Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 12

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 10

READ BEFORE COMMENTING

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pedophile movement/Archive 12 page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

SIGN YOUR EDITS PLEASE!!

A Plea: Please SIGN YOUR EDITS so the discussions can be followed correctly. I can't tell where some comments begin or end.

--DanielCD 00:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for Deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-12-31. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was proposed for deletion and failed to reach a consensus. The deletion discussion is now archived here at Talk:Childlove movement/Deletion_debate_archive. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:49, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as a child i was abused, and i can't say your right at all. I had no consent. and at that age could not have given it, agree or not, its the fact

So, because you were uneducated, it's a fact that children are naturally and universally incompetent? Doesn't make much sense to me. Eboluuuh 00:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:DOES ANYBODY SUPPORT THIS GROUP? i dont like pedophiles nor there group.--SAIKANO!!! 17:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE READ BEFORE COMMENTING: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pedophile activism article.

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Please post to a forum such as MARTIJN, PNVD or LogicalReality, not Wikipedia. --Jim Burton 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Brief history of modern pedophile activism

I'd like to note that three paragraphs of mine under the heading Brief history of modern pedophile activism have been removed twice, along with my referenced primary sources, without any given comment, announcement, or justification here on the discussion page, and that I can't find any reasons for that. Additionally, even all academic degrees I added to the still remaining rest of the section have also been removed.

In the first paragraph, I refer in three sentences to pivotal figurehead of pedophile activism, psychologist and sexuologist Dr. Frits Bernard starting together with activists and scientists of the Dutch branch of Hirschfeld's Wissenschaftlich-Humanitäres Kommitee and others specific pedophile activism in Holland in the late 1930s, why it was connected with the WHK, how this activism ended by the German invasion in 1940, and that hence, the Dutch WHK was disbanded and all its documents destroyed to prevent Nazi investigations.

In the second paragraph, I refer in two sentences to Bernard and others forming the international pedophile activism Enclave kring organization after the war based on former infrastructures of the Dutch branch of the WHK, its self-definition and its purposes as a research and activism organization, its international influence, its international support, and the results of its work.

In the third paragraph, I deal in two sentences with Bernard's 1972 book Sex met kinderen, the fact that it detailed and summarized what I've referred to in my former two paragraphs, and its pivotal founding role of 1970s pedophile activism in Western Europe.

All that with detailed primary source citations for each detail of information presented, and phrased in what I think to be a NPOV, supporting neither side. Plus I added the four primary source scholarly books that I drew this information from to the article's References section.

By doing so, I even made obsolete the first citation needed comment currently appearing in the article.

What's wrong with that? 3 paragraphs comprised of 2-3 sentences each can't be so long as to conflict with the 'briefness' referred to in the headline. Is it the fact that members of the renowned WHK supported pedophile activism? It's a fact that I gave several sources for. Is it the fact the sources I quoted and identified profoundly and accordingly aren't published in English, but other Western languages? Please don't tell me that it makes them any less reliable.

As it is now, this section of the article can't be referred to as a 'history' of specific pedophile activism as the half of its 60 years existence isn't covered at all, which I attempted to do in a very short, very condensed and summarized form. As it is now, all the activity, all the humming and the melting pot of the 1970s comes out of nowhere, a huge mass created all of a sudden without any origin. What is referred to as 'history' is but a highly detailed chronicle of decline. Would you start an article entitled Roman history with the murder of military officer Stilicho in 408 a. D. and then go on and on about Germanic tribes invading Italy because of this?

I hereby accuse the editor(s) responsible for these removals of significant, validified primary source informations of unjustified vandalism and demand that my three paragraphs, the academic degrees I added, and my additions to the References section will be restored. -TlatoSMD 17:51, 30 April 2006 (CEST)

You ask why the material you have recently added to the article has been reverted. Unfortunately, for you, your reputation for vandalism of the Virago and Asian fetish articles preceeds you (the Virago article was subsequently deleted; the Asian fetish matter is documented ad infinitum in the archives of the Asian fetish talk page). Briefly stated, the content you added to the latter article was rejected by consensus (defined as a two thirds majority of users who commented on that page). The page had to be protected and then semi-protected in order to prevent your repeated attempts to add this material. Editors of that page regarded your actions as vandalism.

However, the material you have added to this article is different in kind and therefore (perhaps) does deserve comment. I have reverted it for the following reasons:

It is unencyclopedic (see WP:NOT)
It contains numerous errors
It is overly wordy
It is irrelevant.

Please do not waste the time of the editors of this page. They have lots on their plate and your proven inability to collaborate will not be helpful here. As you persistently seem to fail to understand what Wikipedia is, or how it is produced, you have previously been asked to take your project elsewhere. Please do so now. Sunray 18:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Before you mentioned them here, I didn't even know a Virago and an Asian fetish article existed. Claiming that I contributed to the talk pages of those two is a lie as evidenced by the fact that my nick appears not a single time in the talk pages to those articles, nor their archives. This article on Pedophile activism is the very first and the only article and this article's talk page is the very first and the only talk page I ever contributed to in the English-language Wikipedia. Concerning the further informations you provide and the socio-psychological connotations with at least one of the subjects before mentioning my actual contributions, I must therefore regard your lie as an act of irrational slander adding to my accusation of vandalism, provided it is not based on a simple error on your side. In order to prevent any such slandering, I've just registered my nick to Wikipedia ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TlatoSMD ).

I however did contribute under the same nick as here to the German talk pages on the German Wikipedia of other historiographical articles Ase (English as Æsir), Barbar (English as Barbarian), Klemens Wenzel Lothar von Metternich (English as Klemens Wenzel von Metternich), Slobodan Milosevic (English as Slobodan Milošević), and Heiliges Römisches Reich (English as Holy Roman Empire). These German article talk pages, this one English article on Pedophile activism and its talk page comprise my complete history of Wikipedia participation.

Concerning the reasons you give:

There is no definition whatsoever to be found of the term unencyclopedic you employ in the link you provide, the term itself does not even appear. Therefore, this argument suffers of vagueness due to lack of definition, and you must provide definition in accordance to the link you provided.
I quoted a variety of printed primary sources authored and published by academics and/or people with a completed university education. If you cannot evidence that I quoted these sources incorrectly, you must at least attempt to falsify these informations given therein by employing other sources of an equal or higher authority. Otherwise what you express is a personal, unfounded opinion. You may be entitled to your own opinion, yet you are not entitled to your own facts.
I repeat that I've managed to compress 30 years of complex historical processes into 3 paragraphs of 2-3 sentences each. The author(s) of the current form of this section failed to achieve this brevity for the same amount of time following in number of sentences, number of paragraphs, and amount of screen area used.
I myself gave reasons why I regard my contributions to this article as highly relevant. For your argument of lack of relevance you do not even attempt to falsify these.

I therefore regard all of your provided arguments refuted in their current form. -TlatoSMD 21:56, 30 April 2006 (CEST)

Well, if I am wrong about you being the same individual on those other pages, I will apologize. Nevertheless, your style is remarkably similar. I will stand by my reasons for reverting your additions to the article, however. Perhaps I was being somewhat circumspect in my criticism. The gramatical errors alone are egregious. The paragraphs you added are not suitable for an encyclopedia article. They do not summarize the material well. The references are not well done and detract from the readability of the section. They bring in irrelevant argument (e.g., reference to gay activism). I could go on, but I don't have the time to take this on. That too is similar to the Virago vandal: He wastes people's time. Sunray 21:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for apologizing and toning down your behaviour. I hereby take back my accusation of slandering. I'm also thankful for that you not seem to question the existence of my sources any longer as I'd interpreted your former post.

I admit my use of the English language might be flawed since it's not my native language. However, I see this in itself not as a reason for revertings, in fact when information is presented in a gramatically or orthographically unsound way but considered reliable (which I'd like to put up for debate in my case here on the talk page) it ought be improved in these aspects by editors of better command of the language.

I regard your argument of improper summarizing as a similar matter of form, not information relevance.

I am aware that implementing my references was unusual in that it was not relating to resources available online, and I admit that my way of identifying my sources did not aid in providing a readable text. Therefore, I'd like to ask you guys to educate me on a better, more suitable way of indentifying such offline sources, or link me to an appropriate help article. Similar as your argument on language and proper summarizing, it's a matter of form, not of content significance or relevance, and in the case of information relevance ought be a matter of editing, not reverting.

I'd like to challenge your argument that support for a set of ideas evidenced in a primary source and deemed significance and relevance of this support therein is actually not relevant, especially since we're dealing here with a set of ideas centered upon support, the quotes these informations of support are drawn from are primary sources, and in order to be honest and fair these sources are signified as authored by supporters themselves. In the case of primary sources such as those I employed, it's the most immediate sources we have, i. e. they are closest to the original events, and the authority of these primary sources is increased by academic degrees as demanded by Wikipedia's rules, however neither of this negates the fact that it's supporting sources.

I'd also like to hear other people's opinions on this section of the talk page (I doubt it can be about the matter in its entirety since on this talk page, I only summarized my text in question), especially since this seems to be an active page. -TlatoSMD 00:45, 31 April 2006 (CEST)

Primary sources can be misinterpreted, so they have to be used with great care. Secondary sources are preferred for that reason. For general information on what we allow as sources, please see WP:RS. Also, English-language sources are preferred so that other editors may verify themn easily. -Will Beback 23:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Use sources in English whenever possible. After a bit of searching, here's an online English article by Frits Bernard:

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/dutch_movement_text.htm

I would feel more comfortable if you were to pull quotes from there. Hope that helps. Best, Wzhao553 00:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your IPCE link Wzhao553! The particular 1987 article seems to be an intermediate form between two sources available to me. Looks like my former shrugging away from internet pedophile resources due to my personal bias based on commonly held socio-psychological believes was not helpful in the past (what about those believes here, since pedophile and internet are heavily charged buzzwords in connection?). I'll attempt to adjust my contribution to using those English sources. However, it's undecided as of yet how this will effect the attitude concerning my contribution also considering my grammar, how do I go about finding out? Microsoft Works spell and grammar checker didn't yield any such flaws except when distracted by non-English words.

Thank you for kindly providing that Wikipedia guidelines link Will Beback. I do accept the guideline that secondary sources are to be preferred to primary sources, of course. I'm afraid that secondary sources on specific matters on pedophile activism prior to the 1970s are not available, though of course I'd like to be proven wrong. However, that doesn't mean using primary sources must be banned since it's the only sources we have.

Also, WP guideline Evaluating sources states about primary and secondary sources that both can be reliable.

One might construe a supporting primary source as being of dubious reliabilty (though I'm a bit concerned that this term might have a very broad definition potentially inviting vandalism), however I've attributed the informations in question to its sources as demanded by Wikipedia guidelines for sources of dubious reliabilty. I'd say that this dubious reliability guideline in cases of information relevance also applies to biographies of living people.

I suppose the most pivotal WP guideline for this matter of primary sources here is that concerning Self-published sources in articles about themselves:

Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources.

I attempted to do exactly as proposed in that guideline and claim to have met this aim. I'd also argue that it might be a standard way of compiling information about an organization by employing informations from the organization itself, though of course not using this source exclusively, if possible. Similarly with the WP guideline on Self-published sources in articles about themselves, and also that one of Partisan websites (...should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.)

As on the additional matter of source authority, I quote the WP guidelines on Beware false authority:

Look out for false claims of authority. Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. [...] Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject.

All these criteria of source authority are met in my contribution in question (potentially one might argue about affiliation with academic institutions though, which might be sorted out by further biographical sources and definitions of such institutions). In this context, observing scientific methodology also comes to my mind, however I'm afraid that's out of the question as per WP guideline on original research.

P. S.: Please tell me if I'm too wordy here on the talk page. My problem is that I'm afraid the shorter I make it, the more misinterpretable it could be. -TlatoSMD 02:59, 31 April 2006 (CEST)

I'm done fixing my original contribution, so let me ask again, how to go about this? Directly inserting it in the article, or putting it up for debate here first? Which way might work out with least harm done to the atmosphere among debaters?

Also, I've come across another non-English information and like to ask about its relevance in case it can be validified. In a published interview, Bernard claims (after having been on Dutch TV during the 1970s, other source) he appeared as 'special guest' 'invited by NBC Television' on the Donahue live show on February 5th 1987, freely advocated pedophile activism for one hour straight, supported by a 23 year old male who as a child had been involved in a 'sexual relationship with an adult', and that Donahue was regularly broadcasted 'via 250 TV channels in the US and Canada'. This I think is relevant for several reasons, such as 1987 was a date when pedophile activism already was increasingly under public attack compared to the 1970s situation in Western Europe, and the fact that pedophile activism has always been less active (and arguably less successful) in the US compared to its presence in Western Europe up to the 1980s (in the same interview, Bernard himself regrets significant ignorance in sexual matters in general in the US). -TlatoSMD 13:19, 1 May 2006 (CEST)

You can add a tag like {{globalize/USA}} or {{toofewopinions}} as the first line of the article. (See WP:CSB for examples of the output that the templates produce.) Or, in your edit summary, you could indicate that you are introducing a global viewpoint that may not be familiar to Americans. In my personal opinion, if you provide sufficient warning to the reader about the viewpoint that is being introduced, then your edits will seem more acceptable. --Wzhao553 19:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please insert your new revision directly into the article.

Non-english sources are not favoured on the English Wikipedia, but are perfectly legitimate all the same: feel free to cite them. JayW 21:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In spite of the fact that I've managed to base each of the first four paragraphs in this section on the one before, I'm not happy about this new form of my first paragraph of this section, however I suppose you can sense where I'm going with that first paragraph by the second paragraph's first line. By the first paragraph I'd like to emphasize that Enclave kring was based upon members of Dutch WHK so people will be able to identify where this came from and what it was built upon. Beside that, I'd like to hint to that due to the Netherlands being under the control of Nazi occupation forces, Bernard for five years of his life had to face the contemporary fact that the Nazi enforcement of German Penal Code section 176 was carried out more rigorously and brought more severe consequences upon pedophiles even than the Nazi enforcement of section 175 caused for homosexuals, as written by German historian Burkhard Jellonek in his 1990 book Homosexuelle unterm Hakenkreuz ("Homosexuals during the reign of the swastika"). -TlatoSMD 07:39, 2 May 2006 (CEST)

A reason to include more view-points

In spite of the fact that already many sources have been quoted to represent sets of ideas, I feel many of them appear to be overtly simplifying sources preventing insight by only naming conclusions but not explaining argumentations, reasonings, or analyses leading up to those. I've intended to sketch a more accurate, in-depth portrayal of ideas held and promoted by 1970's pedophile activism in Western Europe in the first paragraph of the section Scientific papers' impacts on pedophile activism, and the fact that this edit of mine has not been reverted but only a {{Fact}} tag has been attached to it seems to indicate that this in-depth description is not bordering irrelevance. Therefore, I have introduced a {toofewopinions} box heading the article as suggested by Wzhao553, even though one might argue that to an extent it could be replaced with a {limitedgeographicscope} or a {globalize/USA} as these come also into play since the majority of pedophile activism took place in Western Europe and as a result of that has never been recognized on such a wide scale in the US during the time when it was most active. -TlatoSMD 07:44, 2 May 2006 (CEST)

Continuing problems with recent additions

I have attempted to begin editing your (IP 80.171.188.253) additions to the article under the "Brief History" section. It is, however, much too detailed for a general encyclopedia article. I request that you attempt to summarize it and do what you can to make it more readable. It might have been better to do that here. German writing style is considerably different than English and an encyclopedia is not an academic text. Also, please avoid making broad generalizations such as "gaining support in the gay activist scene in New York." The material needs a great deal more work before it will be acceptable. I won't revert it if you will agree to simplify it and make it more readable. Sunray 15:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said myself, I'm not happy about what the first paragraph now looks like and thus fleshed out the ideas behind it (the fact of using existing WHK infrastructures and problems due to potential Nazi persecutions) above so other editors might summarize it according to that. "Gaining support in the gay activist scene" was no broad generalization that I made but a direct quote from Bernard. I could have added 'prominent figures in...' at the beginning as that's what he specifically writes, however that would've made the quote even longer. As based on my description of my first three paragraphs above, I was asked to use English sources for them so I could re-insert them, so I suppose it can't be the mere informations I introduced are irrelevant in themselves. Again, I in no way claim infallibility concerning the language and if people feel like fixing that language I use, I have no problem with that. -TlatoSMD 20:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My point about the "gaining support" statement is that it really doesn't matter what Bernard thinks. He is not a sociologist who has researched this particular issue. He has a point of view that he wants to put forward. However, there has been extensive discussion of the matter withiin the gay activist community and I would say that his view is not widely held. Therefore one couldn't reasonably include his point of view unless it was clear that is marginal and given proper historical context. This would need a section rather than a throw-away line. Meanwhile, it is a generalization that is not supportable as it is currently referenced. If you are going to put up this kind of material, please understand that it will be edited. Perhaps you should try to work with that. Sunray 18:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not argue against you removing those 6 words, only that I myself authored a broad statement instead of simply shortening a quote. -TlatoSMD 20:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you have already cleaned up my first paragraph. Thank you. -TlatoSMD 20:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

POV paragraph?

"By the 1970s, Bernard's Enclave kring had established a rich variety of scientific and social movement activities concerning pedophilia and advocacy of adult-child sexual activities in the Netherlands and to a lesser degree in Western Europe."

Lot's of words and phrases in the above paragraph have connotations in favour of the so called "Childlove" movement. For example "Rich variety", "Social movement" and "Advocacy". Not only content but also tone can be POV. Signed Timothy Scriven.

I would argue that "social movement" is properly worded to be sufficiently neutral, and "advocacy" in its usage is on the safe side as well, though other words would remove controversy. However, remember that objectivity in this article is not achieved by using words against the so-called "child-love" movement either. I believe regardless of the words used, most people will find the subject matter offensive and repulsive.

I would like to comment further and ask why you consider "social movement" a biased word? I see no way that these pair of words can possibly be connotative to being pro-child-adult-sex. Social evolution would be biased, social degradation would be bias... but movement is unspecific. Simply because the term "social" is utilized does not lend the phrase to be pro-pedophilia. Social movements can be both positive and negative. I recommend you look at the social movement article here on wikipedia (sorry, I don't know how to link). You will find the definition of social movement is neither positive or negative. Nazism is a social movement, as is women's rights. Using the term in either regard is not advocating Nazism or condemning women's rights.

Signed Michel Bergeron (AmonHarakhte)

The messed-up "References" section

Is someone going to cleanup this awful, awful section? Cite every note properly. Skinnyweed 17:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems it was me forgetting one slash. Fixed that. TlatoSMD 19:46, 3 May 2006 (CEST)

It's not just that, it's the fact that they are not named, just numbers. Skinnyweed 18:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Skinnyweed. This section is not formatted correctly. For an example of a properly formated "References" section, see the "Notes" section of Native Americans in the United States. Major work needs to be done. Sunray 18:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I found about 90 percent or more of them to be like for this article before I started adding more in the same fashion recently. Gonna check about your link. -TlatoSMD 20:16, 3 May 2006 (CEST)

Here's another one with academic references: Albatross. Sunray 19:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a preference for Harvard or footnotes? Both are used sometimes even within the same sentence and it is quite unhelpful. Kotepho 18:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

By 'Harvard', I suppose you mean naming author, date, and page in brackets? I used that only when no online resource was available for a specific information, otherwise I used footnotes linking to online sources. The latter practice had been established before I started editing sections of this article, however I found I couldn't link to offline material, so I used the Harvard way as it had been used before by a few other editors in the Views and strategies of pedophile activists section. -TlatoSMD 23:50, 6 May 2006 (CEST)

Yes, that is what I mean by Harvard citation. There is nothing wrong with using a footnote for something you do not have a URL for though. Kotepho 22:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in a cumbersome, hours-long editing marathon, I've made it to properly wikify 90 percent or more of the footnotes, completing them. I've also removed a few dead links and even found the particular 1999 US Congress Bill condeming Rind et al, properly linking to the exact PDF (the original unnamed note linked to a temporary cache search long since gone, actually). However, might someone please check what went wrong about footnotes #11, 12, and the first one in the section Controversy and public reactions... as to behave that wonky? And what is a .wp file such as that one used as a source in footnote #30? Furthermore, I'd like to suggest removing source #31 as it's too similar to source #32 (one might assume it's actually two transscriptions of the same document) which is much better formatted and both are used to validate one and the same (set of) fact(s) that are found in each of them. Any objections? -TlatoSMD 18:11, 9 May 2006 (CEST)

.wp is word perfect maybe? I pulled this text from it " COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Bray, Overton and Senior Judge Duff. JOHN DAVID SMITH MEMORANDUM OPINION Record No. 1546 97 4 by JUDGE CHARLES H. DUFF DECEMBER 1, 1998 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STAFFORD COUNTY James W. Haley, Jr. Judge Jeffery Garth Edmunds, on brief), for appealant. blah blah John David Smith, appellant, appeals his convictions..." On 31 and 32 they seem to be two seperate documents from the appeal. I haven't had the chance to look at them closure, but I don't believe them to be duplicates. I'm not sure what is wrong with 11, but I fixed the others. Kotepho 17:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Length of article

This article is becoming rather long and cumbersome. For example, the section now titled "Overview of modern pedophile activism," with recent additions is now much more than a "brief history." I propose that that section be moved to a new article (titled "History of pedophile activism") with a short summary and link to replace it in the "Overview..." section. This is an accordance with the guidelines on Writing better articles (see subsection on "Size"). Sunray 19:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea. I've fancied it myself, but didn't want to pressure creating more articles on this topic on anyone. -TlatoSMD 22:38, 3 May 2006 (CEST)

Okay, since nothing has happened on this matter during the past few days I've moved the section's content to its own article now by copy-paste and replaced it with a summary here. I've made a first try at roughly breaking the new article into sections, however I couldn't think of a proper introduction without simply repeating the one from here, so help is needed, also to further wikify the new article itself. -TlatoSMD 17:25, 8 May 2006 (CEST)

That section looks better now. Major editing is still required to get this article down to a reasonable size. Sunray 19:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced statements?

I'd like whom recently categorized this article as containing unsourced statements to tell me which statements they'd like to be sourced, and I'll try to find sources for them. I suggest that if no-one will object within a week this article will be removed from that category. -TlatoSMD 17:54, 11 May 2006 (CEST)

A week is quite generous to me. Skinnyweed 16:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Many child abuse prevention advocates, law enforcement officials, and journalists note that the movement's claim of separating advocacy from abuse does not always hold true. Members of the movement often respond by claiming that high-profile child abusers were not members of the movement, or that the movement could have even helped them avoid crossing the line into abuse. ^{[citation needed]}

Charles Jaynes, also allegedly a member of NAMBLA [1], was convicted of murdering a 10-year-old boy then having intercourse with his body; the parents of the boy sued NAMBLA and its steering committee [2], alleging that Jaynes wrote in his diary that participating in NAMBLA and reading NAMBLA publications helped him overcome his inhibitions about having sex with young boys ^[1]. (See also Curley v. NAMBLA.)

Are the statements that were tagged (see the {{citation needed}} {{Fact}} tag). Kotepho 17:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a source, there are plenty of others as it's a well-known case. -Will Beback 20:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the statements in question are now sourced, I ask this article to be de-classified as unsourced. -TlatoSMD 00:00, 13 May 2006 (CEST)

Once all of the [citation needed] tags are gone it is automatically out of the category "Articles with unsourced statements" or whatever they are calling it now. I might have missed one when I scanned the article though... time to Control F for them. Kotepho 15:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"Many members of the childlove movement are also opposed to the current state of sexual education in many countries. ^{[citation needed]} They argue that enforced ignorance and abstinence only forces those young people who wish to explore their sexuality to do so in secret, making them more susceptible to unsafe environments and coercive relationships. John Coleman of the Trust for the Study of Adolescence says:" from the literature section.

"These categories should be constituted by such factors as"

This large section of text is unreferenced, and very original. As an essay, we can agree that whomever wrote this makes sense, but encyclopedias are interested in how things are categorized by published sources, not how they should be or might be.

"These categories should be constituted by such factors as

coercive, aggressive, oppressive, and/or violent behaviour vs. the lack of such behaviour,
simple consent (i. e. agreement, willing; a few put informed consent here instead) vs. the lack of it
whether the adult involved could actually be diagnosed as a pedophile in the medical sense,
biological age of the child involved,
incest vs. non-incest,
anal/vaginal intercourse vs. the lack of these penetrating acts, and which was the penetrating party if any,
age disparity,
biological sex of the parties involved,
common social relation between the involved parties both on an individual and a wider, non-individual scale,
which party initially brought up sexual aspects and behaviour and under what circumstances,
prior believes and values held and experiences made by the child concerning sexuality in general (if any),concerning sexual acts between members of the involved sexes (if any), and concerning adult-child sex interactions (if any).

These effects of adult-child sex interactions themselves should be categorized as primary detrimental effects. Secondary detrimental effects

According to pedophile activists, aforementioned prior believes and values are supposed to be interdependent with and easily subject to manipulation by 'after the fact' actions taken by intervening authorities and peer groups as soon as this fact becomes known, thus play a role in secondary detrimental effects caused by such measures, and allegedly these secondary detrimental effects are neither accordingly distinguished into a seperate category from primary effects due to sexual interactions. Pedophile activists point to studies suggesting that secondary detrimental effects might frequently be significantly more negative and severe than the effects even of most intergenerational sexual interactions.

Secondary detrimental effects vs. False Memory Syndrome

Though often mixed up, this secondary effects issue is not identical to the False Memory Syndrome which is mostly adults becoming aware of supposedly repressed memories through means of therapeutical work (see Recovered Memory Therapy), although pedophile activists claim similar patterns by means of manipulation can occur during the same time as secondary effects. Simply put, the difference is changing attitudes about actual events and/or causing detriments by means of labelling and sometimes even maltreatment by authorities (including relatives) and peer groups during and after investigations and councelling on the one hand (secondary effects), and the fabrication of memory and conviction concerning events that never happened on the other (False Memory). Via socio-psychological pressure and labelling either way, children would thus suffer secondary effects by adopting new values concerning events and their own identities.

Claim of coercion

A third claim by some pedophile activists is that children during police investigations would be coerced against their will into testifying about events that the children themselves don't believe to have happened. This would be the less severe case of what otherwise would become False Memory Syndrome due to basically manipulative coercion."

It is possible that these arguments were taken from some published source that the editor did not mention or include. But especially in the "impacts of scientific papers" this large body of definitions cannot stand unsourced. Saying "Pedophile activists claim" is not enough. Remember that this article itself is over-long. Being that there is more than the recommended amount of text on the page to start, removing unreferenced and perhaps in part unreferencable material for review here is justified, I think. Lotusduck 19:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that just as with those links I added at the end of the first paragraph of this section, I won't have a hard time sourcing those statements via IPCE, just give me a few days. -TlatoSMD 04:01, 24 May 2006 (CEST)

This is a large amount of text that is arguably not central to an article describing pedophile activism. It's a detailed argument that only says "Some pedophiles purport that the counseling, therapy and litigation following adult-child sexual contact is more detrimental than the sexual contact.(see False Memory)" The intense detail into that argument goes outside of describing pedophile activism. This is the size of some stub on it's own page, and it certainly doesn't belong in the "reaction to scientific papers". If this level of detail into this argument is neccessary, add it to another page on the effects of what the law knows as child sex abuse, because beyond my example sentance, it isn't central to this article. Lotusduck 19:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dividing and reducing

While reccomendations for size says that the scope of some topics justifies the added reading time, articles above 30 and especially above 50kb should probably be divided. The size of this article does make it difficult to edit, and harms it's ease of reading. Surely, with the amount of redundancy in this article, some sections are worthy of their own article and not wholly central to understanding pedophile activism. What do YOU think?Lotusduck 16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong support. Right now, the article is quite heavy to digest, and falls between chairs. It fails to give a coherent treatment of the activism itself because of its verbosity, yet also fails to present a complete set of the pro/con arguments used by the activists, etc.. There needs to, at least, be a main article (current activism), one about the history, and one about the arguments. Adding one relating to the mentioned "support group" topic would also be good, and ethnocultural(?) differences probably belong in a seperate article, as well. Zuiram 07:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

References

While many references are in the neat numbered system, many are not. While the article itself has some very keen references, large blocks of text remain unreferenced.

IPCE documents of pedophile activist self publisehd books and pamphlets, have in the past been accepted as references on this page. Clearly now, there is no need to search far and wide for information on this topic, in fact, there is more than can be comfortably read, loaded and edited in this article alone. Verifiability says:

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers."

It also says

". Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so."

Activists are neither journalists nor professional researchers. When activists write something notable, often enough a scientific journal or popular journal will pick up on it. That may seem harsh for info you might think we could come to a consensus to accept and ignore the policy, but these are policies set up by the people that created and run wikipedia. There are other wikis, like wikiinfo, that aren't as big or as important as wikipedia, because wikipedia has standards like these.

Sections or information whose only reference is a self published newsletter or book must instead reference a trusted published source that discusses that book, newsletter or blog. If appropriate references cannot be found, the information should be removed. Lotusduck 18:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

more uncited material

For example, topless sunbathing, they note, is legal in some countries and treated as exhibitionism in others. Many pedophile activists argue that classification of pedophilia as a mental illness would be motivated by moral views based upon learned aesthetical perception, as well as by factual or imaginary detriments based upon adult-child sex interaction while these factors should be considered irrelevant for this classification. Mental illness classification should be constituted by etiology instead, i. e. the origins of pedophilia in the medical sense. In accordance with contemporary counterculture zeitgeist, most of 1970s Western Europe pedophile activism, especially Bernard, argued according to Freud's psychological theory of infant sexuality being polymorphously perverse (or, simply put, multi-sexual) in the beginning and that by socialization, this sexual potential would be more and more restricted and hence repressed bit by bit, especially by the super-ego based upon socio-cultural values. Pedophilia would thus be normal and not a mental illness as every human being would be pedophile in the beginning but most people would 'unlearn' this specific capability of sexual desire among a variety of others. Other activists suggest a genetical theory (thus completely eliminating any constituting mental factors), either to that pedophilia would be based on individual mutation, or that it was created by evolution serving a purpose in nature that could well be fulfilled by only a limited number of individuals in each generation. Especially advocates of the evolution theory claim that pedophilia would be fundamentally different from any other form of adult sexuality as to be not equal but complementary with childhood development.

This stuff is pretty general stuff about understanding that is repeated at the beginning of the article, and in the scientific papers section. Much of it, especially the evolution stuff is very weasel wordy, "some say, these here might say" etcetera. It's also overly technical and hard to understand.I am not against something similar to this being put in, however this section is redundant and flawed to the point I would rather you work from the citation and ignore this writing in the new version. Lotusduck 16:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Emphasizing the fact that the common use of pedophile differs from the medical one. Virtually all pedophile activists demand a more specific differentiation in using the terms pedophile and sex offender against a prepubescent child, especially since pedophiles reportedly are a small minority among said offenders compared to the absolute numbers and "there are generally large characteristical distinctions between the two types [situational and preferential] of offenders" (Abel, Mittleman, and Becker 1985 and Ward et al. 1995, on both facts see pedophilia). For example, in a paper entitled Special Problems with Sexual Abuse Cases, Underwager and Wakefield write, "Although the terms are often used interchangeably, a distinction must be made between 'sex offender against a minor' [a prepubescent child] and 'pedophile.' The former refers to a criminal sexual behavior and the latter to an anomalous sexual preference". Many ephebophiles (or pederasts) object to the term childlover since they are attracted only to adolescents, whom they consider to be physically and emotionally adults rather than children. However, those attracted to adolescents also often use the more specific terms "boylover" and "girllover" although these are increasingly used identifyingly since the 1980s by pedophiles themselves as well. Similarly to the pedophile and sex offender issue, many activists demand a more accurate differentiation between adult-child sex interactions and incest since the advent of Recovered Memory Therapy. Some further demand a differentiation between same-sex and opposite-sex adult-child sex interactions, increasingly so since the 1980s.

Citing scientific research papers on child sexuality and childhood development. Many pedophile activists point to studies by Alfred Kinsey, Floyd Martinson, Alayne Yates, William Masters, and others that show evidence of sexual response, masturbation and sex play with others in young children. Given evidence that children are sexual and that some seek sex play, pedophile activists argue children should be able to consent to sexual activity with any other partner, including adults. Thus many pedophile activists argue against age of consent legislation. The exact interpretation and validity of studies of child sexuality has been called into question, especially since active research into this matter is de facto illegal. See Kinsey Reports#Methodology. Also see Scientific papers' impacts on pedophile activism.

Referring to biological acceleration. Many pedophile activists refer to biological acceleration, i. e. earlier occurrence of adolescence as observed during the 20th century. This prominently includes secondary sex characteristics (such as body hair growth and vocal mutation), body growth, menstruation, and physical ability to procreate of both sexes. Since 1930, an acceleration rate of circa half a year per decade has been observed, so that a 1930 physical age of 17.6 years equals a physical age of 13.4 years in 1980. Given this fact, many early advocates of the gay movement and sexual liberation supported what today would be regarded as adult-child sex interactions. For example, during the 1920s Magnus Hirschfeld supported a legal Age of Consent of 16 (which would be 12 today) for same-sex activities. When Austria-Hungarian physician Richard von Krafft-Ebing coined the term Paedophilia erotica in 1886, he even limited it to a kind of sexual attraction towards minors below the contemporary age of 14 (today 10-11). However, Western penal law codes concerning sexual activities have generally not been adapted to this fact, especially not to its continuing existence at least up to the 1980s, and its particular rate.

Basically anything saying "some" or "many" pedophile activists, or even "some" or "many" journalists, researchers or people, is poor style and conveys little information. Saying "Pedophile activists like Brongersma" for info based on his works is okay (probably.) Even paragraphs that talk about scientific papers, like some of the above, need verification for their central idea, that many pedophile activists argue as these paragraphs describe. Some info that I have not yet taken out will be once I read their sources and determine if they are self published. If and when you find published sources for any of the above claims, please write clearly and concise, um, ly. This page just got a lot more readable and editable, now being 50kb. I guess technically it's 30+ not 50+ now. Doesn't almost complying with guidelines feel good? Lotusduck 16:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Netherlands Pedophile Party

Shouldn't some information about NVD be included?A.Z. 22:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Pro Vs. Anti Pedophilia

The pedophilia article is splintered into a Pro Pedophilia Article and an Anti Pedophilia Article. For the benefit of the readers, they should be made aware of this fact at the beginning of the article, so that they can freely choose to read and learn about pedophilia from either the Pro or Anti article. 69.137.223.3 00:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

69.137.223.3, you really nailed the subject, as far as I'm concerned the real issue with all that underage sex non-sence is this, the entire debate has been split in a Pro VS Anti, and so anyone who has Anti views his automatically righteous, and everyone disagreeing with the Anti group is automatically Pro, which is an untenable position, and if you have the bad luck of being labeled as being of the Pro group, not only are your views, whatever they may be, will be compared to the vilest of baby-raper, but your yourself will suffer the extreme ostracisation equivalent of having been convicted of raping kids

I just don't see how there can be any kind of civilised debate of this issue in this kind of atmosphere, every argument can be won this way

Person A: "I claim that there may be a possibility that we as a society, are wrong about people who are over 18 and had sex with people under 18" Person B: "BABY RAPER AAAHAHHH, GET HIM, WE'LL HANG HIM ON THE NEAREST TREE !!!!!!!11111one"

unless I am mistaken, this is pretty much how witch hunts worked but hey, Person B's position is reinforced by the flailing arms "think-of-the-children" philosophy of parents everywhere so it's not going away anytime soon, as we all know, parents would rather sacrifice 2 innocents out of every suspected child abuser, than risk a single one being "out there" (which in parent mentally means, right there on your front yard waiting for you to look around)

well in any case I won't take any chances of being labeled of a member of one side or the other and will return to my shed in the wood, talking to no one and shooting trespassers ! ;)

216.113.96.62 04:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

extreme bias

just thought i would mention the extreme bias of this page. it appears that no one who isn't a pedophile or does not tacitly support the rights of adults to have sex with children has reviewed this page at all. as it is, i came upon it by accident and found that the overwhelming "evidence" presented on the page is in favor of encouraging children to engage in sex acts with adults, because it's "good for them."

i shall have to come back later and find sources for my points, but here they are:

1) you cannot engage in sex with a young child without a certain amount of tearing. i think the page itself even mentions this, but is somewhat written off as no big deal. it takes an enormous amount of self-centeredness to see that injuring anyone during sex, child or adult, is no big deal.

2) sex is not in maslow's hierarchy of needs. and that is what those who really care for the well being of the child more than their own gratification should be focused on. what a child needs more than anything is stability, trust, and a nurturing environment. not sex with adults. (wikipedia source: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Maslow_hierarchy_of_needs#Physiological_needs)

thanks for listening, BRBX

Read what that article says you're linking to: "Maslow also places sexual activity in this category [...]". Furthermore, if you'd read the part of this article on pedophile activism closely, you'd realize that Maslow's hierarchy is used completely out of context of child sexuality. What refering to it is used for instead is what the pedophile movement tends to supply on a social level for its adult members. --TlatoSMD, 11:01, 25. June 2006 (CEST)

"you cannot engage in sex with a young child without a certain amount of tearing." Depending on how you define "young child," the veracity of this can swing either way; it's not true if you mean "anyone under 12," though. And you should know that most adult-child sex advocates define "sex" as "sexual activity," not "vaginal intercourse."JayW 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither "anal intercourse", for that matter. If we go for instance by Brongersma, Bernard, Lautmann, Baurmann then penetrating ani or vaginae is no issue of paedophilia as a mental state, at the very least getting penetrated oneself would be. --TlatoSMD, 11:24, 27. June 2006 (CEST)

Maslow's hierarchy shouldn't have been brought up here as it (though, admittedly, not explicitly) refers to human adults; or at least, 'sexual intimacy' between adults and children falls outside the scope of the hierarchy. JayW was sly enough to bypass this fact. Sly, I say, as I do agree with BRBX that this article is extremely biased towards the libertine - and I do mean libertine ('do what you will'), not libertarian ('do what you will but harm none'). It looks like a steaming pile of subterfuges from grown men who are simply craving. At the very least there should be a paragraph on pedophile INactivism, i.e. celibacy, if the wellbeing of children is really an important issue.

Collideascope 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am neither a paedophile, nor do I tacitly support the rights of adults to have sex with children, as BRBX claims. But I assume he meant to be insulting the article, though his words were directed at the readers. I just bumped into the article from an internal link. I find that it does a good job of what it tries to do, which is to be a neutral article about the activism. It presents these people's views, their history, and so forth. It should be revised for readability, but this is a pretty good article. There is a difference between "X says Y is so" and saying "Y is so", you know.

An article about the Holocaust (just to beat everyone to the reductio) should factually present the events, prevailing attitudes and so forth associated with that topic. I presume it does so, without having read it. By extension of your argument, the article shouldn't talk about any of that at all.

That said, there actually are celibate paedophiles. Most of them are, in fact. For instance, Dr. Trond-Viggo Torgersen publicly admitted to that orientation after 6 years as the Minister of Child Affairs in Norway, commenting that his love for children prevented him from harming them in that way (his words, I'm trying not to bring any opinions of my own into this). He continues to be involved with children in what you might describe as a labour of love, in a positive sense. He has also expressed strong support for current legal-age legislation. Essentially a perfect example of what you're talking about, except he doesn't advocate tolerance for sexual relations, since most people around here (.no) seem to agree that your preference only matters if you act on it.

There are some fairly solid studies out there that strongly suggest that most CSA is perpetrated by people who prefer kids for the simple reason that they are easier to coerce than adults; pragmatic reasons, in other words, not a sexual preference. The overlap between those with the preference and those that commit CSA should, statistically speaking, exist, but there has been posited little data to support the notion that the prevalence of crime is higher among paedophiles as a general group. :I feel that this is one point where either the activists (if the article is accurately reproducing their point of view) or the article (if not) needs to be clearer: is the activism movement centered on tolerance for the orientation, or tolerance for acting on it? Is there an imbalance between the camps in their views? These two things are clearly orthogonal to each other, just as the issue of rape is orthogonal to the issue of age (note that I'm not getting into the informed consent issue here, which is why I explicitly stated rape).

The wiring required to be preferentially attracted to prepubescents would presumably be orthogonal to the wiring required to act to the serious detriment of the object of your affections (inarguably, in the modern western world, trauma is a fairly prevalent long-term outcome of child-adult sexual relations, regardless of whether this is intrinsic or an artifact of something else). And being unable to control your own sexuality is orthogonal to those two again, and distinctly pathological.

Also, the article needs to more clearly distinguish between the groups that support prepubescent sex and those who support

peripubescent sex. Zuiram 08:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not define those points as deserving of the headline "extreme bias." Though I will agree the article is more one-sided than it should be, your proposals would only further the bias.

As with any article, the idea is to be objective and unbiased. The most viable method of doing that is by presenting both sides rather than trying to edit the facts and words to appease both sides. Compromise will not occur - most people are against violating a child, and those that are for will fight tooth and nail for that right - so bickering senselessly will resolve nothing.

The anger and bias of both sides need to be represented respectfully in this article. The views of either party need to be shown and explained in full detail with proper citations of medical records on either side (there will be doctors and scientists siding with pro-pedophilia or whatever you want to call it). So, if anyone isn't getting my point, basically, we need to add to the paragraph about adult-child sex and its lack of impact on a child, that other doctors disagree and say various this and that are affected as cited here, etc. And add that while the pedophiles think the damage is non-existant and that a child has the mental where with all to decide, the remainder show evidence that adult-child sex can tear skin, cause diseases, death, and various mental illnesses.

Signed Michel Bergeron (AmonHarakhte)

citation of kinsey

alfred kinsey should no longer be cited as a reliable source of data on human sexual behavior. his methodology was extremely flawed -- the large number of case studies could not make up for the fact that:

1) he used the sample groups that were available to him -- although he attempted to do what he thought was a cross-section of american society, with all age groups, income brackets and cultural groups represented, he failed to do so. nearly all of his interview subjects were white, and many of them were college students, drifters, and gay men he met at clubs. this was not due to any deliberate attempts to skew the results on his part -- they were merely the only people who would answer his surveys in the repressive early 20th century. much better data on human sexuality is available today, probably due in part to kinsey's breaking open the victorian mindset, and definitely because people are more apt to talk about their sexual preferences/behaviors nowadays.

2) particularly suspect is his data on childhood sexuality. like the case to go to war in iraq, all his data on childhood sexuality came from a single person, in this case a self-identified pedophile who presented what he thought was enjoyment on part of the hundreds of children he had sex with.

source: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001347052

thank you, BRBX

Kinsey is now a very old source. His viewpoint on the subject is not a mainstream viewpoint. Therefore Kinsey's work should not be used to back up a scientific claim. Citing Kinsey to defend the so called “child love” movement is rather like creationist cherry picking, convoluted self justification for an already held viewpoint. Signed Timothy Scriven.

_________________

To riff on Timothy's assessment, anyone who resorts to data that is fifty years old is doing so for two reasons: 1) no further data has been obtained since then, or 2) no study since then jives with the opinion of the author. My sense is that the latter is the case here. There are thousands of scientific and social studies, be they in print or in online archives like JSTOR, that provide up to date data on just about every facet of our world and its pet hamster. To choose outdated material over this infinite body of resources, in lieu of the fact that it is available at one's fingertips, suggests that the current scholarly consensus contradicts the agenda of the author. -- The Monk in the Sand.

Does Britannica support this opinion?

I found this interesting paragraph while reading through a Britannica article (gasp): (From the "Effects of early conditioning" section of their "Human sexual behavior" article; see here)

[A few children have] atypical sexual experiences, such as witnessing or hearing sexual intercourse or having sexual contact with an older person. The effects of such atypical experiences depend upon how the child interprets them and upon the reaction of adults if the experience comes to their attention. Seeing parental coitus is harmless if the child interprets it as playful wrestling but harmful if he considers it as hostile, assaultive behaviour. Similarly, an experience with an adult may seem merely a curious and pointless game, or it may be a hideous trauma leaving lifelong psychic scars. In many cases the reaction of parents and society determines the child's interpretation of the event. What would have been a trivial and soon-forgotten act becomes traumatic if the mother cries, the father rages, and the police interrogate the child.

Interesting! JayW 14:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. The stance in this paragraph is decidedly anti-pedophile as the choice is between trauma and trivial act - neither of which, I hope you agree, a child should experience.

Collideascope 15:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Horrendously confusing subsection

The article subsection "Claiming pedophile activism, feminism, gay activism, and partly racial minorities would be dependent upon each other." is confusing. The sentences are much too long for easy reading, context is insufficient, and it probably breaks undue weight guidelines by being so long compared to the other subsections. In addition, it is one-sided, not even mentioning the opinions of any other group than the pedophiles on the matter. Since this point is (as best I can gather) supposed to be based on scientific research and studies, it would be nice if we knew what the scientists who came up with the theories thought, whether they agreed or disagreed with the application of their ideas, etc. From the manner it is written in, I would normally suspect original research, but it does seem to have some citations along with it. --tjstrf 10:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge Abolition of age of consent laws

A new article, Abolition of age of consent laws, appears to mostly overlap with this article. Therefore I propose that they be combined. -Will Beback 02:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Looked at the article and agree with merger. We need to keep a close watch on these articles due to trolling and vandalism. Anything extra and unneeded makes it harder to monitor. --FloNight ^talk 02:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There are 31 sections in this article, only 2 of which relate to pedophile activism. That's hardly an overlap. I think the articles should remain separate. BLueRibbon 22:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep seperate. The arguments on the AOC removal page are mostly unrelated to pedophile activism, but are rather based in legal tradition. --tjstrf 22:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I personally think the two articles, while sharing mutual goals, are not entirely equal. The Childlove Movement is much more than simple age of consent reform, which is a purely legal matter. The CL Movement is more along the lines of a sexual-social reform movement (which happens to be striving for AOC reform as part of its platform). Childlove deals with the mindsets of the people in society to accept that children are sexual beings and it's not automatically a bad thing when adults and minors interact sexually, depending on the minor's ability to consent, and the roles which the adult and the minor share in the relationship, (i.e., mentors, "big-brothers" and teachers); current social roles rarely allow this because of hysteria. The end result of this would not only lower the age of consent, but it would result in a more realistic, tolerant, and biologically correct way of looking at sexuality as a whole, including minor-attracted-adults. If anything, AOC Reform should be merged with this article, but the current uptight political climate would not allow for it to happen.--Rookiee Revolyob 06:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What? Merge in Initiatives to raise the age of consent? That's like merging Pro-life into Planned Parenthood! If anything, Initiatives to raise/lower/abolish the age of consent would all be one big article, seperate from this one. --tjstrf 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You've got a point about that one. I'll change the merge target to Age of consent. -Will Beback 03:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

While much more logical, I'm not sure that's the best option either, at least for the initiatives to lower. If you read the Age of Consent article, you'll notice that it has been neatly and purposefully subdivided, as is true with many important or complex subjects. However, merging initiatives to lower and initiatives to raise into, say, Initiatives to modify the age of consent, might be in order, and could help with the whole POV issue in initiatives to lower as well. --tjstrf 03:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me very much which article these go into, so long as they are merged. It is unneccessary to have so many sub-articles. Do what you think best and I'll support you. -Will Beback 05:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose merging the article. This covers detailed info specifically on what is termed the childlove movement by its advocates. A merger would result in losing most of the more in-depth info here. -Neural 11:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The age of consent is only the legal aspect of the issue and the scope of pedophile activism and this certain article cannot be restricted to this frame. --Behemoth 18:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose merging the article. We are talking about two different arguments. -Gurghet 21:54, 30 Agosto 2006

Oppose. Although pedophiles are loud proponents of dropping the age of consent, it cannot be assumed that all positions which support this are pedophile positions. Radical politics comes in many forms. Age of consent laws often make child-child sexuality or teen-teen sexuality illegal. Many people may oppose this state of affairs without basing their arguments primarily on the rights of pedophiles to have access to children. Without pedophile rights as a primary reason for supporting the abolition of the age of consent, it cannot rightly be said to be pedophile activism. If you need an illustration: In Ontario, some years ago, a girl of 12 years old was charged with sexual abuse of a minor, her friend aged 11, after a sleep over that got a little exploratory. The 11yo girl talked about it with her mother, who went to the police, etc. The case proceeded on the grounds of a technicality --the age of consent-- without any regard to the contents of the exploration, which by all accounts was not abusive or coercive. Under such circumstances it is reasonable for people who do not have any interest in pedophile rights to question the age of consent laws. Therefore, the page on abolishing the age of consent should not be combined with the page on pedophile activism. 66.130.41.29 16:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Lowering the age of consent isn't a huge focus in my own activism - most of the time I'm only defending my/our rights to freedom of speech and expression! Saying that all we care about as ChildLovers is making it legal to have sex with kids is both POV and false. Silent War 10:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. These articles are fundamentally different. There are other reasons for abolishing the age of consent than pedophile activism. Zachorious 07:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Name Objection

Once upon a time, when this article was first conceived, the name of it was "Childlove Movement". For the longest time, this name was not debated nor argued against as much as the merits of the article itself. At some point unbeknowest to me during 2005, the name of the article was changed to "Pedophile Activism". I argue that this name is incorrect and that it be changed back to "Childlove Movement". Here are my reasons why:

Pedophiles [are] only a part of the people who are involved with the movement. It is known that the terms "boylove" and "girllove" are given to the ethos of love, mentorship, and platonic sexual relationships with those before AND after puberty. The current clinical definition of a pedophile is one who is exclusively sexually attracted to someone under the stage of puberty, but evidence shows that many of the men and women involved with the Childlove Movement are in fact ephebophiles, (i.e.: People attracted to teens with pubic hair, more developed bodies, boys who are capable of ejaculation, and girls who can conceive offspring.) Society cannot give into the current mass-hysteria that "anyone who is attracted to anyone under 16 is a pedophile", because that is just simply untrue. The condition relies on biological physical attributes rather than man-made age measurement. Seeing as the current definition of pedophilia under the DSM-IV is very limited in scope, that would mean the majority of "pedophiles" are indeed not pedophiles, which makes the current title of the article incorrect.
"Pedophile activism" can be seen merely as one subsect of the Childlove Movement. While it is true that pedophiles would most definately gain the ability to have consentual sexual relationships with minors of a younger age than currently allowed, the movement itself spans a much greater range of ideals and goals than simply just sexual, which makes the current title of the article incorrect.
The Childlove Movement is also greatly concerned with and parallels greatly with most child-rights-advocacy groups. These groups advocate the changing of laws and views in society to allow people of younger age to have more social rights earlier on. Much of this advocacy can be seen within the Childlove Movement as well.
The term "pedophile activism" gives an impression that adults are simply in this for themselves without a care of the rights, autonomy, and respect of younger people. This can be seen with anti-pedophile advocates claiming that pedophiles see children as "sexual objects" which is definately not the case; thus, the phrase "pedophile activism" assumes that pedophiles are trying to gain rights to "have their way" with children and is inherently flawed in its assumption. While it is impossible to be NPOV on this subject due to its highly controversial nature, the current title this article is given is very negative in connotation and practically condemns us before the reader has been given the chance to read further.
It must be noted that if indeed the Childlove Movement succeeds in changing commonly accepted views of child sexuality in society, it is not pedophiles who will gain rights in the end. Minors will be the ones who will gain the right to be involved with who they please. Currently, adults are given the rights to consentual relationships with whoever they so chose to be with. Age of consent laws do not limit the rights of those above the legal age; it only limits the rights of people below the age. This is apparent in current events with convictions of minors engaging in sexual activity with each other where the law bars such activities. While the end result will be mutually benificial to both old and young parties, the only rights truly gained would be on the part of the young person. Because of this, the movement is not for pedophile rights, but child rights.

To make a long story short, (too late), the article was much better off being the way it was than how it is now. --Rookiee Revolyob 20:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Point 5 of your argument is patently false. Adults do not possess the right to have sex with whomever they please, since as the legal definition of the term consent is specifically designed to exclude these relationships. Children would gain the right to legally consent, it's true, but this right would have no application outside of an adult-child relational context, as parental consent to sexual relations between minors already will prevent their case ever coming to court. It's also totally non-applicable to the current article, as Abolition of Age of Consent laws has its own article with its own arguments.

On the subject of the title, the article seems to cover both subjects. Perhaps an article split is in order? Additionally, the use of euphemistic titles is discouraged, and the majority of individuals view "childlove" as being euphemistic to the extreme. If we wish to have a Childlove movement article, it needs to be a different article than the one which exists here.

Also, while I would vastly prefer to assume good faith, after looking over your edit history, talk page, etc. I'd have to conclude that the POV issue here is your repeated attempts to portray things in a more positive light than the NPOV policy would possibly dictate. Take my advice here: if you have a strong opinion on a subject, stay away from it on the wiki. If everyone would do this, then most edit wars, accusations of POV pushing, etc. would simply disappear, and you wouldn't get blocked like happened last time. --tjstrf 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that what I said is not false at all. The key word in my argument is "consent". Adults have the right to be in consentual relationships with whoever they chose. Minors underneath the age of consent do not have the right to consent to sexual relationships and thus no legal consent can be made, thus making it illegal for someone over the age of consent to be involved sexually. If children had the right to consent, adults (nor minors) would not be punished for these mutual relationships. The argument against this is that "minors under the age of consent are unable to consent". This is what the Childlove Movement argues is patently false as well as many in academia. The matter of consent is where this entire issue is based out of. If age of consent were lower, then there would be no need for a movement. This is ultimately a child-rights movement, regardless whether or not someone older would mutually benifit. Either way, it has to do with consentual relationships, not forced ones, so point five is not false. --Rookiee Revolyob 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how to answer that, since I can't make heads or tails out of your argument. Regardless, this is not the article on abolition of age of consent laws. It's also totally your (widely disagreed with) POV. --tjstrf 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Many within the Childlove Movement are (well notably) against current age of consent laws (both because of the ages they are set and the mode at which lawmakers set them by age rather than physical/mental maturity) and are for either the reformation or aboloshment of these laws. There is a mention of merging that article with this one. I'm split on this, myself, not everyone for the abolishment of the AOC laws are childlovers. However, not all childlovers are against the abolishment of the laws, either. So, as you can see, there's mixed opinions on both sides of the fence. I would then argue that the two articles are in fact (while potentially cross-linked), mutually exlusive. However, I can state that the Childlove Movement (this article) for the majority, are against the laws because of this issue of consent... so the truth of my point 5 still is true, not false. --Rookiee Revolyob 00:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I need to address something else. You stated: "but this right would have no application outside of an adult-child relational context". This is untrue. There are many, many documented cases in the states and abroad where consenting minors were put in jail.^[2] Many boylovers and girllovers are underaged minors. Depending on the law of what state the two parties live in, this situation is different. So yes, there definately is an application outside of adult-minor relationships. Notice, I say adult-minor, not adult-child. The two cannot be confused. "Child" is too subjective of a term for this debate. Everyone has a different idea of what a "child" is. --Rookiee Revolyob 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting situation, but again, fully a subjective one as to whether that was a right decision or not. I'd say the primary authority is the parents in those situations. The decision was also obviously motivated by the sensationalism of the case, and cannot be taken as typical. --tjstrf 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's only non-typical in current Western Civ. Both in smaller (usually tribal cultures) and historical precident, minors turn into adults earlier on in their life as does their right to consent sexually (usually brought on by puberty). In our society, this is not the case, so is not the argument subjective both pro and con sides? We can't use that as a basis for NPOV. We can only provide both sides equally to remain truly balanced. --Rookiee Revolyob 00:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing about what you said: "If everyone would do this, then most edit wars, accusations of POV pushing, etc. would simply disappear, and you wouldn't get blocked like happened last time." -- I do not and never have attempted to hide my POV on here, nor anywhere else on the net. Why? Because I felt that if I were to hide my POV, then one could always make the argument against me that I am attempting to secretly, underhandedly attempt to push my POV. I don't believe in being an underhanded backstabber. Now, with that said, I can assure you that I do have NPOV in mind as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I'm not here to push my moral agenda moreso than anyone else. The issue rests once again in "what the masses consider true and false". I've argued before on my podcast that if this were 1492, Wikipedia would state the world is flat, not round. The small minority of scholars who attempted to tell the common folk that the world was round or that the Sun did not revolve around the Earth were often killed for their obvious blasphemy. My comparison is not to make me or anyone else in the Childlove Movement seem holier-than-thou .. (believe me, I'm just some schmoe without a life behind a keyboard) .. but the problem still remains: If the article is controversial, how do we really know what NPOV is? Just because the majority of people believe that adult-minor sexual relationships are bad doesn't necessarily make it so. So, a truly present NPOV would essentially be an evenly-distributed set of facts and arguments pro and con. As you can see from the history, many are unwilling to allow this. I am more than open to this. With such a controversial issue, I argue that NPOV is impossible; only Objectivity is attainable; each side showing their argument equally and evenly, with equal bias on both sides. I'm sure all civil rights issues before this one would have been handled just as such on an open forum. Anything else would be biased. I'm arguing that the title of the article is incorrect based on these merits. The Childlove Movement is not "pedophile activism". Pedophile activism is part of the movement, but it does not encompass the entirety of it. --Rookiee Revolyob 00:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There is another option, other than showing or hiding your POV: simply avoid venues in which its display would even be relevant. What you are doing is POV pushing, taking an obvious stance you hold and promoting it within the articles. Leave editing to the relatively neutral. The thing you aren't understanding here is that Wikipedia is not here to promote any form of social change, with the exception of one: an increase in the amount of free collaboration taking place online. If we lived in the time of Copernicus, the proper NPOV on the shape of the earth would be that the earth was flat, according to the majority of secular and religious authority. At most, the round earth theory would deserve a mention along the lines of "In recent years, a few individuals, notably Copernicus, have been promoting theories to the contrary, and have come under heavy fire from the rest of the academic world."

Wikipedia need not be right, merely verifiable. If the rest of the world is wrong, then wikipedia will agree with their consensus. We are not a groundbreaking movement in the realms of science, sociology, or anything else. And finally, the Childlove movement is a subdivision or seperate but related entity to the pedophile activist movement, not the other way around. --tjstrf 00:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"And finally, the Childlove movement is a subdivision or seperate but related entity to the pedophile activist movement, not the other way around." -- How do you know this? --Rookiee Revolyob 00:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The definitions of the terms. Also a (now apparently lost) reference that had noted the coining of the term sometime in the 70's, at least 25 years after the origin of the organized pedophile activist movement. I would actually suggest writing a brief seperate article on the Childlove movement as seperate from pedophile activism, since it is not a strict overlap. --tjstrf 01:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Childlove" encompasses more than pedosexuality, as I've mentioned above. How can the Childlove Movement be part of something which it in itself is a part of? --Rookiee Revolyob 03:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hence my solution, write a second article. If you're so intent on differentiating childlove from pedophile activism, then you have an easy solution there. You can justify this by childlove's existance as a social circle/support group, seeing as it is a subclass of the pedophile activism movement that has expanded into other areas as well. There would be a certain degree of overlap between the articles, but no more than there is between this and abolition of AoC laws. (Pedosexuality? Now that's euphemistic...) --tjstrf 04:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Nono, you misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that Pedophile Activism, if such a thing actually exists, would be a subsection of the Childlove Movement, not the other way around. --Rookiee Revolyob 01:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, that reminds me, I should mention that "pedophile activism" was not a term coined by pedophiles or even by NAMbLA. NAMbLA has never professed themselves to be a pedophile organization. If you look at the history of how NAMbLA started, it was a reaction to the stonewall riots and the persecution of homosexual men who had relationships with teenaged boys, and the mainstream media picking up on the spin that "homosexuals were recruiting children", (which I'm hoping everyone here can agree is pure poppycock.) What NAMbLA had come to the conclusion of was that the entire ethos of sexuality in America was bassackwards and needed to be reformed including the Age of Consent laws. What they saw was that all consenting people of every age and sexual preference should be able to express it and live freely, so they restructured their purpose and goals. It just so happened that the name they had chosen previously, "NAMbLA" was something they were rather stuck with and didn't change, so it sort of turned into a hybrid mess of clashing ideals. I believe that's what their downfall really was. But, they've never, ever professed themselves to be a "pedophile activist organization". The media did that. Just another reason why this article's name should be changed. It's not what we're trying to be. --Rookiee Revolyob 03:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there sufficient reliable sources on the specific topic of "childmove movement" for an article? -Will Beback 02:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a plethora of sources available here in the U.S. in Europe, and Australia, both living and deceased, who have talked in detail about the history of the movement, its origins, and if necessary, I can converse with these people and find out the entire scope of information that would be needed to reference any statements made to find out their validity. So, in short, yes. As far as written material, that would be a matter of finding out who wrote what on what subject. Some of this material would be in languages other than English, most notably in Dutch and German. The majority of this information is already available to the public, and unfortunately most of the authors of this literature are either dead, unwilling to converse, or are in jail. If you want me to gather sources, I'd be willing to give it a shot. Also, a lot of this has already been covered in BoyWiki.org --Rookiee Revolyob 03:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In the context of a special article just about the "Childlove" movement - references would have to meet WP:RS, and would have to be about "childlove" specifically. If you have such soureces then the thing to do would be to add them here. Once there is sufficient info then the article can be split off. Most of what I've seen are just blogs, which don't meets our verifiability standards. -Will Beback 04:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm suspecting that this is going to be a very large problem for Wikipedia in the future then, because the future of online publication is headed toward a blog-type of format. Even major newspapers are using the format for their commentary and editorial sections, and many major reporters produce their own blogs aside from their stories, but still retaining journalistic approach. I realize this isn't the thread to properly deabte this, but just on a personal level, I would suggest blogs are every bit as valid of a source if in fact the source being quoted can be proven and cited, just as a personal memoir of events would be if published in paperback format. Things are changing in the publishing world... --Rookiee Revolyob 01:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Rookie about the name of the article. Since the "childlove movement" is the name used by its advocates, that is probably the better name. The names of articles relating to controversial movements usually go with what those movements are called by their advocates. For e.g. the pro-life movement is not refered to as "anti-abortion activism". -Neural 11:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Double Standard? (Continuation of name discussion)

Anti-abortionists are covered at Wikipedia as "pro-lifers." Double standard? JayW 23:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Both Pro-life and Pro-choice are propoganda-esque terms, actually. (In fact, I believe we cite them as a prime example in our article on political spin) Renaming them to pro-abortion activism and anti-abortion activism would probably be a positive move towards non-euphemistic NPOV. If you feel like proposing the rename, I'd definitely support it. --tjstrf 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What does abortion has to do with the title of this article? --Rookiee Revolyob 00:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Euphemistic terminology. Pro-choice/life in one case, Childlover in another. --tjstrf 00:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Childlove" is is too-POV a term to be acceptable. -Will Beback 00:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How is it POV? JayW 01:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Euphemistic, also may be a seperate subject worthy of sub-article. --tjstrf 02:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It endorses one term, which is only used by a particular segment. "Pedophile activism" is more generic and neutral. -Will Beback 02:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I will readily agree that the Childlove Movement is indeed a term which connotates a positive bias toward the issue, but there's a reason for this. The reason why the name was changed is because "pedophile" automatically means "evil pervert child molester rapist murderer" in common tongue. There can be no negotiation, no talks, no discourse, and no way to address the issue of child rights and child sexuality and how it relates to minor-attracted-adults when the very word has been twisted and contorted into something it is not simply by fear and hysteria; that's the very reason for the movement in the first place. This isn't the "evil pervert child molester rapist murderer movement", this is the childlove movement. Child = pedo, phile = love. Childlove. That's what it means. It's not a euphamism. It's a reversion back to what the term really, truly means. When monks and scholars translated ancient Hebrew and Aramaic texts into the modern English language, it wasn't a euphamism; it was a translation. That's what we did is translate it into modern English. We're just saying who we are and clarifying what we're not. How is that biased? --Rookiee Revolyob 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If people are unable to divorce a word from its negative connotations for objective discussion when it's in latin, putting it in english won't help.

Pedophile = a well-defined term with a historic meaning... and a negative connotation.

Childlover = a euphemistic term recently coined as a positive PR spin... and the exact same negative connotation. (Maybe that's because they mean the exact same thing?)

The problem here isn't the word you use, it's the meaning of the word. In this case, using the non-euphemistic form is more professional and hence preferable. Calling your pot-holes "pavement deficiencies" simply makes you look evasive and insincere, and anyone with an ounce of sense will realize the meaning is identical. Until you can convince the child rapists to only target individuals over the age of consent, you'll still have the image problem, no matter what the label is. --tjstrf 03:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, I hope you realize that statistics show the majority of child rapists, murderers and general abusers out there are not pedophiles but sadists. Secondly, the meaning of the word "pedophile" has indeed changed into "child rapist murderer", etc. That's why the new word was coined. I am not a child rapist murderer. I am a childlover. I love children. I would never hurt one.

In all reality, do you think that changing a word from latin, where one must think about the meaning for at least 1/2 second, to english, where no such thought is necessary, will in any way aid your movement? Especially when the new word means the exact same thing? If anything, the effect will be negative, as those who find politically correctness irritating will think "Great, now not only do they rape kids, they call it love!" Obfuscation is not helpful to you, much less wikipedia's goals of clarity and accuracy.--tjstrf 04:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting you bring that up. Within the boylove and girllove communities, the very same argument is taking place. Some people are saying, "Don't call yourselves a pedophile, people! You're calling yourself child molesters!". The other half are saying, "Don't change the name from pedophile to childlover because it doesn't matter! They'll hate us either way! We should change people's minds, not the word!" What I've suggested to the administrators of the boards and Sure Quality Radio is for a hybrid of both worlds to happen. Use the word Childlove, Boylove, and Girllove to remind people what pedophile really means, and educate the public that it's not rape and murder and manipulation. The end result would mean the movement be named "childlove" but the purpose behind the movement isn't to change the word, but to reeducate the public and simply say, "Hey, we're not a bunch of monsters. Lighten up!" Hopefully by reaching out to the public, we'll stop a few molestations by confused pedophiles.--Rookiee Revolyob 06:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Either way, it is not pedophile activism. It involves teens as well. I've met teens that like me. I've met younger boys that like me. It is not ephebophile activism. It is not even teleiophile activism (children primarily sexually attracted to adults). It's all of the above. It is a movement that has never existed before. Of course there is a new word for it. When something new is created, and no word exists, you make a word for it. How else did the term "McJob" end up in the Oxford Dictionary? People made up the word and used it. Define euphamism? Afro-American started as a euphamism for Negro. Gay and queer were euphamisms for homosexual. Ageplay is term for adults who roleplay as children. Sneakers are a euphamism for athletic footwear. Why are these terms allowed to be on Wikipedia but ours isn't? The only answer I can see is that it's not accepted by those in control. Ain't that the very definition of biased? --Rookiee Revolyob 04:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

All of which is argument for a new article, NOT for an article rename. --tjstrf 04:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

According to whom does a term (includng the word "child") apply to teenagers? "Sneakers" is in the dictionary, "childlover" is not. -Will Beback 04:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Presumably according to the ~~pedo~~ sexual minor -philes. --tjstrf 04:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

To answer Will Beback, this is yet another good question to ask, and it dives into the very heart of the issue at hand. What is a child? What is an adult? Where is the line? Is there a line at all? Is the law too sharp or too vague? Is the law consistant? Where do we hold our values? "How many roads must a man walk down before we call him a man?" Our society is screwed up in our ability to judge the transition from child to adult, in my opinion. Why do we call pornography of 17 year olds "child pornography"? They should call it "minor pornography", but those against it would say it's not a strong enough word. The same thing goes for "statutory rape"; they should call it "statutory sex", because it's definately not rape simply because the state says, "You're not allowed to give consent yet, little girl!... Even though you know more about sex than your mom does!"

Personally, I don't really like the name "childlover", either, to be totally honest, because you're indeed correct that teens are not "children", however, that's how the state refers to them as.... y'know, the older people in power. If it were my invention, I'd merge the whole childlove movement into an all-encompassing sexual-freedoms reform for all ages. That would be a more balanced way to approach the issue. It really, truly does involve all forms of sexual, political, and social reform on a mass basis for society to even consider positive minor/adult sex fathomable.--Rookiee Revolyob 06:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The current title is neutral and acceptable. Wikipedia is not a place for people with fringe views to try to change the terms of the argument in their favour, which is what a 'childlove' article would do. Do not start a new article on it, the term and the associated controversy are well covered here. Thanks. The Land 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why is the Intelligent design movement not refered to as "creationist activism?" Why is the pro-life lobby not termed "anti-abortion activism"? Why is pro-choice not refered to as "pro-abortion activism"? Why is the BNP not re-titled "a racist party in the UK who we shall not call by their own mame"? This is all rather silly, and smacks of censorship... -Neural 12:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro-life and pro-choice balance each other out; and furthermore, they, together with intelligent design and the BNP, are widely used terms and references to their use are readily available in all manner of publications. The only people who tend to use the term 'childlove' are some participants in or observers of pedophile web forums. If a US State Board of Education debates whether childlove should be taught in schools (as they do intelligent design) then we might consider changing the name of the article. The Land 14:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro-life and pro-choice "balancing each other out" is a pretty weak argument, and I'm not sure what you're getting at with that. As for "childlove" being a partisan title, my point is that there are literally hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that refer to narrow agendas or ideologies that have very POV-sounding titles, mostly only used by followers of those ideologies.

I personally think "pedophile activism" is even more POV than childlove-movement, considering the popular understanding of the term pedophile. To the average reader "pedophile" means somebody who grabs children, drags them somewhere and molests them - when in reality it only refers to an attraction.

Furthermore, as Rookiee was trying to point out, the title "pedophile activism" ignores the fact that non-pedophiles may support the same objectives. I have no particular attraction to children (women with large boobs are more my kind of aesthetic :) ). If I argue that adult-child sexual relationships are not necessarily “child sexual abuse” (a deliberately loaded term), that children can consent to sex, that the assumption of harm is false, etc, does this mean I’m a “pedophile-activist”? Maybe it does in today's climate of hysteria. Judith Levine was accused of much the same for suggesting similar things in a much more timid manner…. -Neural 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If we are to change the name, it will have to be to something other than childlove. So, it's between this and a contrived substitute. Personally, I'd prefer this to some title we coined ourselves. (The most direct, non-connotatively charged title if we were to choose one of our own devising might be "child sex movement" or something similar.) --tjstrf 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't much like "childlove-movement" as a title anyway. But anything has got to be better than this, imo, for reasons detailed above.... -Neural 16:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

well if you have a suggestion for something which is neutral, in common use, and better than the existing title, go ahead and tell us. There are many reasons why we can't have 'childlove', and ignorign them won't make them go away. The Land 08:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We've already discussed these many reasons, and I remain unconviced. Nevertheless, I'll think about a more neutral title. The difficulty is finding a title to cover something so broad. Doubtless there are pedophiles who push these objectives simply to legalize their own area of interest. Then there are intellectuals, academics, sexologists, sex-researchers and others pushing the same objectives for various reasons: the belief that sexual freedom is better for kids, that it is better for society, more healthy psychologically... or whichever angle each comes from. I've spoken to adults who had sexual relationships with adults in their childhood and are angry at being labeled victims of abuse, want their experiences validated, etc... Although forced firmly underground, ignored and/or stigmatized for the most part, there are a whole range of people with a similar worldview. At the very least, there are some outspoken academics and authors pushing for change (who can be referenced).

Here are some title suggestions to start with...

Movement to legalize adult-child sex
Movement to normalize adult-child sex
Movement to de-stigmatize adult-child sex

Anyone, feel free to jump in with further suggestions. I think we need a title that everyone is fairly happy with, otherwise these arguments are going to rage for ever. Both "childlove movement" and "pedophile activism" are both very POV (see my reasoning a few paragraphs up) and both are also pretty vague. The title should confront what we're actually talking about... - Neural 13:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Any thoughts on this? The talk page has suddenly gone very quiet. -Neural 12:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"De-stigmatize" - that appears to be the over-riding objective, and it includes legalization. -195.93.21.4 11:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Neural, I was away from Wikipedia for a rather extended period of time, there. (Been busy lately.) High-fives on your open-mindedness on the issue! As far as the renaming of the article... Hmmm, y'know? That doesn't sound entirely like a bad idea. God... what would we call it, though? First of all, isn't there some form of sexuality portal in Wikipedia? Or would this issue even be allowed in that section considering it's supposedly a mental illness I have? I see there's the Paraphilia subsection within the sex portal, but that's where Pedophilia is. This is a civil rights and social reform issue. It gets even more complicated, though... since pedophilia IS a paraphilia under the DSM-IV, it is not "illegal to discriminate against persons on the basis of their sexual orientation" regarding pedophilia, thus is not currently coverable under the (accepted) various theories of civil rights listed on that article's page.

If one sees pedophilia as a mental disease, is it legal (under which country's law, btw?) to discriminate on the basis of this disease (or to discriminate against people suffering from cancer, or schizophrenia)? Apokrif 17:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I can break down the goals of the movement (off the top of my head)...

De-stigmatization of adult/minor sexual relationships.
Reform of the current age-of-consent laws and theory.
Expansion of the human condition to accept child sexuality in general.
Promote tolerance and acceptance of people attracted to minors.
Re-examine and educate the public about sexuality and biology.
Educate the public that most pedophiles/ephebophiles are ethical and want to abide laws.
Educate the public that someone who's into teens is not a pedophile to begin with. :P
Continue to protect minors (and adults) from sexual exploitation.
Stop vigilantiism against BLs and GLs on the parts of moral crusaders.
Reform the social roles and expand the rights of children in general.
Change laws in general to better match the rapidly changing times brought on by technology and social networking.
On a broader scale, hopefully change the entire concept of sex from what it is today, which would depend on

That's a lot to hold on one plate. As you can see, it covers more than simply sex. It's practically a re-write of all current concepts of social roles toward young people. It's a reform of childhood. ... "Childhood reform", pretty much... Hmm..--Rookiee Revolyob 07:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

it is not "illegal to discriminate against persons on the basis of their sexual orientation" regarding pedophilia

Can you point me to where the SC has defined "sexual orientation?" JayW 17:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

SC? Not sure what that is. What I mean is, since pedophilia is in the DSM, it is categorized as a sexual illness, not an orientation. Homosexuality was also an illness until the gay movement lobbied and fought for it to be removed. Pedophilia, pedosexuality, blay, whatever you want to call it, has not been removed, so we are granted no legal rights under the law. --Rookiee Revolyob 03:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Rookie... now I'm even more flummoxed. The problem is finding a title that will please all sides... an extremely difficult job given the huge social taboo of child-adult sex - Wikipedia editors come from this society with this taboo, after all, so the article is likely to remain highly controversial (and probably somewhat biased) for the foreseeable future as a majority view (however un-objective) asserts itself. My main problem with the title is that it slants the whole meaning in a certain way. The common perception of the word "pedophile" is something synonymous with "child rapist" or "child molester", when it refers to an attraction to minors and nothing more. My other criticism was that the objectives described in the article could be advocated by anyone, pedophile or not, and there are non-pedophile academics and authors who do. For these and reasons given further above on this discussion, I think the current title is even more POV than the old "Childlove movement" that we previously had - that was POV in the other direction. -Neural 05:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. I realize there's no way gain a unanimous consensus on an issue that is so commonly wrapped together with "terrorism" in the media. The best solution that I can provide is to call it what the creators labelled it rather than with what the pundits do. Let the body text from the article be straight-forward and NPOV as possible; that's fair; and let the reader determine for themselves what side of the issue they wish to be on. But, don't call me a "pedophile activist" when I am not one. I'm not fighting for pedophile rights. I'm fighting for a more balanced ethos of sexuality in regards to age disparity. --Rookiee Revolyob 04:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference request

Hi!

In french Wikipedia, we are working on the french version of this article, based on a translation of this one. We are trying to fill some gaps on references: there is one that we cannot fill, when article says "In a 1998 newspaper interview, Dutch psychiatrist Gerald Roelofs suggested the following five guidelines for relationships between adults and children: (...) " (here). May someone of you provides a reference for this "newspaper interview"? Thanks in advance!

.: Guil :. chat 11:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Here: "I didn't know how to deal with it." Good luck with that! JayW 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Psychosis

"Declassification of pedophilia as mental illness. Activists of the movement quote Moser and Kleinplatz (2003), who suggest that all paraphilia be removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). They write that objective, non-culturally-biased criteria for classifiying sexual behavior as psychotic"

Do they use the word psychosis ? AFAIK psychosis refers to disorders like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, not to sexual orientation or behavior. Apokrif 16:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, do I consider myself a lil psycho? >8D --Rookiee Revolyob 04:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I've noticed that discussion, most notably between Rookiee and tjstrf, has been straying away from the article. Can we please keep discussion to the article at hand, not the subject it informs us about?

Mickygor 22:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, there's been almost no discussion for almost 3 weeks. What are you talking about? --tjstrf 04:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

For Pedo's Sake!!

I've removed the MHAMic link form 'advocacy websites', and put it in the pedophilia article links. MHAMic is a research website, which uses only experimental results to draw conclusions from! Neither of it's founding fathers identify as pedophilia advocates! MHAMic is part of no movement, but the movement for science and reason. If people feel otherwise, they should index it as a reasearch site, and objectively describe their criticism of MHAMic in this article, providing an external link. --Jim Burton 12:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

MHAMic is obviously a front group for pedophile activists, and a 'related:' google search will show who is appreciating their work (mostly pedo websites.) MHAMic's conclusions on pedophilia are on its Mission page: 'Thus, many child molesters are not pedophiles or ephebophiles, and an unknown number of pedophiles and ephebophiles are not child molesters. Child molestation and sex offenses are crimes. Pedophilia and ephebophilia are not.' Pro- or not? Draw your own conclusions. -- ichabod, 25 October 2006

MHAMic must not be defined by judging the mentality of those who appreciate it. If you wish to strawman the nature of it's existance into that of an advocacy group for those who wish to have sex with or as children, please find the appropriate comments from the two listed contributors to the website. The conclusions that you list are all pure fact, and drawn from observations of research articles, so would not count as advocacy. MHAMic makes no claims such as 'childlovers and gerontophiles should be emancipated', it simply comments on the *nature* of MHAM. And finally, that a factual source concludes in a way that would be interpreted as 'on one side of the debate', does not make it an advocacy organ. For that, there must be some ... advocacy. --Jim Burton 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Excess links

We had too many links to forums and other sites with little info. Per WP:EL, such sites are discouraged. -Will Beback 01:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've included the neptune links directory. Although it is part of an advocacy website, and therefore Wikipedia will need to maintain it's own links, this resource is easily good enough to dispel a lot of the linking that you refer to --Jim Burton 12:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I have just nominated this page for dispute of NPOV.

The vast majority of information it presents is skewed in favor of sexual relationships between adults and children.

This is an extreme minority viewpoint presented as though it were a rational, logical argument, a clear violation of the "Sensationalism" clause of the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. The medical professionals cited in the vast majority of instances in the article favor this viewpoint and very little argument to the contrary is shown.

Hence the title 'pedophile activism'. A gay rights activism article would not contain anything more than the short 'controversy / criticism / public reaction' type section, so nor should this. The anti - pedophile movement can have it's own article. Both movements can also cite studies in other articles that approach the actual subjects, as opposed to one stream of opinion.

'Extreme minority' - Pedophile activism is one of the larger single movements on line, where anonymity is guaranteed. Wikipedia also does not conspire to present opinions as any less 'rational', simply because of the number of people supporting them. --Jim Burton 00:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the article about the pedophile activist movement, not the article about pedophilia nor the article about child molestation. Read those if you want to hear the mainstream view on the subject. --tjstrf talk 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This article should be deleted.

Wikipedia should not be a place of paedophile advocacy. Also, the article is full of lies presented uder cover of discussing diferent points of view (vide: sexual abuse of/relationships with children as doing no harm to their psyche). Any common sense persdon will wonder at why it has not been deleted yet.

This article isn't, or at least shouldn't be, an endorsement of its subject. We have articles on rape and murder too, though we don't advocate them. If there is a particle passage in the article that is troublesome please let's fix it. -Will Beback · † · 10:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If there were pages devoted to "pro-rape activism" (ie this page) or "pro-murder activism" many users would want them deleted too. P4k 10:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia is not rape. Many other articles go out of their way to explain that—in NPOV. — $PЯINGrαgђ 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Pro-murder activism is called fascism except some of its marginal schools. --91.122.33.71 17:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a point. If you want to nominate the article for AfD then I wouldn't object. I suppose that at best this article catalogs the movement in order to better expose it. At worst it aids in promoting illegal activity. The community usually opposes the deletion of well-sourced articles but there have been exceptions. The Pedophilia article is already long so there's little opportunity to merge content. -Will Beback · † · 10:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Personally I don't think it should be deleted, but stuff like this certainly represents one of Wikipedia's shortcomings. P4k 11:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place of pedophile advocacy, as should be obvious. Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge for the masses. Compare it to a dictionary - you can't take things out of the dictionary because they might offend someone, otherwise you would end up with nothing. All that really can, or should, be done, is to try and balance the article. I personally don't believe pedophilia should be legalized, but that's not important. What is important is that the article is slightly unbalanced, in favour of the activists. I may not support their ideas, but surely they have the right to an opinion, and just because it disgusts you doesn't mean that you can criticise and humiliate them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwerty josh (talk • contribs) 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC).Joshy 17:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)JoshyJoshy 17:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, a counter article is needed for balance

Wikipedia gives voice and mention to the most obscure of objects and causes. Therefore, an article on one of the largest online movements, and a well documented campaign elsewhere(with around 50 years behind it) should not be removed simply because of a subjective judgement about it's effects within the law, or the fact that an overwhelming majority of people dislike it. P4k's profile surprises me, considering what the editor is implying.

I propose that we develop an article entitled Active opposition to child sex. We could start with children's charities that use literature that re - inforces maintream opinions, aims to raise awareness of abuse, etc, moving on to exceptional beliefs such as abusers 'making children believe that they enjoyed it' (Stop it now campaign). Then we could cover the militant online (hacking of websites, lobbying for censorship and alleged harassment) and offline (far right in Holland) movements. Perverted Justice is one example. --Jim Burton 04:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed

I have edited this page in the past and, returning to it for the first time in months, I am pretty disturbed to see that what little balance there was has been eroded.

The article claims that references say things they just don't say. For example, an scientific article [3] describing the "cognitive distortions" of "child sexual abusers" has been re-cast by the Wikipedia article as an example of the "lack of proper differentiation theory" forwarded in the scientific debate.
There used to be a discussion of the details of the academic response to the Rind article. Now that has been replaced with just a description of politicians' and talk-show responses, making look like only reactionaries opposed it.
Similarly, there is a strong scientific consensus that many of the movement's claims are flatly contrary to the data; this no longer appears in the scientific paper section and is a single sentence in the public reaction section.
The ethics section is hugely detailed and quotes so extensively it borders on original research and really reads like advocacy itself.
The sections that explain the views of the movement do not contain caveats from the other side. But nearly all criticisms of the movement contain caveats from the movement's view.
The voice of the article calls the research sponsored by the movement as "Objective research", essentially agreeing that the current CSA research is biased.

And all that without even delving into the details of the claims now in the article. I am upping this to totally disputed. 192.150.10.200 19:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Starting to work the problem, still a long way to go. Months ago, I put many hours into working this page up to a better, more NPOV, more referenced state, then took my eye off wiki for a while; it's kinda sad to start over. I took the "impact of scientific papers" section -- a truly bizarre name for a section on a scientific debate -- and changed it to a section on, well, the scientific debate. This includes a summary of the current debate in the scientific community, put in fairly neutral -- almost generous to the movement -- terms. I am sure it will be unpopular with some, but I think this section is an improvement. Not unlike flat earth or cold fusion or even some political articles, it is not helpful to readers to leave out the fundamental point that these scientific claims have not made it very far in the scientific community. I also added a summary sentence and other clean-ups to the intro. I am a moderately experienced editor (could use help on doing my references correctly), but choose to edit this and other certain pages anonymously. Yesterday I was 192.150.10.200, today you can call me 216.104.211.5 20:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I support your new section at the top (although I got rid of the false dichotomy in the title: Political movement – or self-justification for abuse?), but you may like to consider checking through your edits for spag mistakes (2 in 'debate', resolved), structural errors (putting criticisms of scientific advocacy before descriptions, resolved) and residual biases, e.g.

ARTICLE of RIND: "the findings of the current review do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered."

ACTUAL: ‘’Moral codes of a society with respect to sexual behavior need not be, and often have not been, based on considerations of psychological harmfulness or health (cf. Finkelhor, 1984 ). Similarly, legal codes may be, and have often been, unconnected to such considerations ( Kinsey et al., 1948 ). In this sense, the findings of the current review do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered’’

See the bias(!)

I changed the actual quotes to reflect the addendum, though: [4]

Check for unsupported and irrelevant material, e.g. 'Individual reinterpretations of these papers are often used to refute other research or make claims for changes in social norms' (now deleted). Make sure that we have a decent outline of the ethics proposed (relentlessly deleted).

I am sceptical of this edit of yours. Note that the latter edit refers to the fact that the framework is of ethics, not highly ethical or acceptable.

I am also sceptical of your putting 'objective research' into quotations, since this was a conclusion of the sociologist de Young. 'Indignant Page' is not available to read, though. You have to prove that it was how she wrote it, if you wish to maintain it as an edit. Like p4k, I will give you a chance to defend these edits. --Jim Burton 07:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

New edits

I would really suggest that you don't edit this article, unless you can keep your POV and curious deletion obsession under control. Here are just a few examples of your editing:

Ipce’s hosting of the article was full, not a ‘reproduction’. Therefore, why should you make note of it?

This is simple fact, and does not have any POV implications I admire your scrutiny, but a fact is a fact. Leave it alone, please: http://www.clogo.org/main.php

Again this fact is so indisputable, that you really should try looking for refs on something like BoyWiki, or some forum, rather than getting rid of it

This is an amazing claim! And you want everything cited! I call bias

You remove all meaning from the sentence and then insert the disturbingly POV assertion that the terms are [euphemisms. All you should have done is put the word ‘stigmatized’ in quotations

You really don’t get it, do you? Put the phrase in quotations, so that the logical train of rhetorical amendments proposed by pedophiles can be seen! Don’t just replace the word!

Please stop ruining this article. No one is claiming that an age attraction is ‘analogous’ to a gendered attraction. The previous edit would be ten times better, with quotations from ‘as’ to ‘heterosexuality’

You have completely destroyed half of the guidelines that have been set out. What we need is a point by point ‘’general’’ analysis of the guidelines, as opposed to the two that you deleted

I am giving you the chance to defend your edits, before I reverse them and cite previous versions that you deleted. --Jim Burton 07:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put usernames in headers - we're not here to discuss editors, just edits. Most of your complaints here do not appear to have strong foundations. Please do not revert the changes. -Will Beback · † · 09:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the energy to defend myself from all of these claims, but re: Ipce's hosting of that article: I mentioned that it was reproduced on their website because it shows that a pro-pedophilia organization is using the paper to advance it's claims--if that weren't the case, the summary of the paper wouldn't really have any place in this article. I don't really see the problem with the word "reproduced" but if you don't like it use a different one. As far as some of the things I deleted being "undisputable facts", if something has a citation tag attached to it for months I feel like I'm justified in deleting it. It's not my responsibility to look for refs! And the article doesn't need to contain every symbol used by pedophile activists, it's probably too long as it is (it's longer than the article on LGBT social movements, for example). In a sense my editing was biased--I was trying to bring an article which had been hijacked by ideologues closer to reality. Maybe my edits were sloppy or mistaken too, I'm not a full-time Wikipedia editor. I still think the article was better after my edits than before. P4k 09:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Science debate

I restored the old order of the science debate section. I know that it seems like the 'fair thing' to just put the movement's claims, then put the opposition's claims -- but doing this gives the appearance of there being a "debate" around many points where no real debate is found in the scientific literature. By labeling all of this as a debate, the article essentially accepts the movement's position that the basic assumption of harm is under wide dispute in the scientific community. This is not the case, as the sum of the citations shows. 192.150.10.200 17:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

no peer-reviewed study of actual psychological outcomes supporting the movement's view has withstood scientific scrutiny

Not good enough. I have reverted it to evaded, as withstanding is a matter of opinion. For example, Rind has repeatedly attacked his detractors, even the very foundations of the Leadership Council. Evaded is therefore a far more accurate, less POV term. --Jim Burton 23:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Evaded" totally, well, evades the point that these papers have not been accepted into the scientific consensus of the field in question. That is a fact, and one that is critical for the reader to understand regrading the status of the scientific debate.

Similarly, the edit replacing adult-child sexual contact with "child sex abuse" supports the movement'ds attempt to sideline these papers as dealing with something other than child-adult sexual contact generally (esp. the random national sample papers cited in Dallam). These papers define all adult-child sexual contact as CSA, so to then any that since they use the term CSA they aren't talking about all child-adult sexual contact is inaccurate. 192.150.10.200 01:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The first is borderline POV. The papers have not been successfully blown away on the grounds of reason, they have simply not been accepted. I hope that you accept my new terminology.

The second (new link) does not use studies that are totally random in their sampling. Nor are they totally unbiased on their asking for all forms of experience. This is besides the point, anyway, because not all of your citations generalise to all sexual contact. In fact, they are much to the contrary. If you can show me an appropriate study, I will accept a compromise statement, as opposed to your 'POV' or my 'burden of proof'--Jim Burton 02:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

This article is misbehaving

Does anyone know why many facets of my most recent edit are missing, despite no activity against them in the history? This has happened before, with other editors' changes. Could it be that BLue Ribbon opened up the edit article window before myself, and then saved his edits to an older version? --Jim Burton 15:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

actual copyright on logos?

I just nominated a couple of logo images for deletion because of weird, POV restrictions on the copyright release. But then I saw that the version of the "girl-love" logo used on this page is an identical duplicate file--and that version, uploaded by somebody else, makes no mention of the restrictions on the image's release.

What's going on here? Is there really one copyright holder for the logo? Who is it? (He is unnamed in the statement of the copyright restriction.) Is the second, unrestricted version of the image itself a violation of the creator's copyright restriction? Or what? DanB†DanD 19:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Merger with IBLD Article

It has been suggested that International Boylove Day be merged into this article.

I don't agree with that idea, because this article is already quite long and I think that the subject could well have an own article. In comparison there are Wikipedia articles for other relatively unkown days, e.g. Transgender Day of Remembrance, Ask a Stupid Question Day, Creativity and Innovation Day or World Hello Day.--Greeny6000 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The articles should not merge. The day is obviously an institution as of itself, and as can be seen, has been cause for specific counter - reaction. --Jim Burton 02:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything in pedophile activism is a cause of reaction, but doesn't mean that this day is notable. This article is not so long that the short text for the "IBLD" can't be incorporated here. -Will Beback · † · 07:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Still, it is the special observance of a larger minority group, has indeed caused a reaction and in comparison with other days that have an article at Wikipedia it should be notable enough.--Greeny6000 00:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback - if we are to give calendar dates their own pages, that decision should be upheld whatever the subject. If we are to merge some and not merge others, IBLD should easily qualify for its own page, as it has generated a stand - alone phenomenon of observance rituals and counter reactions that would contribute to the merged article's fragmentedness. There is also the argument for any future indexing of calendar dates (indeed, this may have already happened). In such a system, individual pages would be preferable. --Jim Burton 08:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Might as well leave it by itself, this article is long enough without it. --tjstrf talk 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Ask a Stupid Question Day has as yet evaded the notice of the folks at afd is not a strong argument that it represents a minimum standard of notability: as you may have noticed, Wikipedia contains an awful lot of nonsense that no one has got round to!

This is something I've noticed a couple of times recently: people pointing to the present state of Wikipedia as a presumptive guide to what is okay or correct on Wikipedia. Not so by a long shot! DanB†DanD 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We are rather saying that we must remain consistent in the level of notability that we report on. It would be unfair to see more notable articles get deleted before less notable ones, simply because they report a more controversial topic. We may also be saying that these seemingly unnotable, banal topics go unchallenged for good reason, and thus the controversial ones should. I most certainly am, especially considering the sheer level of storage space that wikipedia has! --Jim Burton 07:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding It would be unfair to see more notable articles get deleted before less notable ones, please see WP:WAX. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking to advocacy websites

GayLover holds that it is illegal for Wikipedia to link to pedophile acticism advocacy websites, and has insisted on removing that subsection of links. I have reverted two times, but I will not get into a revert war. Is there any support for the notion that linking to the sites is illegal, or can someone add the links back, please? Clayboy 13:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course those links are not illegal. Those are not some kind of underground child porn sites or something like that, but public websites that advocate unpopular views and question the current legislation, but don't do anything illegal. They have been involved in the controversy around pedophilia and the law authorities know them, but the sites are still up and running. There have even been statements from FBI and police investigators who said that they don't like those sites, but can't do anything against them, because they don't break any laws. I took the liberty to revert and put the links back in, because of that. IMO the legal status of those sites is quite clear and not really an issue for debate, but maybe someone else could confirm this.--Greeny6000 15:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This obviously needs to be clarified: the fact the links are not considered illegal by some US authorities does not legalise them in other countries. E.g. in Poland and many other countries such sites are forbidden and taken down immediately when traced by authorities. So would be the article we're commenting on, as it's just another platform for the proagation of a dangerous and harmful "ideology". Of course nobody's declaring any war, it's just about staying legal, bearing in mind that Americans are not the only nation to use the English version of Wikipedia. GayLover 15:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the laws in Poland, but from what I know about that country even 'normal' homosexuals have problems under their current government. Regardless of that I don't think that the Polish laws have any effect on the English version of Wikipedia. You can't take into account every law from every country in the world anyway.--Greeny6000 16:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, as far as laws go, you only have to take into account the laws of Florida, U.S. according to WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. If we had to abide by every nation's law, I can imagine quite some countries who would want content deleted. Given GayLover's arguments, I reverted so that the links are now back in. Clayboy 16:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you think of countries other than yours, their law exists and it's valid. The removed section contains links to pages in Polish and many other languages. Therefore those links are illegal as they target the people of those countries. In such case you must take the law into account. GayLover 08:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, we don't. Wikipedia does not have to take the law into account when that law is foreign. If we did, we actually wouldn't exist at all. --tjstrf talk 09:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by foreign and local law? It's not America, either. It's WORLD WIDE Web, therefore we should respect the law of Spain if we present pages in Spanish, Poland in case of pages in Polish, etc. Any lawyer will tell you that. Then, remember that what all advocates are doing here is the pure art of eristisc, as all reasonable people will tell you the linked pages' contents is sick, whatever local law may be. But the point I represent is just about legality. Read this without prejudice. I am to continue this work until the illegal links to Polish pages are removed. GayLover 11:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This portion of The World Wide Web is America, because it is located on a server in America. Physical jurisdiction decides legal jurisdiction even online. Taken from the Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Jurisdiction and legality of content:

Publication of information found in Wikipedia may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of Florida in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law. Laws in your country or jurisdiction may not protect or allow the same kinds of speech or distribution. Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws; and cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to this domain or use, reproduce, or republish the information contained herein.

We have no motivation whatsoever to care about foreign laws which contradict those of Florida and the US. --tjstrf talk 17:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. I understand you have no motivation to care about other laws. You should also understand that we care if such site is making intrusion into the territory of my country spreading its views in my language. Also, please try and be more consistent in your argumentation. First you claimed the links are not illegal. Now that you know the Polish ones are illegal in Poland, you simply say you do not care. Be reasonable. Do not interfere into illegal links. GayLover 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your word that they are illegal in Poland. However, Polish law has no impact on American websites, so they are not illegal HERE. Which is what matters to Wikipedia. --tjstrf talk 21:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The question in my mind is, how notable are these links? Many are blogs or blog-like, some are forums, some are directories of other links: All things discuraged under the external links policy and WP:ISNOT. Are all the items on the list really central to the pedophile activist movement? DanB†DanD 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Read above. The pages contain the basics of the paedophiles ideology. Bear in mind that practicing paedophilia is a crime, that's why is many countries propagating it is subject to legal persecution. GayLover 11:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but containing the basics of the ideology doesn't necessarily give them an encyclopedicly-notable level of importance within that ideology.

A link I'm particularly concerned about is the one to the "Neptune links directory." It is among the least encyclopedic of the links, much of its content is on Wikipedia's list already, and I'm also concerned that it may represent a conflict of interest: another editor recently told me he runs its host site. This makes the fact that one of its top links is commercial ("Gold and silver jewelry for boylovers and girllovers"!) look more than a little dicey.

Also, why isn't there a link to NAMBLA's site? They are the most publicly prominent pedophile organization. DanB†DanD 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not our fault your government censors the web. Petition them to stop or something. --tjstrf talk 17:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's saying it's your fault. I'm just excercising my constitutional right to call things their proper names. Apart from that - you see, cutting out the wrong things not always means censorship. Some time ago we had a problem with that nazi site kept on a foreign server, but it was finally taken down. Well, I guess you're about to start your old "freedom" talk again. But in fact not many people thought it would be wise to support the site, and I think the "censoring" was the right thing to do. Or wasn't it?GayLover 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was using "not my fault" in the idiomatic sense of "stop bothering me with other people's problems". And I at least believe censorship is inherently wrong and can only be justified under extreme circumstances (when not censoring would present a clear, concrete, proven danger perhaps), but that's irrelevant to this discussion. --tjstrf talk 21:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way: you are taking advantage of your liberties and I am taking advantage of mine. Hope this doesn't bother you, as I am not fightiing any person here. I am still looking for some reasonable solution and therefore open for sensible further discussion.

GayLover 11:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

DanD - I was the editor who installed the neptune link, as opposed to Zanthalon (Lindsay Ashford). Having a link to a links directory for the very cause that you are documenting predictably reduces the size of the article! --Jim Burton 03:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim: There is no greater benefit to WP in linking to a set of links to non-notable forums and blogs, than in hosting a list of links to non-notable forums and blogs right here in the article. Plus, it's a "browse my links then buy my wares" site.

TJ: See #12

DanB†DanD 06:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you might like to talk to Zanthalon himself about that, because you're clearly wrong. The links index has a range of sections, from the academic thru the activist to personal and modelling sites. But if you wish to help build our own reliable list, then maybe such a link will not be needed. --Jim Burton 07:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

IPCE description

"Ipce", a ring of writers and academics who publish a newsletter and many research articles on their website.

What's our source for characterizing the members of IPCE in this way? Why are we even bothering to describe them? We don't describe the members or contributors to other websites. -Will Beback · † · 07:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And why is Ipce in quotes? None of the names for the other links are. Anyway, the Ipce description is weasely (they're a "ring"? How suspicious.) Clayboy 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are the people who've been reverting this not interested in explaining it? P4k 07:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

IPCE is a secretive group of academics (e.g. Dr Gieles) and writers (e.g. Tom O'Carroll) that holds yearly meetings and sends reps out to sexology conferences, etc. Whilst that is known fact, the function of the group is harder to pin down. I would suggest that they co - ordinate the direction of research from a pedophile emancipation perspective. But that is beyond the basic description required. It is fine as I see it. If Clayboy has a problem with the term 'ring' (which I don't), then maybe it should be changed to 'circle'. --Jim Burton 07:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

from Wikipedia's article on academia:

"An academic is a person who works as a researcher (and usually teacher) at a university or similar institution in post-secondary (or tertiary) education. "

This seems to be a pretty reasonable definition to me. If you want to describe them as academics it's your responsibility to provide some independent evidence (a newspaper article, etc.) that they fit this definition, just like with any other statement in a Wikipedia article. Just asserting that something is "known fact" isn't enough. If the only evidence is the group's own word than they could be described as "a self-described circle of..." or whatever. P4k 07:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"IPCE is a secretive group..." No, that doesn't sound good either. Unless we have sources for the description I suggest we just include the entry with no description. Ditto for the other sites. Just give their titles and let readers interested in the topic make their own judgments. -Will Beback · † · 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember hearing an interview with an IPCE member in which he described the organisation as secretive and academic, and made sure not to disclose the names of other members. As for the inclusion of academics, I thought that was as easy as a spade is a spade, and therefore did not need citing. Here are the audio files. See ep 20 and 21. --Jim Burton 19:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's just leave off the description. -Will Beback · † · 20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to explain why you should be so uneasy about this description. All you have to do is have a look at their website, or click on those audio files. I have changed the definition once again, so lets see if we can reach consensus on that --Jim Burton 01:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous speaker on a podcast is not a reliable source for anything. -Will Beback · † · 02:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are my personal show notes on the interview with an IPCE member. Quotes in italics:

Ep 20: 06:15 Member of IPCE:

I’m a member of IPCE … I work with a number of academics there

Member has degree in psychology, associate diploma in welfare

17:20 I am an independent researcher … with an academic background

Ep 21: (from the off)

Some very famous publishers and qualified academics got together to do research on the topic … one member goes to the sexology conferences, and does present material

It’s a bit difficult to talk, because it has been infiltrated before ... but we do have at least three world famous published authors, among them Tom O’Caroll

[of the membership] …with the emphasis on well educated researchers, historians and academics --Jim Burton 03:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the name of the person who is your source? -Will Beback · † · 07:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The man's a pedophile, so he simply goes by the pen name 'old st nick' --Jim Burton 15:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Euphemisms

There appears to be a debate about the description of the childlove terms. I am not quite sure what would be the best way to describe them, but IMO the current wording as euphemisms is POV, because at least for me it implies an intent of sugarcoating something negative. However whether pedophilia is itself something that should be regarded as negative is a central point of the debate, with pedophile activists claiming that it is not and anti-pedophiles claiming that it is. So the use of 'euphemisms' adopts the view of the contra side of the debate. A more neutral word should be used, that describes that the childlove terms are promoted by the pedophile movement with the intention to replace the heavily stigmatized term 'pedophile' with something that sounds more pleasant. On this note 'stigma-free terms' sounds like not too bad a description - at least that was the original intention, although today the childlove terms have become stigmatized as well.--Greeny6000 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus here. Even if the use of 'euphemisms' is not POV, it is highly restrictive. For example, non euphemistic functions of the said phrases include the description of one's preferred sex, one's community identity and a break from the medical model or dictionary definition of pedophilia, whatever it may mean at the time. Therefore, we should not primarily define the phrases as euphemisms. --Jim Burton 07:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Some members of the movement also promote the use of terms such as "pedosexual", "boylove(r)", "girllove(r)", and "childlove(r)" over "pedophilia", which implies other meanings that they see as undesirable.

What "other meanings" do they see as undesirable, and how do we know this? -Will Beback · † · 08:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The colloqualisation theme is definitely common knowledge, and the division of sexual attraction, in avoidance of sweeping terminology is visible in the mere existence of 'girllover', etc. I would also say it is quite obvious that various theories of pathology have been attatched to the word 'pedophile' and therefore activists will steer clear of it. I will change the current definition to take account of additional positive meanings. --Jim Burton 17:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the stigma on "pedophilia" is colloquial. It's a psychiatric diagnosis.

Meanwhile, "boylove" is a clubby neologism made up by a bunch of random guys. Which is...a lot more colloquial.

DanB†DanD 18:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, 'colloquial' should not be used at all, as it implies locality. I have removed it from the passage concerned, anyway. You are right about the stigma, although the article does not conflict with this any more. --Jim Burton 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Poisoning the well!

Stating that all studies in support of this movement's hypotheses were published by pedophile activists is needless poisoning of the well, especially when you can't show that all original publishers are pedophiles and activists in the movement described.

As for using the word 'advocate' (as opposed to the horrendously off - target 'activist'), this is again poisoning the well, since any researcher supports the conclusions of their study. For example, if a researcher, unlike Bruce Rind, concluded that the current legal situation is fine regarding sex with minors, we would not list them as an 'age of consent advocate / activist', let alone use a sweeping term for all similar researchers.

All this can be described as is reactionary bias in Wikipedia. We are treating minority positions differently, simply because they are outspoken. Poisoning the well is a reactionary measure of biased editors, and is totally unrequired in an article from which we expect the reader to make their own conclusions. --Jim Burton 15:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to show that all pedophile advocates are themselves pedophiles. I assume you're referring to the section titled "Questioning the assumption of harm". There are four instances given, sourced from David L. Riegel (author of Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers), the SafeHaven Foundation, Tom O'Carroll, and Edward Brongersma. All four of these are clearly pedophile advocates. We can phrase it differently, but it's appropriate to indicate which sources are within the movement as opposed to non-advocates. I've added some text which I think differentiates them from Rind. -Will Beback · † · 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The section is now vastly improved, since it does not look like any supporting studies ( e.g. Rind, Sandfort) are put forward by pedophiles. Technically, these people should still be referred to as advocates of sex with minors, and moreover, this should not be mentioned at all, since it has no bearing on their arguments. Brongersma, as an ephebophile (I gather) should really be referred to as a 'pro pedophile activist' at the very least. But this section now comes off my priorities, having improved --Jim Burton 01:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotes

I have recently added a section on the use of anecdotal evidence of positive intergenerational sexual relationships with minors (promoted views: other), and in the spirit of anecdotes, I have added Sandfort's interview study of 25 boys (linked up via a convenience sample of pederasts) to 'other papers'. It can be seen from this link that at least six activism websites have directories of anecdotal evidence. --Jim Burton 17:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is about activism, the anecdotes should be limited to stories of activism, not of child-sex contact. General anecdotes about child-adult sex should go in Child sexual abuse. -Will Beback · † · 21:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that since the use of anecdotes is a tactic which cannot be summed up by describing an argument, a short sample is required, as with examples of studies, etc. That's why I picked Ginsberg (as cited by Howard Kline) as an example. --Jim Burton 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll come back to the Ginsberg quotation later. We have no reason to assert that it is among the "more reliable of these testimonies". Critics might point out that Ginsberg was a pederast later in life. As for adding that activists collect and publish anecdotes as evidence, we can say that without providing examples. -Will Beback · † · 01:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ginsberg is a far more relible testimony, since he is not an anonymous internet i.d., was cited from television, in a written article, and as a public figure, should have denied saying this if the quotation was false. His being a pederast: Exactly how would this make his testimony unreliable? I would also appreciate any rationale behind not referencing the use of anecdotes with at least one example. I would say that we are meant to be providing examples of activism, not censoring it. --Jim Burton 14:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The overall section in question provides additional type of advocacy. One of those types is publishing collections of anecdotes. The examples we provide are the links to those sites. Adding the actual, unverified text from those sites is not necessary, and is POV because we don't provide any balancing material. In general, this encyclopedia does not provide examples of things, but rather summarizes or describes things. So I'm going to leave the paragraph, but remove the Ginsberg quote. It might be more appropriately summarized in the Ginsberg bio. -Will Beback · † · 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote is to anecdotal as study is to academic, IMO. But my main concern is that the section itself remains uncontested. --Jim Burton 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We cannot use one-person websites as reliable sources for most purposes. While we can link to them as proof that they exist, we cannot assume that what they contain is sufficiently reliable to include as facts. -Will Beback · † · 21:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Mr. Kline sourced the Ginsberg quote from the journalistic profession. Would you be happy for this short quote to stand as an example in the text, if it were linked from a journalistic source? --Jim Burton 17:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

I dont believe it! PEDOPHILE ACTIVIST?! Does anybody care fo these freaks? Thay have the gall to fight for there right to F^&k a kid?!

NO WAY!!! This has to be a joke from wikipedia. THIS IS A JOKE..isnt it?--SAIKANO!!! 20:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a documentation of fact. The movement that you mention has been going since the 50s and encompasses a lot more that 'fighting for the right to fuck a kid', as you rather partially put it.

Pedophiles exist. So do people who want to remove the age of consent. It's as easy as 1 + 1. --Jim Burton 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally hope Wikipedia cooperates fully with U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies, and shares IP and member information with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (unregistered user) Regardless of your political views on the matter, some comments and anecdotes made here are worthy of criminal investigation. As a father, I hope you will agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.117.81.21 (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

oh, that weasel word "controversial"

Again, that 'ol weasel word "controversial" used to lend credence to a given position, to give the impression that there a give-and-take going on between two roughly equal positions. But the perfectly accurate word "unpopular" can often be more descriptive. Here's a handy guide to when to use each word:

CONTROVERSIAL: Abortion rights; tax policy; immigration policy; etc.
UNPOPULAR: Nazism; human sacrifice; pedophilia activism; etc.

You see what I'm saying? We don't say "John Smith, in a controversal action, blew up a school bus full of nuns and babies today". Now, I'm sure there are those who wish that pedophile activism was actually controversial; who would like a world where the conversation around the water cooler goes "Say, did you see what those pedophile activists said today? What idiots!" "Oh, I don't know, I kind of think they have a point"... and so forth. But, you know, if wishes were horses then beggars would ride, hm? Thank you and good night. Herostratus 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot of hate towards pedophiles in general, and thus a categorical rejection of almost anything that they say. It's probably more rationalising than rational, but it most certainly is the truth. --Jim Burton 12:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The unattributed, the redundant and the weasel worded

The article is long and in some places clear. Things that are confusing and unattributed can be taken out. Like this here:

"Objections to the movement's ethics

Western society generally regards all child-adult sexual activity included in the ethical frameworks proposed by paedophile organisations as abusive and harmful.

Most people argue that minors would not have the freedom to withdraw from an abusive relationship, into which they can also very easily be coerced. Also, most child psychologists are highly unlikely to agree that any child-adult sexual activity is in harmony with the psychological development of a child. In line with social consensus, some scientists hold that sexual activity is innately harmful for young children, i.e. no amount of social restructuring or sexual tolerance can change what they claim to be a consistently damaging activity^{[citation needed]}. It has also been claimed that sexual attraction to children is intertwined with a psychological pathology that would make such 'ethical' behaviour impossible.

A popular lay position conceptualises childhood as a time of purity and innocence. Sexual behaviour, being seen innately lacking in such purity, is therefore equated with the 'theft' or 'taking away' of 'childhood', or at least some of the associated properties. "

Most of this is duly covered in the rest of the article, and what is more most of it would be refuted by any reference at all. For instance, I think more than one lay or professional opinion holds childhood as something like a time of innocence. Now, some of this could be put back into the main article after getting attributed, except for the fact that all of it is already there. Lotusduck 07:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of unreliable sources

I am of the opinion, that if we are writing an article on an unreliable source and are quoting them, for instance an article on a blogger, we can reference their blog. But to use these un-reviewed, self published things as necessarily reliable to describe something other than themselves, such as the movement that they are a part of, is not okay. That is how I read the policy. Under this policy, I will remove every paragraph whose only citation is an activist website like the IPCE. The IPCE is a reasonable source for an article on the IPCE, but it is not wikipedias job to decide what website is to be the mouthpiece or center of a movement. Lotusduck 23:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

IPCE lists the full papers, and due to the current political climate - it exists as an almost unique window into many studies regarding this matter.

Demonstrate beyond doubt how IPCE being an advocacy group biases the information itself. If you can't do this, your concerns are invalid. --Jim Burton 02:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. The default is that information from advocacy groups should not be taken at face value. It's bais may be assumed. Advocacy group material is ok for the External Links section, not as a reference. This is not necessarily a hard and fast rule, but use of advocacy groups for inline references should be viewed with care. Herostratus 03:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

From what source do you claim this 'default', 'assumption of bias' with authority? As I said, IPCE hosts nothing but their own advocacy material and a library of original papers, written elsewhere by academics. Please show me how it is a good assumption that IPCE are somehow doctoring the original texts, otherwise we must assume that their library is an impartial source. Another problem here, is that IPCE is an absolutely vital source of child sexuality and intergenerational sex studies, most of which are never posted in their entireity elsewhere.

Indeed, most sites which list academic papers, carry some kind of aganda, scientific or cultural. We readily reference papers from the leadership council for example. --Jim Burton 08:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

_ By SS ___ 3-27-07

== 'While I am a free thinking person, this just feels icky to read...the fact that there is a words or words to describe adults viewing children as sexual objects doesn't make it acceptable in any way in my opinion. Children are growing humans who need love and support and appection in healthy ways. There is nothing healthy AT ALL for the children (though perhaps for the adults in this case) who are seen as cute young adults with holes for probing or touching. OH, I get ill just thinking of it. And how did I find THIS CRAZY PEDOPHILE ACTIVISM GARBAGE? My young son made a music video and put in on a popular website like his friends have done, and I found that in a mere few weeks his video was LINKED TO A BOYLOVER WEBSITE! So, yes, my son's video has been viewed by potential pedolphiles. My first thought was to TAKE HIS VIDEO DOWN, but then I thought how unfair it was for us to have to do this after all of his hard work in this video...and then I thought about just how proud he is of it...so, instead of HIDING from these people, I will FIGHT THEM and all they STAND FOR. They need HELP. It's not right no matter HOW it's laid out for us to try to understand, or be brainwashed into thinking it's ok/acceptable.

SO, if one of you PEDOPHOLE ACTIVISTS happens to be reading this... I must ask you this: how would you like me to take your 7 or 8 year old sweet little daughter or son to a Pedophle Activism Camp so he or she can meet up with a 56 year old gray man with a boner...would you agree send your little child away and alone with this man for him to somehow manipulate your child into allowing his nasty dry old man hands on your sweetheart's body? I know you couldn't!!!!!! So you KNOW this is wrong...If it's your own child, it's wrong. No matter HOW you look it -->>> it, it's wrong..but when you look at it THIS way...it finally feels wrong to YOU, doesn't it?' ==

I don't think that your comment has a lot to do with the content of the actual article that is being discussed here. I also don't really see your problem concerning the music video of your son. Just because it has been linked to by a boylove site that doesn't mean that your son is in any danger. It probably only means that there are people out there that like the video and as boylovers obviously like boys, it isn't even a very big surprise that some paid attention to it. Of course there are always some people out there that make dumb or rude comments on such video portals, but one should not generalize about a whole subgroup of society and as I said, I don't think that there is any danger for your son, if you taught him not to give out personal information about himself on the internet.--Greeny6000 22:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Master Administrator must review this horrendous propaganda

I am shocked such biased reportage permitted on the Wikipedia. Neutrality concept in some respect involve society views, this article disproportionate contains views of deviants and criminals. Master administrators I urge your attention on this matter, perhaps it has even unlawful and media controversy can be damaging to the Wikipedia Project credibility. Danger to the children from dissemination of such harmful writings justify administrator interventions here, in my belief. Wen Hsing 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm an administrator. What, in particular, do you object to? Herostratus 01:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably wants the article deleted. Good luck. — $PЯINGrαgђ 02:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, one problem that might need the oversight of an administrator is the issue of references from activist websites. They are a part of the articles topic, but does that mean that they are a good source? Would you use Senator Norm Coleman's campaign website as the source for the article on the Republican Party? Of course not. On another topic, I think I have a problem with the references to the IPCE. They do not make clear when they are referencing something published outside or self published, and of course their summarizations are less favorable than if the original paper were the source. I certainly think the article would be improved if all statements sourced by the IPCE were removed. I am skeptical since after reading news articles that were sourced, several of them said the opposite of the statements in this article they were supposed to attribute to. I would like the same kind of ability to check out every article here without internet self published magazines as an intermediary.Lotusduck 03:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lotusduck - less use of pedophile propaganda website as source, more emphasize views of normal societyWen Hsing 04:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course my approach would lessen the lean toward any view and be more informational.Lotusduck 04:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course many of you would want to emphasize your view or the view of society. That isn't the goal of wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to show the scientific and philosophical arguments for articles. In any case, the mainstream view of pedophilia is already covered in the pedophile article. This article is dedicated to pedophile activism, not anti-pedophile activism. In fact I see a lot more bias against pedophilia in the article, considering there are two criticism sections. I guess I'll modify this. Zachorious 08:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the issue (in regards the article itself, not its content or views). Deleting this would be like pretending that the problem doesen't exist. I'll just close my eyes and LA LA LA the world will be perfect LA LA LA - rubbish. These things should be available for people to find out about, from all points of view. This is supposed to be an information source, not an opinionated blog. Besides, all you paedophile-haters out there would get bored if these articles weren't up, because then you'd never have found out about this group and therefore wouldn't have had anything to moan about ;-) Filecore 09:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed incomprehensible sentence

I removed this sentence:

"Apart from that, many also reason in the 1921 (First Congress for Sexual Reform, see Magnus Hirschfeld) tradition of Kurt Hiller on intergenerational activities that, based on the theory that sexual activities are most and foremost a variety of social communication among others, also simple consent (i. e. agreement, willing) to sexual activity needs not necessarily yield detrimental effects in itself as long as the informed party watches their steps, and that exclusively simple consent yields the information needed for informed consent."

Perhaps it's battle-scarred or something. Anybody who can figger what it means is welcome to write a coherent version and put it back. Bishonen | talk 23:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

"The movement's use of scientific papers"

Basically, almost everything under "The movement's use of scientific papers," "Rind et al. controversy," and "Other papers" is irrelevant and should be deleted. The first sentence, "Many in the movement use scientific papers in their arguments, disputing some claims of psychological harm from child sexual abuse and using other papers to argue for changes in policy or public opinion." is fine, although it needs to be cited. But the rest of this section doesn't present any information on how pedophile activists use scientific papers or any proof that they do at all (apart from the fact that some of the cited papers are hosted by ipce); instead, it's just a collection of findings that could be construed as pro-pedophilia in some way. This section doesn't show that these papers are used by pedophile activists, which is the only thing that would justify the inclusion of information about them in this article. This section isn't about pedophile activism, its just about pedophilia. If an article on environmentalism says "many environmentalists use scientific papers in their arguments" it would be appropriate to follow that with something like "for instance, Greenpeace quoted a 1997 paper on global warming in literature sent to their members." Saying instead, "a 1997 paper showed that carbon emissions cause global warming" (which is the equivalent of what this section does) would tell you nothing about environmentalism and would have no place in an article about it. --P4k 03:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Age of Consent

I apologize if this was discussed, I didn't see it so I decided to include this comment. I wasn't aware until today that there was any sort of movement condoning pedophilia, however, I am aware that there is a large movement (especially here in Florida) to change the age of consent or its punishments.

I believe this controversy should be linked to this article and vice versa.

For anyone not sure of what I am talking about... I will try and explain. I don't know all the details, I only heard a brief interview on "All Things Considered" on NPR a few weeks ago. Apparently an 18 or 19 year old Florida boy is in jail for having sex with a minor, who happened to be his girlfriend of two years, however, she happened to be seventeen when he turned eighteen. He, among others, is trying to change the law so that such close age ranges do not get the same sentences as, say, a 47 year old having sex with a fifteen year old.

Sheesh. I forgot. I was trying to add it. =) (to moderator/editor)

Signed by Michel Bergeron (AmonHarakhte)

It should be mentioned that pedophilia is specifically sexual relations involving an individual who has not reached puberty. In the diet rich Western World this usually means persons aged under 12 years. This would not entail a lowering of the age of consent, but a drastic cut. In this context there is no close proximity between the ages of the adult and the minor. Therefore this campaign, which mirrors laws in some European countries, is not relevant here.

That is not to say that such a campaign would not be supported by pedophile activists, as part of a campaign to change mindsets, but it isn't in the scope of this article (or any part of Wikipedia) to make such judgements. LessHeard vanU 20:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"It should be mentioned that pedophilia is specifically sexual relations involving an individual who has not reached puberty." - Pedophilia, like any other -ilia, does not require sexual relations, only a desire or preference. "but a drastic cut" - In some Western countries the age of consent is 13 or 14. Cutting to 11 is not "drastic." In the USA or UK going to 11 would be drastic. Dfpc 21:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Where I live it is 14 and with 30 years mandatory prison for intercourse with someone under that age so a cut to 11 would indeed be drastic, SqueakBox 21:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware those European countries with lower ages of consent in the 13/14 yo range also operate the 5 years policy, so that sexual partners cannot be greater than that age difference. The universal age of consent is between 15 and 18. I would re-iterate that pedophilia involves one pre-pubescent party, so the difference in biological maturity and age is still drastic.

BTW, as I noted elsewhere (and which got me to this place, I guess) desire is not illegal, as there is no way of policing how people feel, but communicating the desire is deemed socially unacceptable and acting upon it most definitely is.LessHeard vanU 22:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

POV edit build on non-facts

The harm done is highly debated among professionals, Peer Commentaries on Green and Smith 2002, shows this with excellent clarity. Voice of Britain 18:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I dont have a copy of that. It sounds like you are trying to defend the minority arguments of the activists, and we are not here to do that. This article is way too pro peadophile activism and your reverting anything that attempts to NPOV it isnt good, SqueakBox 18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do and it shows that it is highly debated among professionals. Fred Berlin for example does not seem very convinced of the always harm argument, and he is a prominent researcher. I will revert since you aint got yoour facts straight. Voice of Britain 18:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To show good faith I will not revert just yet, if you can source your claims within 2 days, I will not revert. Voice of Britain 18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets turn this around a bit. Can you give an online ref of any part of the medical community that supports activists claims? Give one example of a country where adult-child sex is legal? Reference that these groups are considered by anyone to be ethical? SqueakBox 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have had much recent experience of SqueakBox also. He frequently edits from a POV basis and ignores facts.--Vintagekits 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Do you have anything to say about paedophile activism? If not please move along, SqueakBox 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My comment is on you and your editing which is not fact based it is POV based.--Vintagekits 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have come here to attack me and have nothing to offer please go away. if you have something constructive to say about Paedophile activism please join in the debate. Perhaps you know of a country where child/adult sex is legal? etc, SqueakBox 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Article talk pages, like this one, are only for discussing articles. If anyone wants to discuss editors then another venue should be used, such as the editors' talk pages, RfCs, AN/I, etc. -Will Beback · † · 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed and Vintage is very welcome here to help resolve the editing dispute we have by focussing on the specifics already outlined by Voice of Britain and myself, SqueakBox 22:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)The article itself states "Most of the people involved in these efforts believe that such ethical guidelines can only work in jurisdictions where adult–child sex is legal (of which there are none in current existence) and this is absolutely true to the best of our knowledge and thus myearlier edition of "(of which there are none in current existence)" is, IMO, fully justified and I think in this case you should be able to source it is legal somewhere before reverting this particular sentence in 2 days time, SqueakBox 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The proble with the greater medical community is it implies that a substantial minority may not be unconvinced. You might be able to find the odd doctor who agrees with PA but a lesser medical community, that implies like thousands upon thousands at the least. Perhaps almost the entire community could be added if we have some solid sources for medics who are convinced by these arguments. Again generally harmless is so vague that it could mean anything and therefore should not be included, SqueakBox 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of changes

"Paedophile activism" blankets many contradicting views. While your version implies that paedophile activists necessarily advocate altering age-of-consent laws or diminishing the perceived harm of child sexual abuse, many do not.
Your version claims that pedophile activists promote "social acceptance of illegal sexual activity between children and adults." Among the many "pro-contact" positions I've read, only a few endorsed acceptance of illegal activity; rather, they usually support the acceptance of adult-child sex in a future social context where it isn't illegal.
Anyone's who's browsed ipce for ten minutes would know that your "entirely" qualifier is entirely false. One reference for this has already been provided. (The statement, btw, is ridiculously vague. In the scientific community, acceptance of "the movement's claims" ranges from 'near unanimity' to 'nothing' depending on the claim in question.)
The sentence following that is a grammatical mess. It misuses commas and, despite being harmonious with the preceding sentences, uses "however."

mmkay? Jillium 23:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

1 - What do these other pedophile activists advocate?

2 - The text Squeakbox wrote included social acceptance of illegal sexual activity" as one of many goals, not a goal that all activists promote

3 - Can you provide a specific source which supports your contention?

4 - Easily fixed.

I'm going to restore Squekabox's version and copyedit it. -Will Beback · † · 23:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"What do these other pedophile activists advocate?"

A lot? Some paedophile activists just advocate against hatred, for protection against discrimination, etc.

" The text Squeakbox wrote included social acceptance of illegal sexual activity" as one of many goals, not a goal that all activists promote"

His version implies it is a goal of 'paedophile activists' in general. It's only a goal of tiny fraction; I don't believe any public pro-paed organization advocates that, in fact.

"Can you provide a specific source which supports your contention?"

What contention, exactly? Voice of Britain provided one source above.

Jillium 23:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

1. - Pease provide specifics.

2. - Not everybody advocates for everything. These are the types of activism that fall under "pedophile activism".

3. - What does that source say about the general debate on the harm of sexual abuse on children?

-Will Beback · † · 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Some paedophiles advocate for the same legal protections mainstream queers are granted, some advocate against hatred, some advocate proper usage of the word 'paedophile,' some advocate for educations about the realities of paedophilia, some advocate for the legalization of child porn possession, or distribution, some advocate for the abolishment of the aoc, some advocate for alterations to the aoc, some advocate for segregation, some advocate for research for a "cure" of paedophilia, some advocate against ineffective therapy, some advocate for debate, some advocate for institutionalized pederasty, some advocate for child-sexuality issues, some advocate against adult-child sex, some advocate for alternate handling of sex offense cases, blah blah blah ...

2. Your phrasing implies that members of "the paedophile activism movement" advocate adult-child sex as a function of their 'membership.'

3. I'll email it to you, if you want.

Jillium 00:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Which advocates are you taling about?

2. Pedophile activism is a social movement (referred to by some supporters as the childlove movement) that encompasses social acceptance of adults' romantic or sexual attraction to children (see pedophilia); social acceptance of illegal sexual activity between children and adults; and changes in institutions of concern to pedophiles, such as changing age of consent laws and mental illness classifications. The movement encompasses these things. The text doens't make reference to members.

3. Yes please. [5]. -Will Beback · † · 00:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

1. All paed activists whom I have encountered. ..?

2. As I said, it's implied. It should be clear that not all paedophile activists support the listed goals.

3. I can't attach a .pdf via Wikipedia. My email is jillium at fastmail dot fm.

Jillium 00:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)