Talk:Curley v. NAMBLA

Untitled
I removed the link to User:Adam_Carr/Documents1 because it is the same as one of the PDF's pointed to. -- Fplay 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I put it back and put a selfref around it. Still not the best solution. -- Fplay 18:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved self-ref here from article body. --DanielCD 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

National Review article
That National Review article is highly biased and is not a good reference. I'm not saying I disagree with it, I really don't care. But opinion pieces are not proper references. I'm going to ask for a third opinion though. It might be ok if there is some trustworthy info. --DanielCD 03:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "External links" are not the same as references. National Review is a notable source, albeit one with a POV. -Will Beback 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think you are right. It does have a bias, but the info being used seems sound. Thanks for being so astute. --DanielCD 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, I also did some cleaning up. Some of the facts need further verification, as the two men seem to have had different parts, though both are quite guilty. However the article made it seem like both were equal in all parts. One aided, and the other did the sexual stuff.


 * I also removed the long list of names and such, as I thought that was a little bit of an overkill. If someone wants them replaced, it might be done in a way that it doesn't dominate the article and fuzz the focus. The names are relevant, and they are mentioned. But it seemed like information overkill. Anyway, comments on my edits are always welcome. --DanielCD 04:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

From a deleted section of the article: "In the application, Bejin is listed as the 'President/Vice President' of Zymurgy" Zymurgy? Are these guys in the beer-brewing business too?? --DanielCD 04:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Not Notable
This article replicates material in the NAMBLA article, and lawsuits are hardly notable in their own right, nor worthy of their own separate articles. Someone needs to propose this for AfD.

Politically motivated lawsuits get filed every day. People claim that video games or sex education or looking at Playboy or NAMBLA's website or eating twinkies drove them to commit some dispicable act. We do not need to fill up Wikipedia with a page for each one. Hermitian 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a significant event. I agree, Wikipedia does not need to fill up a page for each and every claim that someone makes as to not being guilty because some groups literature drove them to commit an act. However cases which garner significant media attention do justify a nice reference, so people can quickly read up on the background of a case and know it's context - rather then having to sift through much more biased sources over an extensive google search. 130.71.96.19 01:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This case need update
It's still 2005 information, what is going on now? Is it on Supreme Court yet? WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally I was just trying to find news on this case. Apparently the last decision was handed down March 2003, and that was just on a procedural issue. I know civil cases take time but this is odd. I can't find any trace of it being settled or dismissed. -Will Beback · † · 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed misrepresentation of source
I have edited this article so that it quotes one of its sources correctly. The Op-Ed by Richard Hoffman does not use the word "penis". It uses the word "wiles." Whether the article was worded the way it was because of a deliberate misrepresentation of the source, or because of a weird misunderstanding of "wiles" (which looks vaguely like a slang word for "penis"), I don't know. "Wiles" was changed to "penis" in this edit, back on October 12; it's not encouraging that this wasn't reverted more quickly. Devil Goddess (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:Requested move: Change the title back

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Curley v. North American Man/Boy Love Ass'n → Curley v. NAMBLA – In this edit, Good Olfactory moved the article from "Curley v. NAMBLA" to "Curley v. North American Man/Boy Love Association." In this edit, Good Olfactory moved the article from "Curley v. North American Man/Boy Love Association" to "Curley v. North American Man/Boy Love Ass'n." I don't know what Good Olfactory was thinking with the moves, but the title should be moved back to the Curley v. NAMBLA title, per WP:Common name; it should be titled that or Curley v. North American Man/Boy Love Association. I tried to move the article back to Curley v. NAMBLA, but it requires a WP:Administrator to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Curley v. NAMBLA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050417135904/http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp to http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Curley v. NAMBLA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051023035612/http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/otoole/pdf/curley%20mem%20ord%20mot%20to%20dism.pdf to http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/otoole/pdf/curley%20mem%20ord%20mot%20to%20dism.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)