Talk:Virtuous Pedophiles

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Virtuous Pedophiles article.
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 medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1

Medicine: Society Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This is where you discuss changes

~~@Dsprc: Hello, Your recent additions were challenged. Please try to discuss them here and get consensus Underwoods Witch (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Underwoods Witch: WP:CHILDPROTECT is a user conduct policy, not content policy. There has to be a legitimate reasoning for challenging material. Other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, there is no rational basis for removal of:

A couple of additional references to reliable sources (with no corresponding changes to article content).
Integrating this article and others with addition of §See also.

What is the specific content objection here? -- dsprc ^[talk] 05:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree this is appropriate. I'm usually all for wp isn't censored, but child abuse friendly organizations are a line the community has drawn together Underwoods Witch (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which links specifically are you drawing issue with? The official website link? - Skipple ☎ 04:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, a link to a child harm advocacy group. I see you have readded it, and now you own it. Underwoods Witch (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Again, I'm not sure what you are referring to, as I haven't added any external link back in. I will ask again, which link specifically is there issue with? - Skipple ☎ 18:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~At a minimum, you should probably add a warning that your link does lead to a child rape advocacy forum which is monitored by the FBI. Underwoods Witch (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolic sock noise aside: I don't object to exclusion of {{official}} in EL (I object to gaming the system) – there's no requirement articles include them anyway. Current status quo leaving it off is fine. -- dsprc ^[talk] 06:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks neutrality

This article is immensely favorable to an organization of admitted, self-professed would-be child rapists. Without, at a minimum, a criticism section, the article fails to meet NPOV standards. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have raised no specific objections, and a "criticism" section is never the go-to for resolving perceived issues of bias. The reception section already includes criticisms and concerns attributed to notable sources. I'm removing the tag. WP Ludicer (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

virped.org construction + anonymousity

I think we should add a statement that there are two parts of virped.org First part is the public one, and there is also a forum which has hidden URL and is available only after u contact moderators via email support@ bla bla bla where u get URL and registration instructions.

Also I think it's worth to say that forum members are strongly advised to remain as anonymous as possible. 37.248.218.73 (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Even with these warnings, users are more likely to offend than adult attracted adults."

The citation for this claim mentions nothing about the online forum specifically. This probably warrants a removal. MezmerizingWiseguy (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems true. Removing it is a bit weird, but let WP:CHILDPROTECT guide you

2600:1700:F990:C190:B692:F8A4:5B4:6E96 (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]