers/professionals respectively and are not primarily characterised by pedophilia. EmilianaMartín (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As for your main point, it is simply incorrect. Just one example - Wikipedia repeatedly throws NAMBLA into the "pedophile" mix, yet most of their members are not self-identifying pedophiles, but teen attracted. EmilianaMartín (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Pedophilia / Pederasty, while there is a meaningful distinction, are often conflated. Your statement backs up my point more than it detracts from it: NAMBLA is not a third-party advocacy group, but engages in advocacy that aims to legitimize its members own sexual desires. It fully admits this. This is a common theme among these groups. While saying that all these people are pedophiles goes too far, completely removing the link is not appropriate either. Mangojuice^talk 19:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is considering removing the link, just making the distinction that the groups are not necessarily pro-pedophile in nature, and removing the implication that members of any groups mentioned are pedophiles. Tyciol (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"it is not an unreasonable conclusion from observation that this movement is advocacy by pedophiles. Virtually all these movements are full of people who have been charged or convicted with offenses from molestation to child pornography" I think that is an unreasonable assumption. Being charged with molestation or things related to CP doesn't mean people are pedophiles. You may as well say it is "activism by criminals" because that would be closer to being supported by this association. To assume that people not charged with crimes (or even those that have been) are pedophiles is a logical leap. I think what a reasonable assumption would be is that there are pedophiles involved with these movements (heck there's probably evidence of that) and that they are going to be over-represented in such groups due to the topic matter. It's a more realistic statement than to assume anyone involved is a pedophile until 'proven not to be' which is not how psychology works. Tyciol (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

One notorious example of a scholar whom nobody would suggest was a pedophile, and who partook in the kind of advocacy ascribed to "pro-pedophile activists", is Michel Foucault. He argued both in favor of the de-pathologization of pedophilia (and other paraphilias) and against age of consent laws, even taking the debate to the airwaves. That was 30 years ago however, and it's unlikely that this "movement" had any supporter of comparable intellectual authority since then. Bikasuishin (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad someone with the facts could correct me. Exception that proves the rule. Mangojuice^talk 01:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions do not prove rules, neologisms aren't an authority on Wikipedia. Exceptions invalidate so-called rules. Tyciol (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Need for some form of arbitration

I started to make some edits to Paedophile movement aimed at making it more NPOV. My edits were undone. I have reverted, but obviously don't wish to be involved in a pointless edit war. One bone of contention is Jack-a-Roe's claim that Internet presence doesn't constitute a 'movement'. I thimk it could be considered as a movement, especially given the present-day importance of the Internet, though maybe some compromise on this could be reached. But the main thing I wanted to do in my edits was get rid of the endless repetition of the point that the movement is not mainstream. What is the point of repeating this other than to try to reinforce the mainstream position, which is not the job of Wikipedia? The Relativist (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were undone because you removed references from the article, and you changed it to report information that is not supported by references. Anonymous website forums do not constitute a movement. There are zero reliable source references stating that a pedophile movement exists in present-day. Even when it did exist, the pedophile movement was tiny - there are references that report that, and one or two of them even use the term "fringe". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My take on the situation is that there were organized movements in the past that no longer exist today, and there are individuals on the internet today who have similar goals. Heck, we've even seen them here on WP (most blocked or in jail, btw). The thing is, individuals on the internet, even if they communicate with one another and have common pathology and intentions, they do not necessarily constitute an organized socio-political movement. They are simply goals. Whether such "goals" are expressions of coping mechanisms for persons so afflicted, or some form of anosognosia, I don't know.

I would advise against removing any sources, though perhaps some removal of repetition is in order. Try to approach this carefully.Legitimus (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We need good sources for an organised movement today before we can consider such info in the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The pedophile movement declined during the 1990s, and today its public presence is mainly in the form of various websites and internet discussion forums

What if I say 'is mainly limited to'? The sentence then reads:

The pedophile movement declined during the 1990s, and today its public presence is mainly limited to various websites and internet discussion forumsThe Relativist (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack, could you please respond to this suggestion?The Relativist (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There are no sources supporting the existence of a present-day pedophile movement. That sentence in the article is unsupported in its current form and needs to be changed. It has two sources, one non-academic newspaper article, and one law-enforcement document, and both of them use similar wording: "In this online community, pedophiles view themselves as the vanguard of a nascent movement" & "perceive themselves belonging to 'a social movement'".

So, a more accurate statement is: "The pedophile movement declined during the 1990s, and does not exist today. Some pedophiles who communicate in anonymous internet forums see themselves as part of a social movement, but their ideas have not spread beyond their closed online communities."

Without an overt public presence and pressure for action to change laws or attitudes of society, there is no social-political movement. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of saying that the movement no longer exists, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it has gone underground? In that state it exerts as much pressure as it can by the limited means at its disposal and like all underground movements tries to keep the identity of its main operatives hidden.The Relativist (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If we say that, then we'll need some reliable sources to support that with then. The source will need to describe it as a socio-political movement (or similar term).Legitimus (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Relativist, I agree that mentioning that a small movement has gone underground would be greate to add that to the article, but, as others have stated, only if there is a reliable source stating such. hmwithτ 21:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the problem that what exists now is too small to count as a social movement? (I notice Wikipedia's definition of a social movement requires it to be large.) If so, I wonder whether it was ever big enough (but it was--I would argue--somewhat influential. Maybe we need to change the title yet again). But my main point was that I find the beginning of the article too determined to emphasise the divergence between this body of opinion and the mainstream view. As I said, it betrays bias to keep drawing attention to this divergence. Anyone reading this would not realise that several distinguished people (such as Camille Paglia and Michel Foucault have endorsed some of the opinions in question.The Relativist (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I may have found a concept that may help with organizing to this rather confused subject:

Pro-ana. Like the pedophilia subject, it is also a phenomenon wherein people with a mental illness band together and try to promote their disease as "normal" and non-maladaptive (likewise, mechanisms at work here include social validation and egosyntonia). This article merely calls it a "phenomenon" rather than a social movement.Legitimus (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that Pro-ana is a great topic to compare to this article. It's also a controvsersial subject, and we should take note to the careful choice of wording in that article & try to follow suit. hmwithτ 16:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't classify it in that way unless you assume the orthodox view is correct. An encyclopedia shouldn't be making that assumption. Yes, it can say that it diverges from orthodoxy, but to infer that therefore it is misguided is POV.The Relativist (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I said it was a good parallel. The way I chose to describe it is my own opinion and wasn't a suggested wording (nor should it affect it's relevance). My description is simply the way I see the issue on account of my profession and expertise. But I will only bring those things to bare when they are needed, which is why I avoid editing the article directly.Legitimus (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. But I would still like to know the answer to this question: if there isn't enough evidence to show that what exists now is large enough to be a movement what evidence is there that it was large enough in the past? If this question can't be answered I think we need a new title--'Pro-pedophile ideology' or something like that.The Relativist (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this goes a bit beyond orthodoxy. One thing I have observed in analyzing pro-ana and pedophilia communities is that, while there are certainly people there who support the diseases, I don't think that the entirety of those supporting the cultures do. With pro-ana, for example, rather than focusing on having an obsession or suffering from bad health (as is associated with anorexia) the focus seems moreso on appreciating the attractiveness of thin humans (thinspiration) and attempting to maintain a slim and attractive figure. While many of the communities prohibit criticism of anorexics, I don't think that necessarily constitutes support for the condition, but rather, sensitivity towards anorexics who have probably heard it all and want a friendly environment where they can express themself in an unpersecuted manner. Parables could similarly be drawn with pedophile communities, where I don't think they all necessarily support pedophilia (a prepubescent sexual fixation) but moreso on appreciating the attractiveness of young humans, something that tends to get associated with that anyway. Of course, unhealthy aspects will sneak into these kinds of communities by nature, just as they do into pretty much any type. Tyciol (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to your two discussing what is and is not a movement, could you first clarify what it is? I think it would be valuable to turn the word into an internal link. I think it would be one of the four in Movement#In social studies, my guess is 'social' fits the category best, but I'm not really sure. To be honest, if online activities amongst pedophiles would constitute a social movement, then I think 'furry' or 'loli' or 'guro' could all constitute art movements. This is why I understand why Jack is apprehensive about too easily throwing the term around, because there is a propensity for it to be overused. Holding to a standard of live representation or newspaper reporting helps to lower the sheer volume of things included in that. At the same time, if it has been enough to cause a stir amongst notable entities (like Perverted Justice, an organization with its own article, spends time profiling these various websites) then it probably is notable to list on Wikipedia. If they aren't going to be called a 'movement' then perhaps there is a less suggestive term that could be used to describe it. I unfortunately can't currently come up with one, the only thing that springs to mind is 'Collective' (too much Trek) and I know that term's not appropriate since there is no sense of unity or alliance. Tyciol (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been using Wikipedia's definition of 'social movement' and because this requires largeness (though it does not specify how large is 'large') I have conceded that it is difficult to know if there is or ever has been a 'pedophile movement'. That is why I suggested a name change to something like 'pro-pedophile ideology'.The Relativist (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There are sources - just a few - that describe a small fringe short-lived pedophile movement in the mid 1900s. But all of the organizations that were at one time involved in that no longer exist, except a couple of them that have a few members who are not active in any sort of movement today, because they have been completely shunned by society and unable to maintain their momentum or their finances. The groups tried to align themselves with early gay liberation activists and were rejected there as well. Some groups collapsed from within due to actions of leaders and members convicted of crimes against children, such as child pornography and child sexual abuse.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack, could you please re-read my last comment.The Relativist (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to changing the name of the article to 'Pro-pedophile ideology'?The Relativist (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Objections? How about basing the article title on Wikipedia policy? Your idea is 100% original research - a fringe theory with no verifiable sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. How is such a name change, with the reason I've given for it--which itself reflects some of your own worries--original research?The Relativist (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What do the mentors think about this proposal of mine?The Relativist (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have drafted a new version of the introduction to the article which, on my proposal, would now be called 'Pro-pedophile ideology'. I've retained nearly every reference in the original. I'd like people's comments on it. Here it is:

Pro-pedophile ideology is a set of beliefs involving a degree of sympathy with pedophilia as an orientation ad/or lifestyle. Typical beliefs include:

• The idea that children are sexual beings and should be accepted by society.
• Age of consent laws should be reformed or abolished. so that they do not interfere with the alleged sexual rights of young people to engage in freely chosen sexual relationships with adults (defined as child sexual abuse by mainstream society.
• There should be some degree of acceptance for erotic materials depicting children (normally referred to by society as ‘child pornography’).
• Pedophilia should be re-defined as a sexual orientation rather than a psychological disorder.

These beliefs are not of course widely shared by mainstream society and are rejected by most psychologists and psychiatrists. Additionally, although some ideologues tried to link their goals with those of the LGBT social movements, that linkage has been rejected by the advocates of those larger movements.

Pedophile groups have expressed their views through periodicals such as Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (1987–1995) and through a few membership organizations that today have only minimal membership or have ceased their activities, such as the Danish Pedophile Association and the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Public focus on and disapproval of pedophilia has motivated more stringent legislation and stronger criminal penalties regarding child pornography, child sexual abuse, and use of the internet to facilitate these activities. The idea of pedophile advocacy as a political or civil rights movement is seen as unacceptable by mainstream society. In addition to mass mainstream rejection, there is also organized anti-pedophile activism.

References

Sorry, the last edit was of course by me.The Relativist (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have done the move to 'Pro-pedophile ideology' but I'm having trouble with the references in my new version of the text. I hope readers can tolerate for a while the slight discrepancy between the title and the text that this now creates. I'll get it sorted out as soon as I can.The Relativist (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Pedophile movement protected

I've protected Pedophile movement due to edit warring.   Will Beback  talk  01:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Hopefully, the edit war between JackaRoe and The Relativist gets resolved here. hmwithτ 21:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback & hmwith, I appreciate your help with these issues and with this noticeboard, but I must take exception to your characterization of my work as as "edit war between JackaRoe and The Relativist". I reverted only twice, based on sources, and with the support of at least two other editors. We'll see over time if the Relativist finds any sources to support his fringe theory or not, or if any other editors support his unsourced changes. My actions do not fit the policy-definition of the term "edit war", and as such should not be characterized in that way. If my long-time good faith work on these very difficult topics is not appreciated, I will leave them to you. Thanks for reconsidering your use of that term with regards to my work. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It was an edit war, but that doesn't mean that I'm saying your edits were in the wrong. It was a content dispute. In the future, it would be a better idea to try to resolve it or get admin involvement before it escalates to page protection, because, even in you're "in the right" content-wise in an edit war, it's still an edit war, and a page becoming protected afterward, unfortunately, casts a bad light on all involved users. hmwithτ 22:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not this is an edit war (semantics really) there is some kind of dispute going on that caused lockage so since hmwith said it is being resolved here rather than the talk page, to summarize what is observable... Jack was making various edits up until the 29th, at which Rel came in on the 30/31 with this. At which point Jack reverted them, Rel reinstated them, Jack reverted them again, and then Will stepped in. To tell the truth, so many changes were made that it's hard to follow them, but at the same time, we don't all edit as regularly so often there are many changes that need to be made in response to more frequent editings? If it would be possible, could each of you break down the changes into the key issues being disputed for those of us who don't understand so well the key points of dispute? Tyciol (talk) 09:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not about the prior improvements to the article, it's about that one diff by the Relativist that you cited. That edit introduced original research, unsupported by references. (I'm not getting into the substance of that debate here, because that is being discussed in a separate section above). This is not about opinions - if something is not verifiable, it does not stay in Wikipedia. In addition, the diff you cited shows that the Relativist removed several valid references without explanation. If he wants those references removed, he will have to show a reason and find consensus about that. If he wants his unsupported claim to remain in the article, he will have to find references to support it. That's basic Wikipedia policy. It's not up to me, this is sure to be supported by multiple editors. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Locked after only two reverts? I don't know, that seemed to be jumping the gun a bit. It is my understanding that there must be 3 reverts (hence WP:3RR), which knowing Jack in the past, he had no intention of doing. Two is supposed to be allowed, else it would be WP:2RR. Relativist removed sources and seems to be alone on this one. It does not seem very fair.Legitimus (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Pedophile movement boldly redirected

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is to report that the article has been redirected [1] by Jack-A-Roe, on the grounds of presumed unanimity of other editors. However, besides my own subsequent post expressing disagreement with the redirect [2], the position of the Relativist on this issue still remain unclear (at least, he gave the impression of being in favor of relocating existent content to other articles, not merely deleting large chunks of it in this manner). In one of his posts in the aforementioned thread, Jack stated that "Deletion of this article has my support also; I've stated this several times in the past. There is an obstacle to that though, because the article looks like it has lots of real sources and describes a real and notable thing. So an AfD is unlikely to succeed with the article in its current form, and also, it's likely that an AfD for this topic would become quite complicated and possibly heated, considering the history of this topic area. So, what other way there is to delete an entire article that has "lots of real sources" and "describes a real and notable thing" other than going by the "tedious" nomination process? Answer: by means of redirecting. In view of this, I would like to suggest that the redirect is not taken lightly, and that it ought to be treated on par with a general deletion attempt (which it basically is, regardless of how much of the original info has been retained elsewhere). This particularly in view of the fact that this article has existed for about 5 years, the general nature of the topic, and the possibility that other active editors previously involved with this article may yet be unaware of all the recent developments, and did not yet had the chance to state their opinion on the relevant talk pages. Debrillo (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I did not say it was unanimous, I wrote that it was "unanimous so-far", and I pointed to the discussion on the talk page - where five editors agreed about the redirect, and not one editor opposed, over more than a month. Note that the article does not have "lots of real sources" - it only looks like that because it has lots of footnotes. But only a very few of the footnoted sources mention a "movement", and those that do, mention it only in passing. There's not even a full paragraph about it in any of the sources (that I could find), other than one source that was written by a person who started one of the organization - he thought his group was a movement. There are no solid academic sources that describe such a movement. For a movement to exist, there must be societal awareness of the movement, that's what makes it a movement; if that existed, it would be described in the verifiable sources, as is the case with the Gay rights movement, a very different and very notable movement. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC) This is good; there is probably a legitimate debate about where this should be redirected to but turning this into a redirect is something I strongly support, and indeed have supported over the last 2+ years. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Just a brief reply - Jack, as long as there actually are reliable sources which identify a said movement - even though few - it still provides enough basis for a separate article. That there was a pedophile movement is undeniable - the works of the likes of Frits Bernard and others, by means of publishing journals, registering interest organizations, giving interviews and participating in public debates, is a testimony to that. In fact, one can argue that activism still takes place today through individuals like Jack Mcclellan and the recent formation of the Dutch pedophile party Dutch Court Approves Pedophile Political Party. Furthermore, organized activism on mediums such as the internet is fully compatible with the definition of activism (and note that this was in fact the reason you changed the title of the article from Pro-pedophile activism to pedophile movement, thus deliberately narrowing the definiton criteria as a further excuse to get rid of the article). Debrillo (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC) You illustrated it perfectly right here, that there is no such movement: your source states that the pedophile party "has only three known members". The article you linked is simply a report that the Dutch Court did not make it illegal for those three people to form a political party. That's not a movement, it's only three people. As far as the change from Pro-pedophile activism to Pedophile movement, that was done by consensus - and it was done because the prior term has zero sources, whereas the newer title at least had a few mentions that could be found. A few mentions is not enough. Maybe you'll find consensus for your ideas. But as it is now, there is a clear consensus for the redirect among the five editors who discussed it, other than your objection that you did not post until after the move even though there was prior discussion about the redirect on the talk page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Well, as you state, the sources that there was a movement are clearly there. I disagree that their scarcity alone forms the foundation for deletion, as per my previous comments. As for the activism: As the lead on activism states: “Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action to bring about social change, political change..”. How else are you going to define publishing journals, establishing organizations & internet forums, giving interviews, publishing books and participating in public debates - activies which have been documented and discussed by various sources - anything else but activism? Do you really need a source, say a scientific journal, explicitly stating that Bernard's foundation of the Enklave kring was an “obvious act of pedophile activism”? Frankly, do you really need a source stating that the sky is blue? Because, all of the sources documenting the actual acts that fall under the definiton of activism, are there. Besides, how come this article existed for half a decade under it's former title, surviving several nominations for deletion in due course? In fact, it has even been used as a reference point for a secret document by the FBI, see [3]? If this case is so clear-cut as you seem to imply, and you supposedly have all this evidence suggesting that the topic is not notable, then why all this apparent sneakiness? Why not simply nominating it and let the Wikipedia community decide, as would have been a much more proper way of addressing it? As a side note, where are all the archives from preious years at the Pro-pedophile activism talk page? All the links earlier than March 2009 appear in red. Debrillo (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I noticed the redlink archive problem earlier today and requested help to solve it. I'd expect it will be fixed soon. Regarding the supposedly-secret, supposedly-leaked FBI document that was posted on wikileaks.org, the term "activism" in the document was cited to Wikipedia, and the symbols were cited on Wikipedia to the Wikileaks page, that's a circular reference. It's not in doubt that the symbols are used by pedophiles, but no-one has yet located a source for connecting the term "activism" to those symbols. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC) The user who started this report has been indefinitely blocked for disruption, therefore I'm archiving this discussion. If anyone has objections to the page redirect, comments can be entered in this section on the topic talk page where the redirect consensus was discussed in advance. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Tom O'Carroll

• Tom O'Carroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Proud Weed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not a dispute, per se, but can I drop a note here to request an eye? I'm not "up" on this part of Wikipedia, but a confidential e-mail drew my attention to this article. Given some bizarre formatting, changes that contradicted sourcing and unsourced material, I have reverted the contributor and left him a welcome, with an explanation about WP:V and WP:OR, but the final sentence makes me wonder. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not true, maybe it's promoting a point of view. I have my hands pretty full at the copyright department. Is anyone here able to watch to be sure that this remains neutral and suitably sourced? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've got the article watchlisted but I missed those edits. As for the last part of the user's edits:

• For many years Paedophilia: The Radical Case was recommended reading for criminology students at Cambridge University. While early reviews were largely hostile, and the author has frequently been vilified, the book has been cited in dozens of academic works over the years, often favourably.

According to Google Scholar, it appears that the book has been cited at least 53 times.[4] I can't tell if any of them were favorable.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue, but I appreciate your watching it. :) No problem on picking it up; as I said, it was pointed out to me, and I have so many copyvio articles watchlisted that I know it can be hard to catch it all. :/ If the contributor comes back with sourcing, then I guess we'll know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Platonic love, Greek love, and Pederasty in ancient Greece

A recent vandal alert on the LGBT studies project lead me to several articles that I was editing and trimming away POV and OR and uncovered many references that were not substantiated by the citations. The use of the term "Man-boy" has been inserted several times against the actual references being used. Also, the articles are heavily overweighted with a tilted synthesis of the subjects to reflect possible agenda driven editing. The article Platonic Love lead me to Greek love where the slant was extremely bad. References to man-boy relationships were the only part of the article and attempts to create a more neutral and encyclopedic prose met with some difficulty, while no attempt is being made to stop my changes and an AFD nomination discussion is taking place for my nomination to delete Greek love, I am worried that agenda driven, social and political POV and OR is being used to steer these articles into booster-ism for pederasty in general.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a search of the user contributions from one of the main contributors and have discovered a disturbing trend that may make this far more widespread than I had first realised. The article Pederastic relationships in classical antiquity contains the same reference that was manipulated in another article and I am now pretty convinced that an agenda driven effort is being made to boost pederasty ideas. This article contains links above the body of the article to Historical pederastic relationships again having the same citation. I doubt the validaty of the work. The article also has links on the top of the page to others, and I would suspect so on and so on.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pedophile advocacy groups

For some time, I have been involved in a dispute with Jack-a-Roe about the tone of parts of Age of Consent Reform#Pedophile advocacy groups. I mantain that the present wording is biased against the views of the groups in question. I have introduced improved wording but the orginal has been restored by Jack.

Here is the disputed section:

During the late 1950s to early 1990s, several pedophile membership organizations advocated lowering or abolishing age of consent laws[25][26][27][28] to legalize sexual activities involving an adult and a child (defined as child sexual abuse by all modern cultures, socially, medically, and legally[29][30]), and for the legalization of child pornography, often portraying themselves as fighting for the rights of children to engage in sex with adults.[28

Basically, I maintain 2 things:

1) The statement in parentheses is unnecessary and can only serve the purpose of reinforcing the mainstream view, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Jack and Legitimus complain that removing this statement removes valuable sources. But if the statement is unnecessary then so are the sources at this point.

2) There is no reference in this version to the fact that all the groups in question insist that consent is a necessary condition for the acceptability of the sexual contact. To leave this out is biased. Jack's complaint that this is to introduce a fringe theory is mistaken. There is no endorsement of the theory. It is simply a question of stating it accurately.

Comments, reactions?The Relativist (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a dispute between myself and The Relativist, it's a dispute between The Relativist and multiple editors. Many past discussions in which he participated about these issues can be found in the talk page archives. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding point 1: it isn't Wikipedia's job to reinforce the mainstream view, but it is a requirement of NPOV that the mainstream view be given the greatest weight, and that fringe viewpoints should not be presented with more weight than they deserve.

Regarding point 2: that's a fundamental philosophical disparaty between two views. One side says that minors are capable of giving consent, while the prevailing view among society is that minors are incapable of giving consent and that their parents or guardians must act on their behalf. I'd imagine that there is significant case law and writing on the issue of consent given by minors, and it's probably worth an entire paragraph. Or there may be existing coverage of the issue in some other article, like Minor (law) or Consent, which could be linked instead of duplicated.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Will has addressed both points well, and I concur with his statements. Since the Age of consent reform article is about the legal issues, the idea of linking to those related legal articles regarding consent makes good sense. That should be done in the main topic area of the article, since those issues are not specifically related to pedophile advocacy groups. If mention is made of consent issues in the pedophile groups section, that the groups believe consent is possible for children, that must be done with solid reliable sources, and in a way that does not imply there is any mainstream acceptance of those ideas. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm only asking that the views of the groups in question should be accurately and fairly stated. It should be a straightforward matter to find a source that backs up the emphasis on consent.The Relativist (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with describing "the views of the groups in question" is that those groups are not a monolithic unit and they don't all have the same views. Basing a statement on an individual activist, as you did with convicted child porn offender Tom O'Carroll, does not meet verifiability policy, because one activist is only reliable as to what that person believes. To summarize the views of multiple organizations requires a reliable source that has done so, otherwise it is original research or synthesis.

So far, we have only one reliable source about this, the New York times article. That's a generally reliable source, though it's marginal for this because it's not academic, but it's a start.

Your edits to the article on this point were unclear and used the non-reliable O'Carroll source. Also, you used the pedophile advocacy website IPCE as a convenience link - that can't be used, even as a convenience link, because it's also not a reliable source, and it's a WP:LINKVIO.

I've re-edited that section to clarify the issue about the pedophile groups' beliefs on consent. [5], and added a couple new references on mainstream views on children's ability to consent, for context. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a definite improvement now, as the views of the groups in question are now more accurately stated (no of course they don't believe all the same things but there is a common core of belief that would include consent).

I still don't agree with what you say about O'Carroll. The point about the chapter I referenced is that it explains in detail PIE's elaborate proposals to replace age of consent laws. There is no question that O'Carroll is an authority on what PIE believed. He was a leading figure and if he could not authoritatively give PIE's views who could? And I don't see the problem about linking to IPCE. IPCE itself is not being used as a source of information merely as a convenient way to get to a copy of the book. It seems to me that the combination of O'Carroll and the NAMBLA link already provided would substantiate the point about consent. The views of other parties--especially hostile ones--are less reliable on this particular question, not more.The Relativist (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you even read the Wikipedia editing policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE)? I've provided links for you many times, but your comment shows you don't understand them, or you choose to ignore them.

For over a year you've wanted to use convicted child porn offender O'Carroll as a source, and no editors have agreed with you. Here's a diff where you come right out and say that your reason for wanting O'Carroll as a source is that you could not find any other sources for the information you wanted to include: [6]. You've got it totally backwards. Read WP:FRINGE, WP:V and WP:RS.

You wrote: "...the combination of O'Carroll and the NAMBLA link already provided would substantiate the point... " - that is the very definition of "synthesis", a kind of writing that can't be used in WIkipedia. You've got it backwards again. Read: WP:OR.

You wrote: "I don't see the problem about linking to IPCE. " - They are a strongly biased unreliable site. They host a massive collection of copyright violation material. Read WP:RS, WP:LINKVIO and WP:CONVENIENCE#Reliability.

You wrote: " ...explains in detail PIE's elaborate proposals to replace age of consent laws. " - That level of detail about PIE is undue weight for the age of consent reform article. The pedophile advocacy groups section is only a small part of the article and PIE is only one of several groups. Read: WP:UNDUE.

Why do you feel so strongly about including O'Carroll as a source? If, as you say, the beliefs of the pedophile advocacy groups about consent are notable, there must be lots of other sources you could use. Why is O'Carroll so important to you? Why don't you locate several independent reliable sources, not connected with any pedophile groups, to support the information you want to include? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the relative size of the section in question, it seems unnecessary to have to rely on such fringe sources and to give them such weight. Regarding O'Carroll, I felt it was important to point out that he is doing little more than expressing his opinion and he has few, if any, qualifications that would give these opinions a great deal weight. Furthermore, ideally a reliable source is supposed to be third party.Legitimus (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Jack-a-Roe's points:

1) Yes I have looked at the sections you cited. But they rarely seem to settle the points in question. There usually seems to be room for different ways of applying them. In one case though, they did cause me to change my stance regarding another disputed edit, if you remember. I think your accusations about the way I work are unwarranted.

2) You keep referring to O'Carroll as a 'convicted child porn offender'. This, while strictly true, is inflammatory in this context. What relevance does it have?

3)With regard to O'Carroll and NAMBLA I simply meant that referencing them would give us confirmation from two of the groups in question about their beliefs.

3) I have already answered the point about the alleged unreliability of IPCE. Referencing in this way does not in any way involve accepting any claim they make. As for the suggestion that they have a lot of copyright violation material, that is indeed serious. Do you have evidence that they do not have copyright clearance for some of their material?

4)The details of PIE's proposals would indeed be too much if they were included in the article itself but they would only be in a cited source. PIE was indeed only one of the groups but it was one of the most prominent and it incited passionate opposition in the UK.

5) As I explained, citing the writings of the groups themselves is often more reliable regarding their beliefs than (often hostile) secondary sources. Tom O'Carroll is a better authority on what PIE thought than, for example, a mainstream newspaper article. I can see that you're anxious to exclude as references any pro-pedophile group. But surely the reader is entitled to know about any legal site that provides more information about a topic.

Legitimus, your point is answered by what I've just said.The Relativist (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

O'Carroll and NAMBLA are fringe sources that are also primary sources -- they are not reliable about anything but their own views. Using them to generalize the views of others violates WP:NOR. And, they are not needed anyway. The article already contains the information you wanted to include about the groups' beliefs about consent, supported by an independent source.

So the question remains: why is it so important to you to include these sources, when they are not needed to support the info in the article? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

On the specific issue of consent you provided one reference, the New York Times article. But this was written in 2006 and concerns recent internet groups, not the original organizations of the 1950s to 1990s which you want to talk about. As far as these are concerned we need to look further back. O'Carroll is as reliable a source on the views of PIE that anyone could demand. NAMBLA statements are authoritative on the views of NAMBLA and so on. If we follow your argument, we need more such statements, not fewer.The Relativist (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a peer-reviewed scientific paper in the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse that describes the consent claim of the various pedophile advocacy groups, and their portrayal of themselves as fighting for children's emancipation: [7].

Your concern about a source for the statements of the "original organizations of the 1950s to 1990s" has been now been addressed, with no use of fringe primary sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will and Jack on this one; the views that protecting children's interests regarding sexuality is worng or misguided or should be changed is a minority fringe viewpoint and should be treated as such, arguably not even deserving mention when it is PPAs in the AoC article. The last paragraph in this article from today expresses it well. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read the latest version as edited by Jack start to finish with relatively fresh eyes (I have not been following the edits change to change), and it seems fine. I don't get what the big deal is. It seems pretty straightforward to me.Legitimus (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly improving. I've just made a small change of wording to avoid the slight hint of dishonesty implied by the word 'portraying' in the phrase 'portraying themselves as fighting for what they describe as the right of children...' I guess some people think they are dishonest but it would be biased to assume this.The Relativist (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The journal sources themselves used the term "portray" and do indeed hint that this perspective is dishonest. That is to say, such groups adopted this approach at a later time during their existence, and this is widely believed to be little more than a tactic to make their desires, as the sources put it "more palatable to the public."Legitimus (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, Legitimus. The claim, I think is ill-founded but I don't have a good opposing source at present.

I have a added a new clause that ideologically relates the views of these groups to leading figures mentioned in the article. John Holt's views, in particular, are practically identical. Can I ask that anybody who dissents can avoid reverting it until we have thrashed out the issue?The Relativist (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we take this over to Talk:Age_of_consent_reform? We are getting down to deciding on details and it would be more appropriate.Legitimus (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's where it belongs. I've replied to the thread that's now on the article talk page, before I saw this post here. Also before I saw this post, I reverted The Relativist's edit per WP:BURDEN. It's original research to connect the views of John Holt and others to pedophile advocacy groups unless there's a reliable source for that. Some of the authors mentioned are still living, so it's also a WP:BLP issue. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Problems with new account Psychword

• Psychword (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

This account is brand new, but the user seems familiar with Wikipedia and this topic. He has made significant changes to Rind et al. controversy which should be reviewed by someone who'd more familiar with the study than I am.[8]   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've worked on this article several years now and have taken the time to read much the scholarly material about it. This user is way out of line. He has removed several respected sources, including a major textbook [9] and inserted multiple unsourced claims [10] and in some cases has even changed information in a self-serving manner or outright falsified it [11].

I have been at this a long time, and it is quite plane to me what this editor is up to, what their motivation is, and where their path ends, per policy as I understand it. Thanks.Legitimus (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Legitimus on this. This article has been on my watchlist for a couple years as well and I've read much on the topic. The edits made by the new account clearly show a POV-agenda and lack of respect for sources and facts. They have removed sources and sourced information, replaced accurate text with information contrary to cited sources, added biased commentary, and added unsourced information that is simply false. Adding to the examples listed above, here's a diff that shows many of those issues in one edit [12].--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

After further review of the details, I've reverted all of Psychword's changes to the article [13]. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

←Not surprising, Psychword has reinstated all of those edits, without addressing the issues noted in my edit summary: [14]. He wants discussion on the talk page. That is a waste of time in this kind of situation (as noted above). We could post there the same points that we listed above in this section. Would it make any difference? I request that the topic mentors review and advise on this situation, including the specific diffs noted in this section. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a note on the talk pages of Ryan and East requesting their input here. (The other two topic mentors do not have recent contribs other than some talk page archiving, so I did not alert them.) --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the earlier version again and have asked the editor to discuss the changes on the talk page. I'm inclined to block the account as a sock on the simple basis that he's obviously an experienced user, but I'd prefer on the mentors to do so.   Will Beback  talk  05:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be good, IMO, Will. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 13:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed most of the edits I made on the talk page, and I'm happy to address any I may have left out. If you have issues, discuss them over there. Contrary to Jack-A-Roe, this is not a waste of time, and I am more aware and have as much or more respect for the facts and the sources than the others here. Consider that you have allowed someone to make the statement that "uncountable" studies have shown CSA leads to harm, when that is not the case. Those studies found an association between CSA and harm, but the studies that performed statistical control (on population-representative samples) found that the association was not causal. No single study, let alone any kind of meta-analysis, has ever shown contrary results. Also, will someone enlighten me, what are my alleged false statements? Psychword (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Psychword

Claiming that you are more aware than other editors isn't really correct or helpful esp as the 4 editors you are dealing with have substantially more experience both at editing wikipedia and editing the pedophile topics. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 19:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Psychword has told me that this is an alternate account. Due to the past problems of sockpuppetry on this topic, I've asked him to get approval from one of the mentors or the ArbCom before continuing to use the account in this way. If he continues to edit without approval I'll block the account until it can be obtained.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A question of neutrality

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This comment concerns a dispute between me and two other editors regarding Rind et al. controversy#Subsequent Research and Legacy. The contested paragraph currently reads as follows: Uncountable studies and work in the field of psychology from long both before and after Rind et al.'s publication have supported the stance that children cannot consent to sexual activity and are harmed by it.[5][17][22] The study continues to be trumpeted by various pro-pedophilia groups and individuals, but its usage in legal action to defend such individuals has gradually waned since its congressional condemnation.[5] The word ‘uncountable’ is very emphatic and has the effect of suggesting that Rind and his colleagues have been proven wrong. It thus abandons the policy of maintaining an impartial tone (see Wikipedia: NPOV#Impartial tone). Bear in mind this from Wikipedia: NPOV: “[An article] may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides.” (My emphasis.) The same point applies even more clearly to the next sentence. ‘Trumpeted’ is cearly a hostile term. When I complained about this, Jack-a-Roe argued that the cited source took the view that pro-pedophile groups had indeed been ‘trumpeting’ their stance, as they had been using Rind et al. for propaganda purposes, and that to use a more neutral term would therefore be to distort what the source says. However, faithfulness to the source is not the only consideration here. There is also the crucial matter of neutrality, as expressed particularly in the quotation from the NPOV policy given above. To use the word ‘trumpeted’ would be to compromise neutrality. In a case like this, it is necessary to reproduce the information in the source without endorsing its opinion. This is especially important in what is in effect the last substantive paragraph of the article. Any loss of neutrality here would definitely give the impression that Wikipedia had adopted a certain stance on the matter. Here is my version of the contested section (minus the citations, but these will be restored if this version is adopted): Most of the relevant literature both before and since the Rind study opposes the latter's main conclusion that sex between adults and children is not always harmful.[5][17][22] The study continues to be cited by various pro-pedophilia groups and individuals, but its usage in legal action to defend such individuals has gradually waned since its congressional condemnation.[5] This version could hardly be considered pro-Rind. It is, I think, pretty neutral. I have used the word ‘cited’ instead of ‘trumpeted’ in the second sentence. That these groups do cite this study is indisputable, and the use of this word avoids the implication that their use of it is somehow inappropriately belligerent or otherwise suspect. I think this debate needs to be opened up now so that a consensus can be reached.The Relativist (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC) This content dispute has been archived because the user who posted it here has been indefinitely blocked. If anyone is interested in discussing the article content, please do so on the article talk page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

New reports here

Where is the Pedophile Activism article, it just takes you to Age of Consent Reform, it's one small section thats ALOT smaller than the original, but they still have the ANTI-Pedophile Activism article. How can you have Anti-Pedophile Activism WITHOUT Pedophile Activism? Seems odd to me. It's just information.

I was not personally involved in the action, but some years ago there was a major problem with the activism article, and there was a decision to delete it. The article was unending battleground. Members of pedophile organizations would actively try to post positive information about their groups or would try to integrate information from their manifestos as though it was actual fact. This compounded the fact that reliable sources were very difficult to find, as there has not been much objective study of these groups. Another factor was that many of these organizations have dwindled down to tiny shells of their former size, often no more than a few hundred people on an e-mail list and forum. They're simply not notable anymore. I think many people would rather forget they existed.Legitimus (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at Rind et al. controversy? It looks like it has some weight issues. TheDracologist (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, this project really isn't active. But some people may be watching this page (as I am). I spoke to you over at the Rind talk page.

Basically, for my part, I lack the interest and knowledge to engage on that article much. I watch it just to prevent it being hijacked. If you have the chops to improve the article, that'd be great. Your best bet would be User:Legitimus for consultation; he's an expert (and a very good editor). However, he watches the Rind talk page too and is probably already aware of your concern. But maybe not; you could ping him. Herostratus (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)