Talk:International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association/Archive 1

Overall balance of the article
I have carried out some edits which aim to improve balance and neutrality in an article where ecosoc status has taken over to an extent that nothing else about ILGA, its regions and board seem to make an appearance. Whilst the ecosoc controversy is important and needs reporting from a neutral point of view it risks unbalancing the whole as it stands currently.

I don't propose to remove the section and I think the neutrality of the section is close to being acceptable at the moment there does need to be more content than there is at the moment to balance the section out.

I will try to see if its possible to try to add more content at a later date.

Balance (again)
The article seems now to be factual. However, the amount of space given over to what is now becoming a historical issue (notably givent he granting to ILGA - Europe of ECOSOC status recently) appears a little excessive and the section needs (in my view) replacing (not removing completely) with something tidier and possibly linking up to somewhere else where the 'controversy' is gone into in more depth etc etc. I will attempt a trial edit over the next few weeks to see if this can be managed. Cpnlsn88 20:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed section on links to pedophile organisations
I have removed the disputed section and placed it here and have replaced the article section with something with sources included as inline comments. Hopefully this can help to get this section into an acceptable state. lmno 16:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your edit: much of the disputed section remains within the article. What exactly is the purpose of this move and how does it help the neutrality of the article? --Axon 17:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything that remains in the article is now sourced (sources are included as inline HTML comments). If you think any statments are incorrect, we can discuss them point-by-point here. lmno 21:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I would recommend you uncomment the links to the sources and add them as proper sources using the square bracket Wiki syntax so that others may more easily follow them --Axon 11:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I also note that you have yet again removed the section on GLAAD criticism of the ILGA for having NAMBLA in it's membership, despite the fact that it is properly referenced. --Axon 13:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Because I tried to replace the section with a collection of direct lifts from a) pro-gay organisations, the ILGA itself, the UN and other similar organisations. lmno 23:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

from German wiki
"Im Herbst 1994 wird der VSG aus der International Lesbian and Gay Association ausgeschlossen. Der Grund liegt in der unterschiedlichen Bewertung von Pädophilie. Der Verein unterhielt eine Arbeitsgruppe zu diesem Thema, was der ILGA zum Zeitpunkt der Aufnahme des Vereines nicht bekannt war."--Nicetobe 12:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
I dispute neutrality of the purges section because I suspect facts have been selected to make a point. Needs editing from someone with a pro ILGA perspective. Martin 18:16, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Fascinating - neutrality to be arrived at by having partisan information edited by someone with the opposed view ;-) But yes, this is meant to be an article about the ILGA - I am sure that there is more to the organization than the pedo-purges. Why can't someone provide the extra stories rather than simply whitewashing the information that is here? lmno 16:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Facts are ALWAYS selected to make a point. A history of the ILGA in which facts had NOT been selected to make a point would consist of a reproduction of the minutes of ILGA's meethings. lmno 23:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

From VfD

 * ILGA Purges seems to be significantly POV (it's the work of this anonymous user, most (all?) of whose edits have been reverted), but I don't really know anything about the subject... I would have thought the title is argubly POV in and of itself, too. James F. 03:27 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Can be edited; against deletion. --Eloquence 10:16 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * I concur. It'll take some work, and the removal of the last paragraph or two, but there's historical info here. Keep, edit. -- Jake 03:14, 2003 Jul 30 (UTC)
 * I agree there's real historical info there that can be edited, but I also think the title is POV. The useful content (after editing for NPOV) belongs on the page for International Lesbian and Gay Association, and the ILGA Purges page should be deleted. -- Cjmnyc 04:52, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I merged with International Lesbian and Gay Association and redirected. Still needs work (I did a start, though). Keep the redirect. Martin 23:46, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Perspective and balance
This article seems to be very skewed. Rather than discussing how ILGA grew into a coalition of 3,000 organizations the article spends most of its time on the removal of 3 groups. I hate to remove solid information, but this article needs better balance. Maybe a list of member organizations..... (just kidding)(or maybe not). Cheers, -Willmcw 07:12, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems like this article started life with a pro-paedophile slant. However, removing this information would be a Bad Thing. It is interesting how some pro-gay organisations wish to remould the "public persona" of gay men (in particular) so that they are seen as exactly normal, save for the object of their sexual affections. This is an act of censorship on their part. Some self-defining gay men are not seeking normality (being into "dirty" sex, S&M, etc). Furthermore, some self-defining pro-gay organisations are of a paedophile nature - indeed, they used to belong to the ILGA. Their suppression was an act of self-censorhip by the ILGA. Removing this aspect of the ILGA article would be an extension of the same act of censorhip to Wikipedia. Rather than removing information, why not add extra areas to the article? As you say, ILGA is a coalition of 3000 organisations - this ought to provide plenty of material and justify a much longer article. lmno 10:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit, the whole section is extremely poorly written, vague and uncited with little attempt at NPOV. AFAIK, it was not originally written by "pro-pedophilles" but seems to have been written from the perspective of those who seek to make explicit and weak link between pedophillia and homosexuality. Without some evidence to back up the article's claims or attempts at balance I think it should be deleted. -- 11:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Quality of writing: I don't consider it to be particularly poorly written - save where various people (myself and Axon included) have hacked it about
 * It is true I have modified the article but I am still unhappy with it - I see no contradiction with this. No offence to your writing, Lmno, but I think the whole section reads as though it's trying to prove a point. --Axon 22:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Pro-paedophile: The section originally existed as ILGA Purges created by user 65.92.166.174], who appears to be the person responsible for the www.he.ca site.
 * I'm unsure the article was ever pro-pedophille - the anonymous editor edited the page only once and it had been edited by many editors before and since. Certainly, the actual content of the section in question would now seem to have a point to prove unrelated to pedophilla advocacy. --Axon 22:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * NPOV: Wikipedia states that it has a NPOV policy. However, it is also a Wikipedia:Consensus based organisation. But, I wonder how one can be a) neutral and b) rely on a consensus based decision making process to determine what is "neutral". On one hand, Wikipedia is dedicated to objective neutrality, but on the other it relies upon the subjective opinion of the majority of editors to determine what is neutral, hence being subjective.....
 * I think this point is irrelevant: if people have a dispute with Wikipedia policy this is not the place to discuss it. I'm unsure what linking and quoting from my user page actually proves? --Axon 22:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that you yourself (Axon) profess to believe that having partisan views cancel each other does not add up to neutrality. lmno 00:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure what you are trying to demonstrate here: whilst editing on Wikipedia I'm committed to NPOV and so should all other editors of this page. The remarks above I wrote on the subject of consensus would seem to have no bearing on this discussion. --Axon 10:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (Alleged) Link between pedophillia and homosexuality: there is at least one link between pedophilia and homosexuality - at one time a "gay rights" organisation (ILGA) contained some "pedophile-rights" organisations (NAMBLA). Simply removing a section concerned with this state of affairs because it offends against a (current) "pro-gay rights" point-of-view is an act of revisionism that is itself an act of POVism. lmno 12:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It is dubious that this proves a link between homosexuality and pedophillia - the suggestion made in this article is that there is a link between pedophillia advocacy and gay rights which is wholly seperate thing and conflating the two does your argument no favors here. Also, without evidence one could equally argue that a degree of revisionism is being made here by using unreferenced conjecture to demonstroate an anti-gay rights POV that there was a link between pedophille advocacy and gay rights --Axon 22:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There was, at one time, a link between gay rights advocacy and pedophilia advocacy - the ILGA was co-founded by the Scottish Minorities Group, whose founder was a co-founder of the Paedophile Information Exchange. This link extended to the ILGA. But that is not the issue here. What is at issue is that the ILGA was expelled from the UN because it could not prove that none of its members promoted pedophilia. This article reports those facts - but you deny them.
 * You seem to recoil from the suggestion that promotion of pedophilia could be linked to the promotion of gay rights. This seems to be your motivation in suppressing the details in the article on the pedo-purges. lmno 00:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think your combatative assertions above is really helping the discussion. My remarks and points I raise seem completely valid in this discussion. You make much comment on "facts" but present little evidence. As I recall, you have deleted remarks on this page, including refutations by prominent gay rights groups, that have been properly referenced yet I have kept my patience and civlity. Equally, one could argue that you seem to recoil against the suggestion that the promotion of pedophillia is unrelated to the promotion of gay rights. As we can see from the below reference you provide, the case is far from straight forward as you would present it. --Axon 10:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have deleted precisely nothing in the article, especially not "refutations by prominent gay rights groups", whatever these may be. You seem to be getting mixed up here - this article does NOT exist to argue whether or not there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. It is an article on the ILGA, and one episode from that organisation's history is its attainment and loss of consultative status at the UN. This is wholly linked with the expulsion of pedophile organisations. lmno 11:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The edit you made here, later reverted by me, certainly seems to delete content and references from the article. I agree, the article is not about discussing the link between homosexuailty and pedophillia, it is about the ILGA. I'm not sure I see your point here. --Axon 13:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Admittedly that edit of mine did remove a useful addition of yours (GLAAD reference), which was unfortunate. But my edit was done because your previous edits removed the statement that the ILGA had "connections" with pedophile organisations from its inception. Given that the section of the article is about such links, I replaced the deleted information.
 * The material I deleted was un-referenced content. I posted notification of my desire to remove the content on the talk page first and, when I received no response, I moved to make my modifications. Again, I refer you to the call for evidence below. --Axon 15:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The article is about the ILGA. The section under discussion is about events in the 90s when the ILGA attained consultative status at the UN, and then lost this status because of pressure brought to bear on the UN by the US involving ILGA&#8217;s links to organisations "promoting" pedophilia. It expelled those organisations but, because it was unable to prove that none of its many remaining members promoted pedophilia, it had its UN consultative status removed. You (apparently) want the section deleting because (you say) it is a right-wing attack on the ILGA. I say it is a report of historical events and my point is that removing it would be revisionist whitewashing. What is your point? lmno 14:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, you are putting words into my mouth here. Please advise where I make remarks about the "right wing" in my remarks above. I want the section deleted because it is un-referenced and the content is POV, as I have stated before. See my remarks above for the various points I make to back up these assertions. --Axon 15:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I admit that I am putting words into your mouth - I am not doing this with sinister motivation; I am trying to work out what your position actually is. My position is simple: this material is a slightly-biased report of events that took place in the 1990s. While it might be desirable that such articles should have properly cited sources, I do not see that the absence of sources is all that damaging. The events did take place - the ILGA did lose its status at the UN for the reasons stated. In what way is it POV to report this? One of us is missing the point somewhere... I'm just trying to tease out which one of it it is. In what way is the section's POV serious enough to warrant it's deletion? Admittedly the article does not mention that most US gay organisations voted for the NAMBLA expulsion. That should be added - and your "GLAAD" reference that I managed to delete is part of this. Your argument supports the conclusion that article should be expanded - not that it should be deleted. . lmno 23:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * My political persuasion is irrelevant to the discussion of this topic, as is your own, Lmno. If you think it would be helpful to yourself and would like to know more about my political leanings please see my User page and contributions. My position on this article is simple: it is POV and the material on NAMBLA et al is un-referenced. I would also like to state that an absence of sources and evidence on a subject as controversial, inflamatory and sensitive as this are vitally important. The lack of sourcing in Wikipedia is also one the leading arguments against it's legitmacy as a serious source of information. Finally, My arguments neither support an expanded article or a reduced one - only an article that is more neutral --Axon 12:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in your political persuasion - I am trying to find out your position on this matter alone: WHY do you say it is POV? How would the article be made more neutral? All I see when I look into this is description of events. In what way is that POV? lmno 22:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you were uninterested in my political persuasion I'm confused as to why you would raise the issue of politics here at all. The article is POV because it states as fact a controversial link. What is more, it seems to describe a subset of events as self-evident fact without attempting to offer any counter evidence or material that disputes the events as presented here. As Martin states, I suspect facts have been selected to make a point. What is more, a lot of the material is poorly if not completely unreferenced. --Axon 13:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your position. On the one hand you are saying that informaiton should not be deleted, on the other hand you admit having deleted material along with its supporting citation. An absence of sources means that the material is unverifiable, and therefore should be removed. Please support your material with sources. Thanks -Willmcw 23:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * The material I deleted was deleted accidentally when I was re-adding material deleted by User:Axon on 17:58, 11 Jan 2005 when he said that he had "removed unrelated content". The unrelated content removed concerned ILGA links with pro-pedophile organisations from its inception. lmno 00:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks like the referenced sentence about GLAAD is in there now so I'm not sure what Axon was referring to. Thanks for adding those other sources too. I'm sure we're on our way to making this a better article. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * There are no sources for any of it. Unless supporting references can be found, the material should be removed. -Willmcw 20:22, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * As WIllmcw points out, there are no references or sources for the dubious material here. I'd be surprised if any reliable or balanced sources can be found on this subject. --Axon 22:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * What would you accept as reliable and balanced sources? The UN? As the organization&#8217;s status had been suspended in 1994 because of its links to organizations promoting pedophilia, the representative of Sudan said she was not persuaded by the organization&#8217;s answers to questions regarding its opposition to pedophilia. The aims of the organization certainly gave some encouragement to pedophilia, she said.  Disagreeing with that view, Germany&#8217;s representative requested that Sudan provide proof that the organization promoted pedophilia, as that would be a decisive factor in his support.
 * That's a fine source, but it supports only a small portion of the current material. If you're interested in tracking down sources for the rest of the material then that would be a big help. Thanks, -Willmcw 00:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Notes on POV
"The ILGA can be linked with organisations advocating pedophilia as far back as its inception in 1978." This sentence seems to me to be highly POV: there are certainly some who allege links to pedophile groups but I'm having some trouble finding some concrete links. First of all, many of the alleged links with organisations advocating pedophilia seem to have been timed prior to the creation the ILGA, pre-1978. I think this sentence needs to be moderated. -Unsigned
 * We are talking about member organisations, not the ILGA. SMG was a founding member, PIE was a special interest group thereof. Therefore ILGA had links to peodphile organisations even at its inception. Unless of course you claim the source to be unreliable which...... oh yes. see below lmno 13:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The above ignores my original point which is that this sentence a) is misleading in that the ILGA wasn't formed until 1978 yet the events described below are prior and b) is about the IGA which, though a ancestor of the ILGA, is not neccesarily equivalent. This is a much weaker link than the one asserted above. Also, the fact this is an assertion of fact seems somewhat POV. I would also like to point out that a google for CHE and pedophile returns only two results, both mirrors of this page --Axon 13:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Foundation: Founded in 1978, it now has more than 400 member organisations. Every continent and around 90 countries are represented. ILGA member groups range from small collectives to national groups and entire cities. Source ILGA. Therefore it seems reasonable to say that the ILGA considers itself to be the same thing as the IGA. lmno 13:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Although the source you cite does not actually demonstrate your point at all, my own examination reveals the IGA and the ILGA usually refer to the same thing. However, you are ignoring my other points above: that much of what you describe occured prior to the actual creation of the ILGA and that the links between CHE and SMG and pedophile groups seems amiguous at best, and that this sentence states a controversial and ambiguous link as un-disputed fact. --Axon 14:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your detective work - the article says the IGA changed its name to the ILGA in 1986. lmno 15:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I have be carrying out some further examination on the evidence of links between ILGA and pedophile groups like PIE and NAMBLA. In particular, I have been examining the following paragraph:


 * The first International Gay Rights Congress took place in Edinburgh in December 1974, organised by the Scottish Minorities Group (SMG), of which the UK pedophile-rights organisation, the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), was a special interest group. (Source: O'Carroll, Tom. Paedophilia: The Radical Case. Boston, Alyson Publications, 1982. ISBN 0-932870-24-4) On August 8, 1978 the Congress became the International Gay Association at a meeting held at the annual conference of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE) in Coventry, United Kingdom. The SMG was one of the founding organisations represented at ILGA's first meeting, and the CHE itself was involved to some extent with pedophile-rights (at the 1977 CHE conference, for example, there was a CHE workshop on pedophilia Source O'Carroll).

Please note that I have uncommented the links to O'Carroll. The only source for these links is the pedophile adovocate Tom O'Carroll - this does not seem like an authorative or reliable source to me, as well as possibly being an illegal book to possess so verification of these claims would be difficult. Interestingly, the links are primarily with SMG and CHE, not the ILGA. It would seem to me that these links would be better discussed on the SMG and CHE pages. Also, a quick google for IGLA and PIE only returns 10 results, most of which are mirrors of this very article--Axon 11:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I also notice that the above claims the SMG was one of the "founding organisations" at the ILGA's first meeting but the source you supply does not back this up - the SMG was at the congress but not the ILGA first meeting. --Axon 13:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, the second link Lmnoadded to the article does not demonstrate that SMG was present at the first ILGA meeting, only that it was at the congress. --Axon 14:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Lmno, this link is even more dubious - a man who worked on SMG News whom also involved in the congress (note that the congress was in 1974, not the formation of the ILGA). What is more, an accretion of seemingly unrelated links does not an argument make. This would also seem to ammount to a degree of original research. Please supply a concrete example of the presence of the SMG within the ILGA in 1978 or this sentence should be deleted. --Axon 14:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I really do not understand your position at all now. What is wrong with someone who worked on SMG News? Furthermore, the Congress became the IGA (and then the ILGA) at the Coventry meeting. How about this (which is from Google's cache since the original site has taken the page down) lmno 14:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The third link is particularly dubious: one man works for the SMG newsletter and then attends the 1974 congress is anecdotal evidence at best - it seems to prove nothng. That aside, my main point is that the congress in 1974 eventually became the ILGA in 1978. The congress was not "ILGA's first meeting". The cached link you provide does not demonstrate the congress was the ILGA's first meeting, and hence that the SMG was a "founding organisation" of the ILGA. --Axon 14:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no information anywhere listing the ILGA's founding members. Therefore there were no founding members. Therefore it was not founded. I shall have the article deleted.... lmno 14:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof here lies with you to prove that the SMG was a founding member. If there are no listings of the ILGA's founding members than how can the article claim the SMG was a founding member? --Axon 14:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This was a joke.... lmno 15:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but in a dispute like this it is advisable to place smillies next to jokes to give them context. Axon 22:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "1978 - Scottish Homosexual Rights Group (Outright Scotland) co-found the International Lesbian & Gay Association" is anything other than a categorical statement of SMG's status as a founding member of ILGA. lmno 14:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It would seem the SMG is a seperate group from the Scottish Homosexual Rights Group although the SMG, according to your link, may have "eventually become" (which covers a multitude of sins) the SHRG. What is more, this is one link to a deleted article from an obscure source. If, as you claim above, there are no listings of the founding members of the ILGA how can we be sure the SHRG were ther? --Axon 14:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The SMG is the SHRG is Outright Scotland. lmno 14:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, Lmno, you are ignoring my points: I do not dispute that the SMG and the SHGR are linked but that the link between the SMG and the ILGA foundation is not proved authoratively by your sources. --Axon 15:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The organisation itself says that it founded the ILGA. You say this is not authoritative. What would count as an authority for you on this? The Pope??? lmno 23:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Summary
To summarise my position, the unresolved issues here are: It is stated absolutely by the organisation itself - see this Usenet posting from 1994. lmno 15:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The starting sentence is disputable and controversial and needs editing.
 * Alleged links to ILGA all occured prior the the actual formation of the ILGA. Links between the ILGA and the SMG and pedophille advocacy groups are long and winding. There seem to be no direct links to the ILGA.
 * There is little evidence that the SMG was a founding member of the ILGA.
 * The link you provide demonstrates that Outright Scotland claims to be a founding organisation of the ILGA. As I have indicated earlier, the SMG != Outright Scotland although the organisations are linked. Please see the other points that dwarf this issue --Axon 15:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Outright Scotland is exactly the same thing as the Scottish Minorities Group - see their history page, which says:
 * Outright Scotland began as the Scottish Minorities Group (SMG) in 1969
 * In 1974 SMG hosted the first Gay Congress (later known as the International Lesbian & Gay Association-ILGA)
 * In 1978 ... the group changed its name to the Scottish Homosexual Rights Group (SHRG)
 * In 1992, SHRG became Outright Scotland. lmno 19:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, you are ignoring my points here, Lmno. The SMG is linked to the SHRG and Outright Scotland but you have failed to establish that a) the SMG was actually linked to pedophile rights group, b) that the SHRG was linked to pedophile groups when it founded the ILGA, and c) that, given a) and b), that this link has also been publicised before in a "reputable publication"m thus is not original research. --Axon 20:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The view that the foundation of the ILGA was linked with pedophile groups seems to be an non-significant minority view (NPOV: We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.) at best and the creation of the link in this article would seem to be original research. Why was ILGA's consultative status with the UN revoked? lmno 15:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Because of it's alleged links with NAMBLA in 1994, not because of it's alleged links with pedophile groups in 1978. Could you please address the other issues raised here rather than cherry-picking those you would prefer to respond to. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, the links between PIE and ILGA are a non-significant minority view at best, original research at worst. --Axon 15:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Original research: Original research that produces primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is called source-based research, and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. lmno 20:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Original research: "The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". 
 * The extract you cite, out of context, clearly refers to the collecting of existing information together to form an article which is what wikipedians do, not the generation of new ideas and original theories which is clearly disallowed. --Axon 20:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The extract I cite clearly refers to collecting existing information together. I have not generated any new ideas. SMG was founded by a co-founder of the Paedophile Information Exchange, Ian Dunn. Dunn never denied his involvement with PIE. But things that happened in 1978 are so far in the past as to be pre-historic as far as online sources are concerned. Collating more information would require trips to various archives. Which would not constitute original research. lmno 20:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand: to summarise, collecting existing information together to re-express and summarise current knowledge is allowed - that is what a Wikipedia encyclopedia is. Putting existing information together to make up a new thesis, idea or concepts that does not already exist is not allowed. Without sufficient evidence to make the suggested links and evidence that the links have already been well established by reputable sources the content, as it is, cannot be used. This seems to be fully and clearly detailed on the original research and NPOV pages. --Axon 21:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the fact that Dunn was linked to pedophile groups and that Dunn was a member of SMG and that SMG that became SHRG that formed the ILGA is a tenuous link at best - thus the link between pedophile groups and ILGA is somehow formed. This is anecdotal evidence at best and certainly demonstrates original thinking and an original thesis. -Axon 21:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Most importantly, other than a single secondary source from a potentially unreliable source (Tom O'Carrell) what evidence links CHE and SMG to PIE and pedophillia advocacy? Google searches to find such links prove fruitless. Given the above and, most importantly, the last point I would argue the section on links between pedophila advocacy groups and the ILGA's foundation should be deleted. Please note that, due to lack of evidence and original use of research I have removed the section on the alleged links between pedophillia advocacy and the creation of ILGA for the reasons stated above. --Axon 17:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Please note that, since the section on the historical links between ILGA member groups has evidence and is source-based research, I have replaced it. lmno 20:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Original Research
That would seem to be against both Wikipedia's NPOV and original research policy. You have yet to establish sufficient evidence to re-add the content. I have to admit, given that I have patiently waited for you to supply sufficient evidence and have taken the time and effort to explain the reasoning, as well as linking and quoting from the appropriate Wikipedia policies, you have decided to revert my removal of the subject. You have yet to establish the following:
 * 1) That CHR and SMG were clearly linked with pedophile groups.
 * 2) That the SMG was linked to pedophile groups during its creation of the ILGA.
 * 3) That a sufficient minority of people hold the above to be true and citations from reputable sources linking the two.

Without establishing the above you have not demonstrated that the content belongs in Wikipedia and I maintaint that the content should be removed. You cannot circumvent Wikipedia policy by ignoring it or twisting so it agrees with what you would wish to publish.

What is more, the discussion of ILGA's alleged links to PIE during it's foundation seem unrelated to the topic at hand: the discussion of why ILGA consultancy with the UN was revoked of which the examples cited here have nothing to do with --Axon 21:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The ILGA lost its colsutative statues at the UN not because of NAMBLA (it expelled NAMBLA), but because it could not prove that other of its members did not also promote pedophilia. Therefore it is highly relevant to show that ILGA had links with such organisations even from its inception. lmno 21:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That is irrelevant to our discussion of the links between ILGA and CMG and SMG and PIE and other pedophile groups. ILGA was expelled due to it's alleged links with NAMBLA and other groups in 1994 and not PIE in 1974 unless you have some evidence otherwise. Please address my points above.--Axon 21:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * ILGA lost its consultative status because it could not prove that its membership was free of pro-peodphile organisations. Since they had expelled NAMBLA and the other two organisations, why were they not allowed to retain their consultative status? Because
 * ILGA would not provide a list of its membership. This is obviously to hide something- ILGA said it was to hide and thereby safeguard the identity or members in countries where homosexuality is still an offence
 * 30 member organisations had voted to keep NAMBLA. Why would they do this? Might this have some relevance to ILGA member organisations having had links with pro-pedophile organisations in the past?lmno 21:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, this discussion is irrelavant to the subject at hand. It is a strawman argument. What is more, your conjecture that ILGA had "something to hide" is not evidence of anything. --Axon 21:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The ILGA can be linked with organisations advocating pedophilia as far back as its inception in 1978. That is a very disingenuous thing to say, since, 1. They can be linked to having cofee in the mornings too, and a lot of other things, thus raising the question of your own motives for highlighting that aspect of the organization, without prejudice as to the validity of your argument. Then, 2. it is a statement that totally sidesteps the fact that the social climate was very different 20 or 30 years ago, and the movement to grant young people sexual freedom at a young age appeared to many at the time to be a valid cause. It is only with the growing understanding of psychological health and dysfunction, and in a climate influenced by the spread of new incurable and fatal diseases that the concept of allowing minors new sexual freedoms has largely lost credibility. So your argument, rather than informing, seems to disinform. As they say, a half truth is worse than a whole lie. Haiduc 02:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I "highlight" that aspect of the organisation since we are talking about how it lost its consultative status at the UN. NAMBLA did not all of a sudden appear as a member in ILGA in 1993. So, basically, what you say is that a) the ILGA Was linked with pedophile-rights organisations, b) the climate has now changed, c) we should cover up the fact that there was such a link. POV, no?lmno 10:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Haiduc raises a valid point here: the evidence Lmno supplies seems to have been cherry-picked to come up with a specific and original thesis (that the ILGA was "linked to pedophile groups at it's inception"). Wikipedia is not a soapbox This, it would seem to me, would be the essence of original research. Axon 10:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Source-based research

 * Against Wikipedia's NPOV poilcy: I have located sources, you reject them without any refutation at all.
 * The sources you quote are either unreliable - the O'Connell paper in particular - or do not back up what is trying to be claimed in the article. --Axon 21:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sufficient evidence to re-add the content: you have provided no contrary information to support removal of the content.
 * I have not made up the statements nor have I taken them from another person who has made them up. I have quoted Outright Scotland (who are the same thing as SMG) and they say that they founded ILGA. You reject this by saying that a name-change is sufficient to make two orgainsations out of one. Hardly good logic. lmno 21:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof is with you to demonstrate a link, not with me perform the impossible task of proving the non-existence of a link. --Axon 21:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have shown the link - you reject it without providing reasons. lmno
 * I think I have provided ample reasons above. Are you just being obstructive or are you actively ignoring my comments and responses to the sources you provide? Again, I will state for the record that the links you provide are tenuous at best and do not demonstrate the thesis you are attempting to provide. That is all aside from the fact that it is NPOV - non significant minority view - and original research --Axon 21:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Explanation of the reasoning: you have taken the time and effort to reject evidence without any counter-evidence. Nothing more. There certainly is no reasoning involved.
 * See me above comment: the burden of proof is with you. --Axon 21:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Quoting from Wikipedia authorities: I say it is source-based research. You say it is original research. We quote different parts of policy. Which is right? Given premises a -> b and b -> c, there is nothing original in concluding that a -> c.
 * Yes, that is exactly what the original research rule states. The rule is that you can list information together in a relevant way, for example, that the SMG and the CMF were linked to the foundation of the ILGA, if it is relevant and you have evidence - this is writing an article. However, this is seperate to then making the tenuous links from PIE -> Dunn -> SMG -> SHRG -> ILGA and concluding that ILGA and PIE are then linked, aside from the fact that this is a viewpoint seemingly expressed only in this article and not found anywher else. --Axon 21:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Do I paraphrase you cruelly here if I say that you believe that "It is Wikipedia policy is that the laws of logic do not apply"? lmno 21:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The above completely misses the point of the original research rule and is totally dismissive of the points I have raised: do you agree this is original research or not? If you dislike Wikipedia policies I suggest you discuss this at the village pump or some other appropriate forum. Axon 21:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Here I would say you are the one being deliberately obstructive. I do not agree that it is original research. It might be an original conclusion that arises simply as a result of placing toigether statements taken from different sources of information (i.e. source-based research).lmno 21:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see what is obstructive: it is a simple and honest question and you have appeared to answer it yourself. What else is an original conclusion if not the result of original research? I ask that you read the original research page in detail and become familiar with its contents because they are central to editing on Wikipedia. Clearly, by aggregating primary and secondary sources (which, as I continue to note, are heavily disputed above) together in an original way you have comitted the sin of original research. I would also like to note that there are other forums for original research and other wikis you could use. Unfortunately, I don't believe that Wikipedia is one of them. --Axon 21:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * lmno- Please re-read no original research. Original conclusions are considered original research. -Willmcw 08:21, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you take two sources of information, one saying A, the other saying B, and when you put A and B together you necessarily get C, there is nothing original about C. It is implied in the combination of A and B. If Wikipedia policies allow basic logic to be subverted in this way, Wikipedia is worth nothing. lmno 10:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You do not dispute the sources, you simply reject them. It is obviously not such a simple question if you do not understand it - is collating primary sources original research? No, it is source-based research. The conclusion is intrinsic to the combination of the sources. A therefore B, B therefore C, A therefore C. lmno 22:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have clearly disputed your sources but you have faield to address many of the concerns I have raised. So far you only proved that the SHRG was at the formation of the IGA from a secondary source. You have failed to link CHE to pedophile groups at all, you have a single piece of anecdotal evidence from an unrelialble source linking one pedophile and the SMG and your only clear secondary source is from a self-described pedophile advocate from a paper that may actually be illegal to possess and seems, IMHO, to not meet the standards of being a reputable publication or reliable source of infomation. This is all quite aside from the fact that your research is original. Axon 10:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you have rejected them. You say that O'Carroll is unreliable. You sat that Outright Scotland is not the same thing as SMG (when they clearly think they are). lmno 11:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So, you are saying that by "refuting" your evidence I have proved that the person advancing it (i.e. you) is wrong? Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume you mean I dismiss your evidence as inadequate and faulty, which I agree with: I do find your evidence to be inadequate especially according to the standards of evidence for Wikipedia. I certainly do not accept that I am refusing to consider or agree to your evidence.


 * Pointless sementic games aside, I note you misrepresent me in a strawman argument attempted to dismiss my other conerns with your evidence: I do not deny SMG eventually became OS (although that evolution does not necesarily mean that the original SMG is equivalent to the current OS). What I deny is that you have provided full and reliable evidence to demonstrate what you attempted to state in the article. This is all aside from the fact that what you state is original research. I do not appear to be the only on who thinks this either. What is more, I do consider the O'Carroll source not to be a reputable publication for the reasons I have stated above, which you have completely failed to address Axon 11:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I need to address the fact that some people live in crypto-facist states??? lmno 11:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You have completely lost me here. Axon 11:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you - you say Carrol is a) pro-pedophile and b) his book might be illegal to possess. A) Does that mean that anyone who is pro-ILGA should have what they say treated as suspicious? B) I live in the UK. I may read whatever book I choose. If O'Carroll's book is illegal where you live, move. lmno 11:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that is certainly clearer. I live in the UK too and the reason I mention it may be illegal to possess O'Carroll's paper is that, in the link I cited above, it states his paper contains images of child sexual abuse. What is more, given O'Carroll's bias he may well be unreliable, as well as being a criminal for the publication of images of child abuse. Axon 11:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Then you are relying on incorrect material. O'Carroll has been adjudged by a UK court to be a criminal on two occasions, one of which indeed involved so-called "child pornography" (or as you put it "images of child abuse"). He had taken some photographs of children playing on a beach in Qatar. O'Carroll's defence relied on the claim that his photographs were no worse than those of Tierney Grearon shown in the Saatchi gallery. While it would now be illegal to possess or show O'Carroll's photographs, whether they constitute "images of child abuse", the court made no statement whatsoever on what made them different to the Grearon photographs and therefore criminal. This is a different debate entirely, but O'Carroll's book does not contain "images of child abuse" because it its totally unrelated to the criminal charge. lmno 12:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the above demonstrates, other than that O'Carroll is a criminal. The above does not rule on the legality of lack thereof of his paper. Axon 13:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So, let me get this straight. O'Carroll is a criminal and hence his views do not count and any information supplied by him is suspect, and hence should be suppressed? lmno 23:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I will make it plain then. O'Carroll has been prosecuted in the UK on 2 occasions. Once in early 80s for conspiracy to corrupt public morals and once in 2002 for importing an indecent item. Neither occasion involved his book, which was published in Boston, US, and London, UK. A book published in the UK which contained "child abuse images" would in normal circumstances lead to a prosecution; where written by someone of such high profile, it woud certainly lead to a prosecution. There has been no such prosecution. This is becuase the book does not contain any such images. lmno 23:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sufficient minority of believers: I am not expressing opinion; I am reporting statements that I suggest are historical facts. Unless you can refute those statements as opposed to simply rejecting them, then I do not need to show that any other person in the world believes the same thing - truth is truth irrespective of the number of people who do not believe it. lmno 21:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you can demonstrate that this is not a insignificant minority belief by providing suitable sources, which you have failed to do, then the above would be true. You have yet to supply the evidence that a substantial minority actually hold the above links to be true. The facts may well be true (although I think they are highly tenuous and disputable) but by putting them together to make the original thesis that "	The ILGA can be linked with organisations advocating pedophilia as far back as its inception in 1978" you are perofming original research. No ammount of hand waving can really avoid this. --Axon 21:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Starting this section with the "The ILGA can be linked with organisations advocating pedophilia as far back as its inception in 1978" is comparable to starting a section in the article Foreign relations of the United States on foreign policy with this: "United States foreign policy has been linked with terrorist groups as far back as its inception in 1776."  I'm sure I could come up with some sources that support that assertion, but how could you read that and not consider it POV?  It is inflammatory language.  As a lead to a section it is even worse.  If you want to discuss how these accusations of links were part of the UN expulsion in a NPOV way, that would be O.K.  If in the middle of the paragraph there were something like "the U.N. committee report stated 'blah blah blah links to organisations advocating pedophilia blah blah blah'", that would be o.k.  I also think this entire incident should be summarized down to a single paragraph.  If there is more, it should be broken out into a separate article.  -- Samuel Wantman 22:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Edit
Fixed a blatantly obvious error, Changed 400th birthday to 40th birthday. -Unsigned
 * That was referring to the 400th birthday of Quebec City, not of this group. I've deleted it outright as it is irrelevant. -Will Beback · † · 01:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)