Talk:Pedophile movement

Page move

Is there a consensus for moving Pedophile movement to Pro-pedophile ideology? I don't see any discussion.   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course there's no consensus for that move. It's a term with zero sources, zero hits on Google Books or Google Scholar, and simply makes no sense. That was explained to the editor who made the move, The Relativist (talk · contribs · logs · block log), several times, and no others agreed with the move. Discussion at WP:PedMen. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes movement is much preferred, ideology implies what is not there. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jack may think that it's all been explained to me but he has not responded to any of my arguments, in particular my point that while there is some doubt about whether there was ever a movement, there cannot be any doubt that there is and was an ideology. I really do not understand what the problem is. As I said on the mentoring page, I have retained virtually all of Jack's original references. My question to Jack and Squeak Box is this: if you are not prepared to accept that there is such a thing as pro-pedophile ideology what makes you so sure that there was such a thing as a pedophile movement?The Relativist (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been debating this personally. The thing is, we can't just make a term up. Nobody's going to go searching the encyclopedia for a term that doesn't exist outside of it. The concept exists, but the trouble is that more seems to be made of it than necessary. The concept is something espoused primarily by these various advocacy groups (Perverted Justice, Section 21) but there is little if any academic support. The thing is, the people who hold such ideology aren't called anything special: They're just pedophiles, or rarely, age of consent reform advocates (which basically covers all the alleged "non-pedophiles" with the same views). I'd like to renew my previous statement that this article seems to be something of a lightning rod that wikipedia could probably do without (that is, the information can be distributed among existing articles). Legitimus (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I too would rather see the article go and its information appear in other places than continue to have it in its present very tendentious form.The Relativist (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have long supported the deletion of this article, with the merging of any relevant material elsewhere. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

There appears to be consensus here for deletion. If that is the goal then the best method would be to do the merging of information in advance, deleting the information from this article after it is merged, so the article becomes smaller and eventually becomes a stub. At that time, it could be put up at AfD with better chance of success. If this process is started though, the article must not become slanted or misleading during the interim steps as a result of the way the information is merged and removed.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Great to see that we have consensus. Right now, locations for information include age of consent reform and pedophilia. Please list others.Legitimus (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's give this a try. I've carefully merged some info from the intro here, with references, into the age of consent reform article, to find out how the merge is received by the editors working on that topic. The info as added seems to me quite appropriate with that topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems a good plan and I have also just moved some information. However, I'm still a bit concerned about the overall slant of the section on pedophile advocacy groups, which comes from the introduction of the pedophile movement article. It still seems to over-emphasize the disparity between the groups' views and orthodox opinion. Given that the article itself shows how some of their desired measures have actually been enacted in some cases (ages of consent have been significantly lowered in some countries) the total dismissal of these ideas seems inappropriate.The Relativist (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The information is in the references. There is no slant being added. When you find references that support your ideas, you can add them. Pedophilia is about adults' sexual interest in children, not adults' interest in sex with teenagers. Age of consent lowered by a year or two in one or two isolated situations implies no softening of mainstream society's attitudes about child sexual abuse, those are not the same issue. And there are no sources supporting even a slight connection. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Things are not so clear-cut. Where exactly is the boundary between child and adolescent? I'm sure that many would be happy to describe sex between an adult and a twelve-year-old as 'child sexual abuse'. And the age of consent has gone as low as 12 in some cases. Any such move represents a partial victory for pedophile activists.The Relativist (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Far as I know, no nation has actually lowered the age of consent such a significant degree. These nations simply had those low ages all along. Please also note that nations where it is 12 are rare, mostly third world, and are on various human rights groups' hit list.Legitimus (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In Spain it was 12, now raised to 13. In the Netherlands in the early 1990s, it was 12 under certain circumstances.The Relativist (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the point is they went up, not down. Netherlands is 16 now. But it's missing the point. We should work on off-loading the material in preparation for deletion. I was going to take some material to pedophilia since the mental health angle is my thing, but I'm not yet certain on an appropriate wording. Legitimus (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the relatively low ages of consent are within the last 30-40 years and so probably reflect new thinking on child/adolescent sexuality and pedophilia. I think Spain's was introduced with the arrival of the new post-Franco regime. The Dutch experiment was the result of the Melai Commision, and surely Brongersma--a major pro-pedophile advocate and a leading Dutch statesman must have had some influence on it.The Relativist (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am totally positive about this article being deleted as long as all notable material is merged elsewhere. I have seen no evidence that a coherent social movement existed prior to the current array of peer-support websites, which may in the future form something approaching a notable phenomenon. EmilianaMartín (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the so-far unanimous consensus above, I have redirected the page as discussed. There does not seem to be any more material that needs to be moved elsewhere, the important parts of it already appears in related articles, such as about the various pedophile membership organizations. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's a little bit late, but: I am totally opposed to a redirect of this article, so it's no longer unanimous. This is basically a de facto, premature deletion of large amounts of sourced content still not reproduced elsewhere. Only a small fraction of the original article's contents have been copied. Also, it seems strange that Wikipedia, which contains ridiculously lengthy articles about fictional movie and game characters (examples: Kyle Broflovski, Tingle), supposedly can't allocate space for a separate, informative, highly relevant and relatively well-sourced article on a subject as real and notable as this. Debrillo (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like all of the article content that is sourced and is not original research has been moved to other articles, or was already in other articles, with only a couple small exceptions that can be retrieved and merged to relevant pages if someone feels they are important. Most of this article is a synthesis, linking separately-sourced statements with no support by any reliable sources to connect the separate ideas together. That's original research and can't be used. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing, there was a wealth of information on various organizations, little of which I could see making it into age of consent reform. That's a relevant 'see also' related article, but it really does not cover what these organizations are about. Certainly these groups had other goals and activities besides working towards AoC reform. Some seemed to be support groups, and in some cases, attracted abusive criminal elements who were not interested in reform so much as ignoring the law.

I think this move will be incredibly confusing because it is very unspecific. Very little of the article deals with this, so it would make sense to redirect to the subtopic instead of the general article. In this case, instead of forwarding all these various terms (surely there are dozens by now...) simply to the reform page, how about instead to Age of consent reform#Pedophile advocacy groups? One problem I can see is that since it's such a controversial topic, it might take over the AoCR talk page, which was why having it as a separate article for all those conflicts was useful. Already I can see problems with how it's written ("public focus on and disapproval of pedophilia" for example, could do better substituting child molestation, since that's what's actually being disapproved of) Tyciol (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe Appears to agree when he states above: "Age of consent lowered by a year or two in one or two isolated situations implies no softening of mainstream society's attitudes about child sexual abuse, those are not the same issue. And there are no sources supporting even a slight connection." And even as he seems to be explicitly agreeing with the fact that Age of Consent Reform and Pro-Pedophilia whatever are two different issues, he insists quite strongly that they be lumped together as they have been. Fact is, age of consent reform, as has been pointed out above, only seems to have been a part of whatever pedophiles were advocating. The information about particular pedophile advocates such as Edward Brongersma and Frits Bernard, along with other relevant historical information pertaining to the viewpoint has seemed to be all but silenced by this series of haphazard merges. (65.96.80.21 (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Two comments -- First, if you look at the Latin and Greek roots, then pedophilia would mean "lover of feet" whereas paedophilia would mean "lover of youth". Second, does this decision mean that Wikipedia feels it is somehow "right" not to allow discussion on this or that topic? Isn't there an expression for such editorialising? Hmmm ... I can't think what the expression is, but it sure isn't "freedom of speech".60.234.139.235 (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Tom O'Carroll

On the issue of whether O'Carroll's conviction for distributing child pornography should be mentioned when his book is cited: It has been argued that it is biased to take it out. On the contrary, I believe that to have it in there at that particular point is biased as it can only tend to discredit O'Carroll's views.The Relativist (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The quotation from O'Carroll is a rather broad claim about the ability of a child to consent. As such with any quoted claim, the speaker's qualification needs to be explained so that the reader can determine it's credibility. For example, "John Smith claims X" is given a more accurate read with "John Smith, a neuropsychologist, claims X." That qualification shows he is more qualified to claim that point, where as having a pedophilia related criminal conviction shows he is frankly very unqualified to make his claim. While yes, it discredits him, it is no more unfair to do so than to indicate a person claiming that minorities are all stupid happens to be a member of a white supremacist group.Legitimus (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, what happened to dividing bits of this article off and deleting it?Legitimus (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved several sections to the Age of Consent Reform article. But they can't be deleted from this article until the article is redirected or deleted, because it would leave the article incomplete and confusing. I'm not sure yet where to move some of the other material; but some of it still seems useful if we can figure out where to put it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

O'Carroll's conviction for child pornography is directly relevant to his statements and position regarding adult sexual use of children. His writings must be presented within in the context of his actions for complete and accurate perspective of his role in the pedophile organizations and agenda he propounded. His actions are what discredited him, not the reporting of them. Those actions are part of his legacy and his writings are appropriately seen in that context. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

So let's review what this villain O'Carroll is supposed to have done shall we? His first conviction was for 'conspiracy to corrupt public morals', a legal anachronism if ever there was one. The first, rather youngish, jury was about to return a not guilty verdict when they were dismissed and a new jury of more conservative types was sworn in, who duly returned the guilty verdict required by the state, to which at least one highly respected broadsheet responded with considerable disapproval. What did he actually do? He asked a correspondent to PIE's 'Contact' magazine to amend an advert so that it didn't give the impression that he was looking for young children. (The prosecution alleged that this was mere window-dressing.) Horrendous stuff.

The next conviction was for trying to bring photos of nude children on the beaches of a middle eastern country into Britain. Just nude. They were not pictures of sexual activity (as far as we know). The final conviction was for giving some child porn photos to an undercover police officer who had perstered O'Carroll for a long time to break the law. O'Carroll felt sorry for him and gave in.

Jack-a-Roe says that O'Carroll's writings should be seen in the context of his actions. I agree. The reasonableness and common sense of his writings should be seen in the context of actions that skirted the boundaries of the law in just the way that one would expect those of a radical activist to do.The Relativist (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Point of view

Somewhat unsurprisingly, this article seems to start with the assumption that groups like NAMBLA are child molester clubs which make up philosophical arguments in order to justify themselves. It says things like "often portraying themselves as fighting for...". Not technically incorrect, but the assumption is obvious: this is a justification, not a belief. Like it or not, NAMBLA came out of the sexual revolution and has been led by people who passionately believe in what they see as the complete liberation of human sexuality.

People hate NAMBLA already, but this article reads like the author was terrified that (s)he might write anything that could possibly be construed as sympathetic. This article is supposedly about a movement and ideology, yet it fails to even discuss it. Forgive my irritability, I have nothing against you guys, but I feel this article is really shameful. --MQDuck 04:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I hardly need add that I agree with this entirely.The Relativist (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)