Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Pedophile movement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Forums

WP:EL says:

Links to normally avoid
Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.

Since this article is not about the forums, I don't see a reason to include them here. We don't need to "demonstrate" that forums exist. -Will Beback 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is about activism, of which the forums seem to be an example. "Closely related" indeed. Tomyumgoong 00:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to some specific entries which concern pedohilie activism? A forum which which users gossip about how hot some child star is does not apear to me to be informatiive about the topic of this article. But I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise if there was some proof. Do they talk about lobbying to change laws, for example? -Will Beback 00:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

GirlChat messages concerning activism/public acceptance: "the ideal child.," "Political Climate and Amnesia," "living in shadows...," "‘The Splendor of Little Girls," "A little thing that bothers me...," Remind me to start stalking you... ;)," "Arguing with antis," "Wikipedia articles gutted," (advocacy through Wikipedia?) "on manipulation and progress...," "You just can't reach everybody," "Sex vs. Violence: Where Morality Is Backasswards," "The Rise of Fascism in America," "Urgent help is needed - please read," etc. -- from the posts April 15 - present, but I have to go. 24.224.153.40 02:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is not 'closely related' to the forums. They might share subject matter, but there are already plenty of pro-pedophilia links in this article and very few to balance them. WP:NOT a links directory, particularly not for pedophiles. The Land 08:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"... particularly not for pedophiles" These links can be educational for nonpedophilic people, too. (And I have no idea why we would be more not a link directory for pedophiles than anyone else.) 24.224.153.40 02:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't "especially not" anything for any particular group. If we wish to have a discussion about pruning the links, that's fair. I do not read such forums, but for example the text in the section below seems related to the movement and its desire to normalise the behavior. Particularly considering that the article childlove movement was merged with this one, links useful for that topic merit inclusion here. One of the forum links (ipce?) is directly related to activism, so its deletion under wp:el is inappropriate. Tomyumgoong 17:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, 24 and Tomyumgoong, points on the "especially not" remark. Nevertheless, returning to the issue at hand. The default is that Wikipedia does not include links to forums, period. An exception is made for when there is an article about a particularly notable forum, then of course you want to include the link to forum. Other exceptions can be made where useful or necessary (which is why forums are listed under "Links to normally avoid" and not flat-out prohibited). I think one reason for this is that forums are so dynamic; you're not linking to a reasonably stable source of information, you're dipping into a flowing river. Who knows what's gonna be in it on any given day? Links to websites with signed articles by people whose identity and credentials can be verified are vastly preferred. If it was a link to "Forum of the CalTech Atomic Scientists" or something, OK. But this is just a bunch of random people yakking. Basically, forums are not an encyclopedic source, except in cases where the forum is of exceptionally high quality or the information can't be obtained elsewhere. Which is not true here. But my main objective is link spamming. Wikipedia does not exist to drive traffic to forums. I don't think anyone has acted in bad faith, but including these links is de facto link spamming, even if that was not the intent. Link spamming is prohibited, hence the links need to be and have been deleted. Herostratus 06:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Herostratus, but I do think spamlinks to pro-pedophilia websites do Wikipedia more damage than most spamlinks... The Land 07:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That's another point, The Land, if you're talking about potential political damage to Wikipedia, e.g. through bad publicity. A project which engages itself in pissing off half the congressional staffers on Capitol Hill hill should be careful about leaving itself open to possible inflammatory accusations. If, however, you're talking about cultural damage, that could also be true, but is an argument you're never gonna win, here, so best stick to Wikipedia policy based arguments.

As you can see there are exceptions to the link policy when they are especially salient. IPCE is in fact a forum explicitly for pedophile activism, so it meets perfectly the criteria for exception. The other two are being discussed here, so perhaps if you wish to prune links you should concentrate on the ones that are not obviously salient pending the outcome of that discussion. Tomyumgoong 21:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm, OK, fair enough. If IPCE is purely political, it might stand scrutiny; I'll take a look later on. Might, because links to forums remain highly deprecated. Is there not a website with more stable articles the could be substituted? Herostratus 16:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There was some discussion about IPCE at Talk:Pedophilia a little back, and User:Will Beback sugggested linking to it from here rather than Pedophilia. My view is that the IPCE website is a resource, rather than a forum, and is dedicated to the topic, so probably is an appropriate link. On a separate note I've de-linked NAMBLA because the external link duplicated the internal link. The Land 19:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Forum" does not mean "message board," which WP:EL clearly refers to. 24.224.153.40 21:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can share your definitons of the terms. In any case, I do think that IPCE is a logical external link for this article because it contains information (rather than just user opinions, like a forum/message board) promoting pedophilia. -Will Beback 22:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

A message board is a forum; a forum is not a message board. Please see your local dictionary for more information. 24.224.153.40 22:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed IPCE calls itself a "forum" but does not contain a message board. It is surprising how quickly people will remove links without reviewing their content. We may debate the usefulness of the other two... I would suggest they are important evidence of the "childlove movement" which was merged with this article. Tomyumgoong 01:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I for one have been guilty of a form of terminological inexactitude. Perhaps there is another way to describe IPCE other than as a forum which makes its intentions clearer? The Land 08:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should follow links before deleting them. Tomyumgoong 08:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Since editors don't know what to expect when clicking on these links, it's not surprising that they rely on the descriptions to evaluate the material. Let's be careful about what we add, and how we describe it. -Will Beback 09:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Example of harmful entry

These are not a good choice for an exception to WP:EL. This entry is copied from a EL. Linking to this is wrong because it promotes illegal activity. Your point about offering for educational purposes doesn't work. Most people do not want to know this stuff. Having it here only hurts the overall mission of writing the encyclopedia by making us vulnerable to constant bad PR. FloNight ^talk 01:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Posted by SG on 2006-April-15 22:00:37, Saturday

In reply to Relationships with boys suck posted by Fame on 2006-April-15 20:42:47, Saturday I suppose I'm one of those "elitists," then.Be that as it may, it just doesn't seem to me that having a close relationship with a boy is all that hard. Yeah, it's rarely perfect, and they can be pretty childish (I mean, duh), but I've had close friendships with a few boys and I've never had to deal with suspicious parents (suspicion is easily managed by regular friendly interaction with said parents), and I simply don't stand for being taken advantage of. If they don't respect that, then maybe we drift apart and it ends before it can get terribly ugly and painful.

It's all about honesty (ironically). Be as honest as possible with the parents (barring the obvious topics) and try to respect their wishes for their child, and be honest with the boy by letting him know up front how much respect you want from him (yes, they are capable of respect if you're willing to exercise a little authority.. which can be hard, I know, but it will go a long way toward avoiding unpleasantness.. not to mention the fact that it'll impress the parents to see you trying to help teach their boy how to behave, thus securing the coveted title of "good role model"). Creeping 'round behind the parents' backs is only going to breed suspicion and there's no point in standing for intolerable levels of disrespect just so you can spend a little more time with him.

It is true that most of the time, any physical intimacy that may have been present in the relationship will fade as the child gets older (particularly as they progress through their teens), but this is something we just have to accept as part of the deal. Most of the time, however, the close friendship is maintained.

Wow.. I've been long-winded in my posts today.. too much free time and way too much on my mind. I didn't mean to bag on you or anything, Fame.. just wanted to give the new guy an alternate viewpoint to consider :)

Disturbing maybe, but I don't see any description or promotion of illegal activity here. 24.224.153.40 02:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't ignore the obvious! The discussion is about physical intimacy (sex) between adult and preteen child. Pedophilia by any definition. FloNight ^talk 02:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Physical intimacy" is a broad term: it can certainly refer to legal activities. As I understand, admitting to illegal activity is against BoyChat's rules. And you really shouldn't use "pedophilia" so inappropriately. 24.224.153.40 02:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Say what? What a load of hogwash. Physical intimacy on the BoyChat site == child sexual abuse. Anon, you need help. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit disengenuous here, 24. What activities do you supppose the person is talking about, there?

As to your other points: how well whatever rules they have are enforced is something that would be difficult to know; the rule against admitting illegal activities may well be legal wallpaper that is honored more in the breach or circumvented by non-and-a-wink code words; I don't know, but the suspicion that this might be so, and the inability to easily determine if it is so, is a strong argument against including the links (and indeed why Wikipedia greatly deprecates links to forums as opposed to links to stable web sites with (usually) proper articles signed by people who's identity (and thus credentials) can be verified. And while for myself I always try to differentiate between child sexual abuse (usually committed by your drunken louts, thugs, and what have you) and pedophilia, in this case the poster seems indeed driven by pedophilia. So the use of pedophila is not really that inappropriate here. Herostratus 05:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Subjectively, I'd also assume he's hinting at abuse with the term "physical intimacy," yet it's unclear enough to be legally unproblematic. While its morality is another story, personal opinion should never be used as a basis for the removal of content (or an external link). I think posts like these are are helpful in painting a clearer picture of the kind of attitudes some boy/girllovers have towards "physical intimacy." Like Tomyumgoong said, most of this article is about the promotion of illegal activity anyway.

And even pedophilia-driven CSA should still not be referred to as just "pedophilia." 24.224.153.40 23:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless the forums are especially pertinent. It seems that these are the two most active venues of pedophile activism and expression in the "childlove movement" (which was merged with this article) available at present. As such they are directly informative and are not just ... forumcruft as you might be call them. Tomyumgoong 09:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What information do they contain that we don't currently have in the article? -Will Beback 22:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Our article barely discusses the modern movement, probably because it's unverifiable except through places like GirlChat/BoyChat. 24.224.153.40 23:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were trying to answer my quesiton or someone else's, but I'm still don't know what info is in those forums that we don't have here. -Will Beback 23:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

24, by modern movement do you mean using modrern technology to network? For example internet forums as a means of connecting and disseminating information? Or do you mean something else? FloNight ^talk 23:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If there's a movement, surely it must have some stable web sites with proper articles. If it's only presence on the web is basically a couple of forums (and if it doesn't have a significant off-web presence), then it's not much of a movement, I guess. In which case maybe the whole article is about a non-notable group, an argument that has been made before with certainly some good points to it, in which case it ought to be deleted per Wikipedia policy I guess. Herostratus 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"if there's a movement, surely it must have some stable web sites with proper articles" Jebus. Considering there's at least two hosts originally founded to provide hosting for boylovers, hun d red s o f w e b s i t e s, about a dozen "flesh and blood" established organizations, a former charity, a jewlery store and other shit I'm too bored to list, I'm pretty sure your basis is moot. A large portion of the movement, however, is organized and documented only on forums like GirlChat and BoyChat. 24.224.153.40 22:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's be frank: this scares the shit out of me. Pedophiles have been increasingly using technology to play their little games. Wikipedia does not need to be a link site for these people. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"this scares the shit out of me." Pedophiles must be doing something right, then. But what, exactly, scares the shit out of you, and what are these "little games" you're positive pedophiles have been increasingly using technology to play? BTW -- Wikipedia does not need to be a link site, full stop. It's not more or less a link directory for certain group of people based on what turns them on, so stop implying we have some stupid rule like that kthx.

24.224.153.40 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

On sensitive issues like this one it is especially important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost. No-one is going to allow Wikipedia to be ruleslawyered into accepting objectionable linkspam. Whether we link to particular sites depends on whether we think their content helps build an encyclopedia. I think that GirlChat and BoyChat sites break three, possibly 4, of the criteria to avoid in WP:EL. Possibly if a sociologist or newspaper summarized their content we coudl link to that, but we don't do original research. The Land 19:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not original research. It is documentation of the Childlove Movement. Tomyumgoong 23:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

We cannot use them as primary sources, as forums are not reliable sources. -Will Beback 08:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I agree with Will. Forums don't meet the bar for use as a source. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We're putting them in "External links," not using them as a source. 24.224.153.40 20:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Which gets us back to: "why are we adding them as external links?" What information do they provide a reader wishing to learn more about the topic? Why can't we add that information to this article? -Will Beback 00:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, "reliable sources" rarely document pedophile activism for whatever reason. The archives of GirlChat and BoyChat contain a largely complete record of the childlove movement. 24.224.153.40 02:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The links are not reliable because the content changes. Per the example above, forums contain highly objectionable material even though the rules of the site do not permit it. That is the underlying problem with forums. It is irresponsible for Wikipedia to link to sites that are likely to attract illegal material. It makes us seem unscholarly, unencyclopedic. --FloNight ^talk 00:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Objectionable? POV.

GirlChat and BoyChat are monitered by LE (some of the posters there are even LE). The moderation makes sure nothing illegal is posted, admitted to, or linked; the FBI would love an excuse to seize logs. 24.224.153.40 02:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

IPCE

This was followed by the formation of Ipce (then the "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation," IPCE), an umbrella organization and repository for research favoring adult-child sex and pedophilia, in the early 1990s.

An editor changed the text from "research favoring adult-child sex" to "research related to adult-child sex". I believe the former text is more correct because all of the material I've seen at that site favors child-adult sex or pedophilia. Can anyone find material there which opposes child-adult sex or pedophilia? -Will Beback 23:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

All the material or the research? It might not be out of the question to say that IPCE favors legalized adult-child sex, but what research is this that you claim "favors" adult-child sex? And how does it supposedly "favor" it? Corax 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Teens top child porn viewers, Abused Boys, Battered Mothers, and Male Involvement in Teen Pregnancy, Medical Examination for Sexual Abuse, Response to Bauserman, Medical Findings and Child Sexual Abuse, Child Abuse and Neglect and the Brain, etc. 24.224.153.40 23:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, great. You've answered the first part of the question. Now how do these studies "favor" adult-child sex and pedophilia? Corax 23:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The material on IPCE's website is definitely pro-pedophilia. However the reference isn't about their website, so let's just leave it out. -23:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro-pedophilia? The research says it's good to have a predominant sexual attraction toward prepubescent youths? Or does the research just question widely held beliefs about the pervasive harmfulness of adult-minor sexual contacts? Wording is important in matters like this. Corax 23:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

why we need girl/boychat

Since Girl/BoyChat are "not reliable sources," we can not cite them and include their information in this article. This means important documents and lawsuits like this are not covered here. The links are informative and provide information not found elsewhere in a better format. 24.224.153.40 20:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this important? It's a plaintiff's brief with no reference to what the trial's disposition is. Anybody can file a complaint about anything. · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble)/poll 20:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the only message pertaining to that case. 24.224.153.40 20:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. What else is there that pertains to the case? Peoples' discussions? Or am I missing something? · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble)/poll 21:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

For one, Kevin's description of the events leading up to the lawsuit, his basis for it, this, this, and this, and other messages relating to the incident I'm not going to bother to find (those ones were from BoyWiki). But I only meant to give an example of why Girl/BoyChat are unique resources which are valuable as external links. 24.224.153.40 22:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So it's basically the equivalent of someone's blogging about their ongoing court case, which may or may not be resolved. I don't see how this is any more relevant than somebody's personal blog. · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble)/poll 22:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We no more need these forums than we need to fan forums focussed on some pop star because otherwise our readers will miss out on the latest gossip. If the court documents are relevant to this article I'm sure we can find an appropriate source for them. -Will Beback 22:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically, it's the _only_ record of a very important case debating whether pedophiles should be protected from governmental discrimination based solely on their sexual orientation.

"The first is a small-scale examination of the socio-cultural context of a current lawsuit being pursued in the State of Indiana, which argues for the status of paedophiles or ‘minor-attracted adults’ (MAA) as a discrete community entitled to civil rights and protection as a political minority. This lawsuit has implications for the status of paedophiles across the whole of the Western world, and this research aims to explore these implications for the situation in the UK. A small sample of individuals directly involved in the lawsuit will be interviewed." (Sarah Goode)

But you're missing my point. The news has a curious habit of ignoring activism like this. "Unreliable" websites like GirlChat and BoyChat "are unique resources which are valuable as external links." 24.224.153.40 22:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

24.224.153.40, there is one point that you are missing. This article is well sourced by Wikipedia standards. This topic has many verifiable reliable sources. There are more verifiable reliable sources. If we need court cases, we should get them from reliable sources. They do exist. FloNight ^talk 22:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't. At least, I can't. You can try. 24.224.153.40 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get a grasp on what concepts you think the article is deficient in covering. If it's court cases, then those should be referenced to PACER and placed in Wikisource or something. · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble)/poll 22:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Aside from a fraction of kiddiefucking advocacy, this article is deficient in covering pedophile activism in general. That's understandable, since reliable sources are not easy to find for a subject like this (which is why links to GC/BC are useful). And PACER?? 24.224.153.40 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We are trying to understand. Could you try to be more specific about what is not covered and why it needs to be covered. --FloNight ^talk 23:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable links aren't useful at all, that's why they're not allowed. I'm seriously trying to understand what you feel these forums add that isn't covered in the article. Maybe I should restate my confusion a little more pointedly: I'm still trying to get a grasp on what concepts you think these forums could illuminate that the article is deficient in covering. · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble)/poll 23:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Activism not concerning adult-child sex.
Most of the modern movement. JayW 01:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC) (24)

If the "modern movement" is insufficiently covered in this article, then let's fix the article. Activism that does not concern pedophilia does not belong in this article. -Will Beback 01:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)