Talk:Virtuous Pedophiles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Refs

Material was re-added with a not 3rd party ref but a primary ref from the group itself and even so some of the re-added material was not backed by the ref and done so by someone with a strong WP:COI interest in the article. This is not good. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Which info are you talking about?

I have just re-added the info on number of members and groups of members ("There are over 550 members registered (December 2014) among them are parents of children and parents of pedophiles along with some few sex researchers and many pedophiles of both genders"). Reason: there is no use for asking for a third party reference in this case: the number of members is free to read for anyone who visits the forum's index page. Third parties could only rely on this info too.

The info on detailed groups of members (researchers, parents, women and men) is truely arguable. Please rather have a look if there truely is no reference out published before you delete info. I am no native speaker and can't study everything in detail, that is up to native english speakers. My suggestion regarding these details is to word it this way: "...among them are people who claim to be parents of children or of pedophiles, sex researchers and pedophiles of both genders"

If you mean Dr. Cantor with "someone with a strong WP:COI interest in the article. This is not good" then I ask you if you would also wish to ban Peter Higgs from adding infos to the article about the Higgs Boson, which would be ridiculous. Max Weber (SuH) (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Podcast

The problem with this link is you have to wait 21 and a half mins of off topic material to get to the relevant piece, I have changed to this link where our readers can go straight to 21:30 and start listening to the relevant material, and I have added the 21:30 start to the ref, again to help our readers navigate irrelevant material and get to the piece we want. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Several experts?

The claim was that 3 refs supported several experts endorsing this group but on my perusal of the 3 refs I could only find verification of Cantor as a professional or expert endorsing the group. If I am missing something please let me know here. Who are these other experts and where in the refs do they endorse this group?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

In this part of the website http://www.virped.org/index.php/scientific-experts there are quotes. We got permission from each of those authors to include that quote in our material. I think that constitutes an endorsement. EthanEdwards72 (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two types of sources, primary, which in this case is like website, and secondary, which in this case is like salon.com and what we are looking for is secondary sources and we should only use primary sources when it is essential we include the material and there are no secondary sources. Are there no secondary sources here? What do other editors think about including this page as a ref for other experts endorsing the site? I say endorsing but I dont think we should use that word after another editor reverted me for saying Cantor endorsed the site on his biography page James Cantor. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

The one criticism of the group gets removed by an editor with COI issues. Is it a blog? Didnt look like it to me, and it is important we dont just have positive things about the group and no criticism. If this happens again I will put an NPOV tag on the article as biased. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing any criticism of this fringe article while refusing to discuss the issue leaves me with no choice but to NPOV tag it, lets discuss here please. Why is the source not considered reliable? And how are we going to make the article neutral rather than a plug for this group?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an NPOV issue, but an RS one. Regarding this source, it doesn't seem like a particularly professional outfit. And it seems like they publish articles from any random person. The article you added was written by Jennifer Mazzara, who according to the article "has been a Catholic for 26 years, and a blogger for 6. She is a mother of two beautiful little men and shares her daytime with them playing with trains or just watching the world go by outside our door. Her big man is in the United States Marine Corps, and her family's life in the the military couldn't be more blessed. She blogs at Midnight Radio." In what way does that qualify her as a reliable source, particularly on a topic like this? Seems like she is indeed just a blogger. So your addition of the NPOV tag isn't warranted. If you have other material published in RSs, then I don't see any reason why it can't be added. NPOV is based on the prevalence of opinion based in RSs. The question is: What views published in RSs on this group are being excluded from this article? Christopher Connor (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The neutrality tag needs to stay until this stop being a soap piece for VP, if you can address that would be great but do NOT remove the tag until this issue is resolved. The problem I see is that it is a such a fringe group the only publicity they have received in RSs appears to be through the efforts of Cantor to promote th group, and part of his efforts appear to be on wikipedia itself so a COI tag as well would not be inappropriate. That this article failed to reach any consensus on afd merely compounds the issue. The other issue that really affects the neutrality of the article is over-reliance on one primary source, the VP website. if we could remove all the refs and what they assert that use this primary source that would go SOME way towards resolving the neutrality issue. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems from your statement that you accept that no RSs are being excluded, so there's no NPOV problem regarding certain views not being included. As for the article, I don't see how it's promoting the subject. All that's said is what the group is, what their members believe, and what an expert has said on the group. How is this non-neutral? Certainly the language is okay. As for the SPS, it's used once, to source basic information about the group's views. It's not used to source anything controverial. That's an acceptable use of SPSs. So, I can't see where there's an NPOV problem here. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you are so hostile to the tag, and do remember that you arent disputing the neutrality. I have done some further edits for better neutrality but if you revert me again (as you and Cantor have been disputing some of my edits, the basis of the NPOV tag conflict) I will have to consider re-applying the tag anyway as I am editing for neutrality, I am not entirely convinced either that the article is neutral or that there is no disputing this but I have now removed the primary source which goes someway towards improving the verifiability of the article. For me a big part of the prroblem is that this is such a FRINGE group that we lack reliable sources full stop, all there is is the laudable efforts of Cantor to promote the group, and all 4 RSs are based on his efforts. This is one reason why, IMO, the article should be deleted and currently there is no consensus on that issue so we have to find ways of ensuring neutrality but it isnt easy. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be another cycle of the above discussion at Virtuous pedophiles. Input from new eyes would be appreciated. Thanks, in advance.— James Cantor (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about, James? Your comment makes no sense whatsoever ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If you seek criticism i suppose you could refer to one or both of the blog posts from Tom_O'Carroll (links removed) 85.183.83.34 (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Followup: You can find the critic blog posts by viewing Tom_O'Carrolls Blog as linked on his Wiki-Page and search through his blog for "Virtuous pedophiles". Please don't remove my comments. See WP:TPOC. 85.183.83.34 (talk)

We cant use blogs as references on wikipedia, thks for removing the links though I think you were unwise to revert me replacing them again, albeit temporarily♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Not revealing identity

"One of the two founders of the group uses the pseudonym Ethan Edwards and does not reveal his true identity even though he says he has never abused children."

This seems entirely unremarkable to me. It is very hard to find any pedophile who has not been outed by law enforcement who publicly gives his identity. Fear of stigma is plenty of reason. If you want to list the founders, that's fine, but I don't think that insinuation of duplicity is warranted by the reason you cite. I'm obviously an interested party in this point, so I'm bending over backward to give the facts against inclusion in an objective way.

EthanEdwards72 (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the issue you have with it? I understand why you choose to be anonymous as I am sure many do but it is sourced information so publicly available and isnt added in a way to make it seem remarkable or to violate our living persons policy. What would you like to see happen?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If you like I can remove "even though he says he has never abused children" but I dont think that is the issue. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It now says "One of the two founders of the group, who says he has never abused children, uses the pseudonym Ethan Edwards and does not reveal his true identity." I hope this resolves your issue as I agree that the even though could be construed wrongly. Please do let us know here if you still have issues with this sentence. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The parenthetical phrase "who says he has not abused children" has no place there. If you want to focus on the claim of not abusing children, do it separately. It doesn't belong in a sentence that notes I don't reveal my identity.EthanEdwards72 (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I have no problem with that. It now says "One of the two founders of the group uses the pseudonym Ethan Edwards and does not reveal his true identity.". Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Tagged for COI

User:James Cantor has made huge efforts to promote this group and all the 3rd party refs exist due to these efforts. Absolutely nothing wrong there but when said editor then engages time and again in edit warring over this article we have a WP:COI issue. It needs resolving on this talk page before the tag should be removed. What would satisfy me is for James to bring any edits he wants to make to the talk page first and if there is agreement others can make the edits. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:James Cameron has very oddly responded to the charges at Talk:Pedophilia#Eyes again, please? but not here. I find this a bit disconcerting. If his behaviour doesnt improve a WP:RFC will likely be the outome though I would very much like to avoid this♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Dubious statement

"Members share the belief that sexual activity between adults and children is wrong and always will be" is dubious. Just with a possible counter -point I would doubt "always will be". If at some point society changes it s view of what is acceptable (ie- consensusal sex between say a 19 yr old and a 17 yr old) then I am sure the always will be would need caveat. Perhaps add something like due caveats taht sexual activity is considered immoral or something. Orperhaps the consensual /non-consensual nature?(Lihaas (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)).

I think the phrase can simply be deleted without meaningful change to the underlying idea.— James Cantor (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

This article really needs a "controversy" section. VP is loved neither by the secular community, who are suspicious of its real motives, nor by the minor-attracted community, who view it with the contempt an organization calling itself "Non-Uppity N-Words" would receive at an NAACP convention. Also, is a niche organization like this whose tangible existence consists solely of a Webpage run by anonymous entities, really notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article? I'd vote to delete, or at the most, give it its own paragraph in one of the other fringe sexuality advocacy articles. Ternary Logic (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ternary Logic, welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate the opinions about this group from groups that are themselves more extreme. What goes into and what does not go into pages, however, is guided by Wikipedia's editing policies. Specifically, WP does include information that is contained in "reliable sources," such as newspapers, peer reviewed research articles, and so on. WP does not include information from blogs, personal knowledge, etc. The existence and statements of Virtuous Pedophiles has appeared in reliable sources, but the controversies you describe are not. Thus, that is what the page contains. You may want to read: WP:Verifiability. I hope that's a help.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd still argue that it isn't notable, and it concerns me that the article seems to be shepherded by parties involved with the organization, and reads like a press release. Ternary Logic (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion about whether the topic was sufficiently notable, but there was no consensus to delete it. Wikipedia's guidelines for notability is available at WP:Notability, and the now-archived discussion about whether to delete this page is available at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Virtuous_Pedophiles. Because the topic has continued to receive attention from reliable sources, any arguments about notability would seem to be continuing to wane, however.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is little more than a badly written stub, and the coverage of the topic in "reliable secondary sources" is little more than short-term passing interest in an oddity. I see no evidence that it is continuing to be written about, or that anyone will remember it in a year. The tiny amount of real information here could easily be merged into any of the other articles on advocacy organizations for the sexually marginalized. There are other pedophile organizations who believe that the key to political progress is to evade the incendiary issue of age-of-consent reform, such as B4U-ACT, which has been around for years, received public funding, and is run by people who publicly advocate for it under their real life identities. It has been extensively written about in reliable secondary sources, held conferences, and isn't sufficiently notable to have its own article. If it isn't notable, than certainly a couple of anonymous guys with a Web page whose spin on pedophilia went viral for all of 15 minutes isn't notable either, even if Salon.com wrote a story on it. Ternary Logic (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

If you see a contradiction in there being an article about Virtuous Pedophiles and not one about B4U-ACT, then the obvious solution would be for you create an article about B4U-ACT. You might find it help to read WP:Articles for creation.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I find that both organizations fail notability guidelines. Ternary Logic (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, then your comparison between them makes no sense. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and I have directed you to where WP had that conversation previously, so that's about all I can add.— James Cantor (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My point was that B4U-ACT is a lot more notable than VP, and still fails to rise to the level of meriting its own Wikipedia article. There are very few ped-related organizations whose historical significance and widespread coverage in reliable secondary sources make them deserve their own article. The remainder can simply be mentioned in a few sentences added to one of the ped-activism or anti-ped-activism articles. Offhand, I'd say that NAMBLA, PIE, and Perverted Justice are worthy of separate articles, and the rest are not. Right now, VP is just a Webpage that got some viral coverage on the Internet. Everything that needs to be said about it can be said elsewhere. Ternary Logic (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you have some very good points, Ternary. The article was afd'd but there was no consensus to either delete or keep the article so another AFD is probably appropriate. Of course James wants to keep the article (IMO) because he is so heavily mentioned in it and the COI tag has been added because of his involvement as an editor in the article on here on its talk page while at the same time being behind pretty much all the reliable sources for the article (which is not of itself a bad thing, it just gets tricky when he edits here as well). ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC) (IMO

For those interested.

Anyone working on the page might be interested in these sources:

• http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/virtuous-pedophiles-group-gives-support-therapy-cannot-1.2710160
• http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/12/22/is_pedophilia_a_sexual_orientation.html
• http://www.pressherald.com/2013/01/20/in-focus-sex-and-society_2013-01-20/

— James Cantor (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)