Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/Archive 2

Tatchell,Corax and Me

 * Firstly, I oppose editing Corax's comments on this page. If he wants to make childish personal attacks on other editors, let them stand.


 * Secondly, Corax is correct that I have misstated Tatchell's position. This is partly because I was editing at 2 in the morning and partly because Tatchell represents his views in slightly different ways in two different articles at his website.

My paragraph was:
 * Even the more radical gay rights activists do not endorse NAMBLA's policy of abolishing age-of consent laws. For instance, while British gay human rights activist Peter Tatchell says that "on the age of consent, much of the gay community has... taken leave of its ethical senses," he and his group OutRage!, who frequently take positions more radical than mainstream gay rights advocates, support only lowering the age of consent to 14, and even then they propose restricting the age at which it would be legal to have sex with 14-year-olds to persons no more than three years older. "OutRage! is proposing an element of flexibility in the age of consent," Tatchell writes. "Sex involving young people under l4 should not be prosecuted, providing both partners consent and there is no more than three years difference in their ages." This would still prevent most "boylovers" legally having sex with males younger than 16. Even this position, as Tatchell says, is more radical than most gay rights advocates will accept.

The first passage marked in bold should have read with people under 14. The second passage in bold should have read younger than 14. I have of course directly quoted Tatchell in the sentence beginning "Sex involving young people," which states his position correctly.

I acknoweledge that error, but I point out that my paragraph is good deal more informative and honest than Corax's original paragraph:


 * Nonetheless, a few gay men still express solidarity with NAMBLA's desire to eliminate age-of consent laws. For instance, gay human rights activist Peter Tatchell believes that "on the age of consent, much of the gay community has similarly taken leave of its ethical senses." He later notes that "the lesbian and gay community&#8217;s demand for equality is often also tinged with a whiff of self-obsession and selfishness." It should be noted, however, that the position of Tatchell is in the minority.

This paragraph did not state Tatchell's actual position at all, but rather led the reader to believe that Tatchell supports "NAMBLA's desire to eliminate age-of consent laws," whoch he clearly does not.

Adam 05:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's see Corax explain this:


 * What Corax wrote: "To do so is necessary, says Tatchell, for the current age of consent laws are "tinged with a whiff of self-obsession and selfishness."


 * What Tatchell actuallty said: "The lesbian and gay community&#8217;s demand for equality is often also tinged with a whiff of self-obsession and selfishness. Solely concerned with winning rights for homosexuals, it offers nothing to heterosexual people. Perhaps if queers supported the sexual human rights of straights, more of them might be inclined to support us in return?"

Tatchell's comment thus did not relate to age-of-consent at all. It's hard to see this as anything other than deliberate falsification.

Adam 05:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If that also qualifies as "imprecise language" then I would hope that the editor involved can learn to be more precise before making further edits. While I do not condone user User:Adam Carr's personal references to other editors (albeit milder than the responses he's received provocations he's risen to), I fully agree with his assessment of the quality of edits that some have made to this article. I know that myself and other editors support the goal of bringing this article to a higher level of accuracy and NPOVishness. -Willmcw 07:09, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Logo
I do not see any logo on the home page of NAMBLA. Is this just due to a lazy webmaster, or is NAMLBA in the situation where it no longer owns its own logo? That has happened to other organizations that have had to surrender/sell all assets, including files and such as a result of lawsuits (see Cult Awareness Network). Should we label it a former logo? Cheers, -Willmcw 07:27, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * The source of the logo is linked from the image page. silsor 07:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh. So it's on their website's server but not on the homepage itself? I guess that confirms the (boring) lazy-webmaster alternative. Thanks for the reply. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it is on their web site. Go there and click on the main picture. silsor 08:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Aha - there it is. As Emily Litella used to say, "Never mind." Cheers, -Willmcw 08:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Blah...
Childlove movement needs serious work too. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 21:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

At a quick glance I would say it needs to be abolished and its contents moved to pedophilia. Adam 23:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I notice that Corax is still editing this article, busily deleting material which might reflect badly on his NAMBLA friends. But he has yet to give us any explanation for his egregious misuse of the Tatchell quote which I pointed out above. Until he does so we are entitled to assume that he did it deliberately. Corax needs to realise he is dealing with adults now, and that he can't get away with stuff like this. Adam 00:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I am editing the article so that it reflects a neutral position, and does not portray opinion as undisputed fact. Your speculation about my motives are irrelevant.  Your sideswipes intended to attack my character are utterly inconsequential to the central reason that I am here -- which is to ensure that the NAMBLA article does not become a warehouse for your warped opinions, selective use of history, and belligerent and biased rhetoric.


 * An excellent example of this is your recent reversion of the article so that it once again includes a lengthy opinion: Quite apart from the pragmatic consideration that the issue of pedophilia was being used to attack the gay and lesbian rights movement, the great majority of gay and lesbian rights movement shared the general public abhorrence of pedophilia, rejected NAMBLA's claims that there was an analogy between the campaign for gay and lesbian equality and the abolition of age-of-consent laws, and took the view that NAMBLA's rhetoric about "the sexual rights of youth" was only a cover for its members' real agenda.


 * Now, if I weren't here, this comment would obviously stand. But since I am committed to ensuring that the article is free of any unsourced, unproven, or otherwise overtly subjective claims, I am am more than happy to point out its POV nature.  First, the use of the word "abhorrence" is extremely inappropriate for an encyclopedic article.  While it might make for nice, flowery prose, this is not the place for such fanciful scribbling.  Second, where is the source for your comment that the "majority" of participants in the gay rights movement rejected NAMBLA's claims?  Where are your statistics?  The fact that gay rights groups distanced themselves is not proof of this for two reasons:  1) the leadership of these groups may have been acting contrary to the wishes of the majority of their members, and 2) the groups may have done so out of a political calculation rather than out of principle.


 * If Adam Carr wants to write that Adam Carr wants to burn NAMBLA members at the stake, that is his right. He can do so on his user page, but to try to sneak his personal views into the article and attempt to project them onto the entire gay community without having any corroborating evidence is beyond the pale.


 * Thus, until such time Adam Carr is willing to come up with some hard, well-researched facts, I am going to omit his current commentary, reword it, and place it alongside a competing explanation of why the gay community ditched NAMBLA, presenting both as speculative theories -- not as incontrovertible fact. Corax 01:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope that User:Adam Carr finds some citations for that text before adding it back. But that does not answer the questions that have been raised about the intent of the Tatchell quotations. Unsourced assertions are bad, flatly incorrect assertions are worse. -Willmcw 01:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Since I am not attempting to reintroduce the quote, it is not anymore of an issue than is Adam's blatant misrepresentation of Tatchell's AOC views. Corax 02:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I stated Tatchell's views incorrectly, a fact which I immediately acknowledged when it was pointed out. The error made no difference to the point being made in the paragraph, which was that Tatchell does not support the abolition of age of consent laws.
 * You have taken the Tatchell quote "tinged with a whiff of self-obsession and selfishness," and used it in a context quite different to that intended by Tatchell. This can only have resulted from malice or stupidity. I have seen plenty of evidence that you are malicious, but no evidence that you are stupid. Adam 02:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Adam Carr has properly acknowledged his mistake, which seems relatively minor. I hope that user:Corax will show his good faith by admitting that he made an very misleading edit, and will avoid doing so again in the future. Thanks, -Willmcw 02:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

More citations please
I'm asking for all parties involved in editing this article to please back up their statements with citations. For example, I would like to see citations of people in the gay community privately supporting the goals of NAMBLA, but publically condeming them because their views are so repugant to mainstream Americans. Actually, I'd just be happy with citations of gay activists supporting NAMBLA at all. Samboy 02:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I want to see solid citations of gay activists saying they despise NAMBLA before we say that most gay activists don't like NAMBLA. Samboy 02:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article quotes GLAAD and NGTF to that effect. Adam 02:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Nowhere does the article state that gay groups have ever secretly supported NAMBLA. Where are you reading this? Corax 02:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your version said that gay groups only abandoned their support for NAMBLA out of fear of Anita Bryant etc. Adam 02:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No, that's what your poor reading abilities are leading you to think. The article says that one theory regarding the ditching of NAMBLA proposes that political considerations, combined with indifference to NAMBLA's objectives, were responsible. Corax 02:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before we go any further with that, I want you to acknowledge that you incorrectly cited Tatchell and tell us why you did so. Adam 02:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I am hardly going to honor the request of somebody who has dubbed me a pedophile apologist. This is not a court of law, and I do not need to answer your questions as a defendant on a witness stand would.  Corax 02:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let the record show that the accused has declined to answer the question. The court will know what conclusion to draw from that. Adam 02:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Adam, I guess we're going to have to play revert wars. Revert to a version you like, and if Corax revert's your revert, I'll revert back to your version.  Yeah, this is childish, but it is occassionally necessary.  Samboy 02:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It is only necessary for people who realize they don't have an argument, and choose instead to try to ram through their opinions by force instead of by reason. The fact that you dislike that some people believe that gay groups ditched NAMBLA for political reasons does not mean that there are not people who believe this.  Some people do, and I am one of them.  The article does not coronate their theory as the truth, as Adam's version did for the alternative theory.  My version is neutral, which is why you are acting so vehemently to thwart it, I suppose.  Just don't be surprised when the "wrong version" is once again protected.  Corax 02:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Purported disagreement
User:Corax, after critizicing another editor for making unsupported assertsions, I see you have added one of your own.


 * Disagreement has emerged regarding the primary reason the gay community chose to distance itself from NAMBLA. One view is that gay rights groups opposed NAMBLA on the basis of principle. According to this theory, most mainstream gays believed that NAMBLA's rhetoric about "the sexual rights of youth" was only a clever way for advocating the rights of adults to have sex with minors. As such, they moved rapidly to sever any ties with the group and its goals.

Can you provide us with a source for this "view"? Thanks, -Willmcw 02:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is clearly the view of Adam, who originally wanted to incorporate the substance of the paragraph as fact, rather than speculation. Additionally, it is the expressed feeling amongst other gay rights groups, such as GLAAD and NGTF.  Corax 03:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The views of editors are irrelevant to this article, which should only reflect the verifiable views of involved persons and groups. I've cut down the grafs in question, cutting out a false dilemna and unwarranted editorializing. -Willmcw 05:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * The views of the editors are relevant if they are similar to the verifiable views of notable persons and groups involved, which both these views are. One is widely heralded by almost every modern gay rights group.  And the other is argued effectively by a strange coalition of religious fanatics and very radical gays.


 * Again, if your argument is that you dislike one of the theories, that's you're own prerogative. But both theories exist and are touted by big players in this controversy.  Your attempt to strike one of them from the record with fiction-style prose has not been overlooked. Corax 06:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Many articles succomb to the "unnamed critics" mode, where off-stage voices make assertions. In this instance, a dichotomy has been established, in which either the gay rights groups condemn NAMBLA because they dislike pedophilia or because of political calculation. The section begins:
 * Disagreement has emerged regarding the primary reason the gay community chose to distance itself from NAMBLA.
 * Disagreement between whom? And no, "between editors on Wikipedia" is not a sufficient answer. Please, either Corax or Carr, explain why the condemnation of NAMBLA by every major group in the gay rights movement is structured as an either/or tension between opponents? -Willmcw 06:52, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The disagreement is over why they did so. Corax implies they (we) did it because they are cowardly opportunists. I say they did because apart from a small radical fringe we abhor NAMBLA and all its works. Adam 07:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Those are not mutually exclusive. ;) In any case, unless a significant source has presented this as a disagreement I think that we should simply say that these are various reasons that groups and individuals have given for rejecting NAMBLA. Remember, we don't have to decide who is right: we just have to report the matter in a balanced fashion. Saying, on our own, that two statements are mutually exclusive is original research (mathematical axioms aside). Cheers, -Willmcw 07:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, they are not mutually exclusive. But the fact that some important players in the history of NAMBLA and the gay rights movement believe that one factor was the overriding one should not be written out of the article because you think it is presented as a dilemma (which it is not in the current language of the article -- it's presented as two theories, not necessarily mutually exclusive or exhaustive).  You are correct in stating that we have to "report the matter in a balanced fashion."  This first requires that we report the matter -- which you've tried to stop, and, secondly, necessitates that we do so without using language like "repugnant" unless we decide to place quotes around those words to show that they are opinions, not statements of fact.  Corax 07:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see any source saying that their view is overriding other views, which would be an indication of disagreement. We can list the different views, with attributions, without claiming that they disagree. Two people can look at a painting, one of whome says that "I like the colors" and another says "I like the shapes". They would not be disagreeing, simply giving different views. OK, so again, which source is saying "One view is that gay rights groups opposed NAMBLA on the basis of principle"? -Willmcw 07:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * You're seriously asking me which gay groups claim to oppose NAMBLA on the basis of principled opposition to child abuse and pedophilia? You're kidding, right?


 * The issue is a simple one. Most members of the gay orthodoxy believe that politics had very little to do with the gay mainstream expelling NAMBLA from the club.  Radical gays (usually the "liberationist" type or members of marginalized subsets of the larger gay population) DISAGREE with this assessment and believe that politics played a primary role.  My version reflects this diversity of opinion, while your silly version does not even mention the views of the radical gays.


 * This is why I have reverted it and will soon do it again unless you can get with the program and fix the article yourself. Corax 07:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If "most" members of the gay orthodoxy believe something, then you should be able to find a source for it. Please do not add assertions about what "most" or "many" believe without a source. That is basic Wikipedia practice. As for the "radical gays", all you did was mention the name of one, you did indicate what her vewis are. I did not delete the link. Meantime, please do not add anything about a disagreement without presenting evidence of this disagreement, or other unsourced assertions. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, you're right. Gay groups don't oppose NAMBLA.  Let's rewrite the whole article :) Corax 08:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ha ha. Thanks for rewriting that section to get rid of the false disagreement. May I ask why yuo got rid of the subheaders in the "Criminal allegations" section? They help break up a long section. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Once again Corax has been caught out
In the article Corax has cited a quotation from the late Steve Endean to support his proposition that the gay and lesbian rights movement distanced itself from NAMBLA out of political opportunism and not out of principle, ie, not because they objected to NAMBLA's policies and activities. He quoted Endean as saying: "What NAMBLA is doing is tearing apart the movement. If you attach it (the man/boy love issue) to gay rights, gay rights will never happen."

But here is the story (Kansas City Star, 19 October 2004) from which Corax obtained that quotation:


 * All in the name of political gain
 * MARY SANCHEZ
 * Politics can be a dirty game; that is no surprise. But just how far will a candidate go to get elected? Defaming an opponent? Unfortunately, this is common during the waning days of most elections. But defaming a dead man? Most voters, regardless of party affiliation, would be offended by such a ploy.
 * Yet this is what Republican Kris Kobach has done. Kobach is a U.S. Congressional candidate for the 3rd Kansas district. Kobach recently called for his opponent, Democratic incumbent Dennis Moore, to return contributions from Human Rights Campaign, a Washington gay and lesbian political advocacy group.
 * The reason: Kobach implied Human Rights Campaign founder Steve Endean was a supporter of pedophilia. Endean died in 1993. For proof, the Kobach campaign cited, but did not reproduce, a 1980 news article. The article, the Kobach campaign said, proves Endean spoke to a gay pedophilia group and therefore, was supportive of their crime. And Congressman Moore, therefore, is somehow supportive of pedophilia, too.
 * A connect-the-dots sort of theory. But the dots don't connect. The article was apparently taken out of context. Obviously Endean can not speak for himself. But those who knew him, and his memoirs, paint a different picture of the man.
 * “He felt the number one stereotype the gay movement had to counter was that gays were dangerous to children,” said Vicki L. Eaklor, a professor at Alfred University in New York who recently edited Endean memoirs. Endean did speak to a pedophilia group. But this is what he said, according to one research paper:
 * “What NAMBLA is doing is tearing apart the movement. If you attach it (the man/boy love issue) to gay rights, gay rights will never happen.”
 * NAMBLA stands for North American Man Boy Love Association — a disgusting fringe group whose members are gay people who abuse young children. Pedophilia is a vile crime. But the crime is sex with a minor. It is wrong in all circumstances. The gender of the victim and the abuser are not what makes the act a crime. And most pedophiles are straight men, preying on little girls. Not gay men, with little boys.
 * Endean, born in Davenport, Iowa, worked to distance his lobbying efforts from gay groups he saw as radical. Endean didn't like protests, he didn't believe in outing gay people and he didn't support gay marriage. He simply wanted gay people to have some protection if their sexuality became an issue in where they could live, in going to public places and in getting a job. He believed in engaging people in conversation, in letting them address their fears about gay people, learn new information and then make up their own minds, said his friend and political counterpart, Bob Meek of St. Paul.
 * "He was a born-again Christian with Midwestern values who happened to be gay," Meek said.
 * Endean carefully chose the name Human Rights Campaign Fund for the group now known as Human Rights Campaign. Endean knew a title including the words “gay and lesbian” might make it hard for some politicians to work with the group.
 * How sad politicians still have to dodge such links. Distortions like Kobach's allegation tend to show up late in political campaigns. They often become blips in a barrage of news coverage. The purpose is to confuse issues and win voters who have strong feelings against homosexuality.
 * But the issue here is not gay rights. Rational people can disagree about how and if society will shift to legally include gay people. Issues include extending the right to make decisions about healthcare for a sick mate or to apply corporate insurance benefits to a partner.
 * Those are legitimate topics. But twisting the image of a dead man for political gain? That is simply wrong.

The complete text of the article thus makes it clear that Endean did not hold the position that Corax attributes to him. His objection to NAMBLA was based on principle, not on political opportunism. He was a "born-again Christian with Midwestern values," and (like most gay men and lesbians) did not approve of pedophilia or "boylove."

This is the second time in two days Corax has been exposed using out-of-context quotations to make FALSE statements about other people's positions. Once might be excused as careless - although Corax has not in fact deigned to give any explanation for his misrepresentation of Peter Tatchell. Twice can only be seen as calculated dishonesty. In other words Corax is a bare-faced liar, and a pretty stupid one, too, since I was able to expose both his lies with minimal effort. Adam 12:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you consider toning down the attacks on this talk page? Assume good faith requests that you assume the quote was accidentally taken out of context by Corax, who may have been running through a lot of material quickly.  I realise that you may be unwilling to assume good faith since you believe your faith has been violated before this, but what is all this proving?  That Corax has an agenda?  Lots of people do.  Our primary goal on this talk page is to collaborate to build an encyclopedia; I just don't think that the hate you and he are sending back and forth is necessary in order to do that. silsor 16:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Let him speculate about what my motives are. It's what he's good at.  In fact, he tried to turn the entire NAMBLA article into his own personal conjecture of what the group wants and has done.  The only difference is that I don't care if he speculates about my personal motives -- he does not know me.  But I do care if he tries to slide his warped theories under the radar and into an article that is supposed to be both factual and neutral.  Corax 17:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You're stalling the discussion on this page just as much by accusing Adam of having "warped theories" not to mention all the other slurs you've made against him. Yes, he's treated you just as badly, but it needs to stop from both parties. silsor 17:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am reinserting the Endean quote because your claim that I "misrepresented his views" is totally without merit. In fact, the paragraph in question was not about Endean's views at all. It was about the views of people who interpret Edean's quote.

If I had represented his views as one of political opportunism, I perhaps would have been dishonest. The fact is that I did not. I simply stated that some gay people look at his quote as an illustration of the fact that gay people realized that gay rights would be impossible if it had come attached to NAMBLA. That is what his quote says.

Regards Corax 16:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As an update, I have reworded the paragraph once again, inserting that Endean was opposed to NAMLA's principles, in order not to ruffle Adam's rainbow-colored fag feathers. Corax 17:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You know, there are other people potentially reading and participating in this debate who might be offended by your comments, particularly this one. Rainbow-colored fag feathers?  I assume you meant flag.  Even so, that's almost as offensive.  And anyway, what exactly are you trying to suggest with this kind of comment?  What usefulness does it serve except to possibly make someone upset?  Let's all take a deep breath.  &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:02, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thorstad
Adam, regarding your earlier question on whether Daniel and David Thorstad are two different people:

FWIW, I did a Nexis search for all news sources as far back as they are archived; many hits on "David Thorstad" as a founder of NAMBLA; none for "Daniel Thorstad" period, whether associated with NAMBLA or not.

David Thorstad was named in the Curley case (from a 2003 motion to dismiss on Curley v NAMBLA: On or about October 1, 1997, Charles Jaynes, allegedly a member of the defendant North American Man Boy Love Association ("NAMBLA"), abducted and ultimately murdered ten-year old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, [*3] Massachusetts. On May 16, 2000, the plaintiffs Barbara Curley and Robert Curley ("the Curleys"), as administrators of the estate of their deceased son, commenced this action to recover for his conscious suffering and wrongful death under Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 229, §§ 2 and 6, naming NAMBLA, Best Internet Communications, Inc., Verio, Inc., Roy Radow, Joe Power, David Thorstad, David Miller, Peter Herman, Max Hunter, and Arnold Schoen as defendants.

From the same motion, a paragraph establishing personal jurisdiction for the purposes of inclusion in the suit: ''David Thorstad has been a resident of St. Paul, Minnesota since approximately 1992. Thorstad has been a member of NAMBLA since 1978, and served as a member of the Steering Committee from some undetermined time until September 1996. He is listed as a member of the Bulletin Collective, though he claims he "had no role in producing" the publication. He did contribute letters and articles to the Bulletin, and one of his articles was also posted on NAMBLA's webpage. In 1995, he was nominated to be an official NAMBLA spokesman. As a member of NAMBLA's Steering Committee, he participated in controlling and directing the actions of Andriette, Reeves, Rhodes, and others as they purposefully engaged in public outreach activities conducted in or directed into Massachusetts on behalf of NAMBLA. Personal jurisdiction exists over David Thorstad.'' &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 14:12, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes it clear that there is no such person as Daniel Thorstad, and that the Thorstad who is (or was) a defendant in the Curley case is David Thorstad, as I said but which Corax denied (without telling us how he knew this). I will restore my original edit. Adam 14:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Where exactly did I deny that David Thorstad is a defendant in the NAMBLA case?  You're just making things up as you go along now. Corax 16:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just made a quick fix to the text to clear up the inconsistency,; have at it. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 14:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Suggested change
''Yet most gay rights groups paid little attention to the pederasts in their ranks. To them, the idea of "boylove" was just another variation of gay love that was sharing in the struggle for liberation.''
 * "struggle for liberation" is loaded language. Anti-gay activists would probably disagree that the gay rights movement has been a "struggle for liberation."  It's also impossible to ascribe such broad motives for every member a gay group that looked the other way, suggesting they believed "boylove" a "struggle for liberation." Some gay rights groups may not have paid attention simply because they weren't paying attention, and so possibly went the membership; fringe groups get ignored all the time, even amongst other fringe groups.  Suggest:  To some, the idea of "boylove" was just another variation of gay love seeking societal acceptance. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Question on History

 * ''Staff members of the gay newspaper Fag Rag believed that the raid was politically motivated. They and others in Boston's gay community saw Byrne's round-up as an anti-gay witchhunt. On December 9, they organized the Boston-Boise Committee, a name intended as a reference to a similar situation (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0295981679?v=glance) [...] It was this committee that led to the formation of NAMBLA. On December 2, 1978, Tom Reeves of the Boston-Boise Committee convened a meeting called "Man/Boy Love and the Age of Consent," at which roughly 150 people discussed the problems of men attracted to underage males. At the meeting's conclusion, approximately thirty people decided to form an organization which they called the North American Man/Boy Love Association, NAMBLA.


 * Who else on the this committee actually helped to found NAMBLA? Can specific members of the staff of Fag Rag be linked to the initial membership?  Is this Tom Reeves the only one that can be named specifically?  &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Split from gay rights groups question
I am no gay history scholar, but I find the language on how gay rights groups supported NAMBLA rather tenuous. Can we see some sourcing here? It is blithely mentioned in the article that NAMBLA enjoyed acceptance from gay rights groups such New York's GAA and the CLGRC, and the mention of the Gay Rights Platform, and I accept that as fact. My problem, though, is that there's absolutely no context. How widespread or powerful were these groups? Was there something like GLAAD then and if not, were these the closest approximations? Or were these themselves small or fringe groups? I can start a Cadbury Chocolate Rights Platform, but that doesn't mean a majority of women who like chocolate would prefer Cadbury. There is too little context here to know if whoever advocated this Gay Rights Platform (which is also missing from the article) was considered a real spokesgroup for the gay community.

In that vein, I have questions about the way the article currently transitions from the Boston-Boise/GAA/Gay Rights Platform information to the Anita Bryant information. It suggests that somehow all the important gay groups (and, by implication, lots of gay people) who previously believed pederasty was fine suddenly changed their minds because people started gay-bashing over childrens' exposure to gay people. I particularly have a problem with this sentence: A rift developed between a small minority of radical gays and "boylovers," and the majority or mainstream gay rights movement.  I would argue that gay people who supported "boylovers" were from the start a small minority. While admitting that I am not the most learned on the topic of gay history, I'd still like to see sourcing for how my argument isn't true. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:53, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * You're arguing against statements that aren't in the article. As it stands now, it does not assert that gay rights groups ever supported NAMBLA, only that the repeal of age-of-consent was not an uncommon plank in the platform of gay rights groups.  A number of examples illustrate this.


 * Nowhere does the article claim that gay groups believed that pederasty was "fine", as you claim the article states in your second paragraph. It states that Anita Bryant was used the existence of NAMBLA as proof that gays were "recruiting," which in turn -- either out of principle or political calculation or a little of both -- caused gay groups to condemn NAMBLA.


 * The article mentions a rift that developed between radical gays and boylovers, and mainstream gays. This rift did not exist earlier not because most gays supported repealing age of consent laws, as you have somehow strangely read into the text, but because they had not actively distanced themselves from it until it had begun to take a political toll.  Corax 19:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, support for abolition of age of consent laws and support for NAMBLA are pretty much one in the same, since that's what the group advocates, right? It's disingenuous to argue otherwise over an article about historic support for NAMBLA.  My questions about scope and context still stand unanswered.  I argue that support for NAMBLA and legalized pederasty was never the position of the majority of gay people, rather a radical fringe, and that is not highlighted in the article.  Rather, it in fact explicitly states that A rift developed between a small minority of radical gays and "boylovers," and the majority or mainstream gay rights movement. I argue that NAMBLA supporters were always a small minority of radical gays. Please show me how I'm wrong.  &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 19:36, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Currently, the article does not state one way or the other what views gay groups had of pederasty thirty years ago. If you argue that support for NAMBLA and legalized pederasty was never the position of the majority of gay people, provide a source and put in the article.  I don't think it should be in the article by default as an assumed fact just because I or anybody cannot actively disprove it.  The article is fine in noting that a VISIBLE rift did not occur (not a difference on the issues, but a concerted effort to translate that difference into behavior) until after opponents of the gay rights movement used NAMBLA to bludgeon gays on the head. THis is perfectly factual and neutral.  Corax 19:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the sentence A rift developed between a small minority of radical gays and "boylovers," and the majority or mainstream gay rights movement needs to have some supporting evidence, as it implies that there was a previous unity. -Willmcw 20:13, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * To Corax: Sure it does -- it implies acceptance by holding up these groups as exemplars of the gay rights movement with no further context on how widespread (or not) their representation was. Without that context, it suggests that their support equated with general support from the gay community, and this is where my question about scope and context comes into play.  In its early years NAMBLA found some degree of support for its positions among the gay rights movement. Nowhere here does it state "fringe elements of" or "a small portion of radical gay activists."  Neither does it state that the named groups were powerful and represented large portions of the gay community -- this is perhaps true, I'm not sure to be perfectly honest.  But it has to be one or the other and that should be made clear.


 * It does not imply acceptance. You are reading something into the article that isn't there, and I don't think it's a good idea to over-lawyer the language of the article to prevent every lazy reader or hyper-critical pundit from drawing their own false conclusions about the text.  The paragraph in question makes a series of points, all of which are salient and true:  1)  A number of gay groups officially supported abolishing the age-of-consent.  2)  Gay groups had yet to pay attention to NAMBLA, which had presented itself as a gay rights group -- thus creating the appearance of unity between the two groups.  3)  Anita Bryant exploited NAMBLA's platform into campaigning that gays corrupt and recruit young children.  4)  Gay rights groups, which either hadn't cared about NAMBLA or hadn't paid attention to the group, began to distance itself from NAMBLA -- thus creating a visible rift in the unified front that NAMBLA had forged by the way it portrayed itself.


 * Anything above and beyond that is reader speculation, and an attempt to twist the article into saying something it isn't saying in order to remove information that is perfectly factual. Corax 20:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I also challenge your assertion that the article text shows "that a VISIBLE rift did not occur (not a difference on the issues, but a concerted effort to translate that difference into behavior)[...] ."


 * Look at these sentences:To them, the idea of "boylove" was just another variation of gay love that was sharing in the struggle for liberation. Thus gay rights groups did little to distance themselves from NAMBLA's platform at the time the group formed. Together these sentences clearly state as fact that these groups didn't distance themselves sooner because gay rights activists and boylovers "shar[ed] in the struggle for liberation" -- a clear endorsement OF THE ISSUE, implying that they were somehow comrades in arms. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 20:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * You are being silly now, and are merely attempting to pick nits as a scorched earth policy. How can somebody possibly prove that something did not happen a certain time?  To prove something requires to show evidence that something has occurred.  Since the purpose of the sentence is to show that something had yet to occur, it would be pretty difficult to offer proof, would it not?  Needless to say, no group issue official condemnations of NAMBLA until - as I said - after Anita Bryant & co. hit the gay movement.  If you can show an earlier statement that would indicate disunity, you need to come forward with it or move on with your life.  Corax 20:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * NAMBLA was founded in 1978, while Bryant began her campaign in 1977. Comments like "move on with your life" are inappropriate.  -Willmcw 20:49, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Excuse me. Let me revise my statement.  Gay groups didn't distance themselves from "boylovers" and "pederasts" -- which had been a subsection of the gay liberation movement -- until after Anita Bryant turned up the heat, not before.  Statements calling me a pedophile apologist are also inappropriate, but I didn't see you mention anything about it.  Corax 20:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have asked my questions and responded to your answers in good faith and with no sarcasm or personal attacks. I ask that you do the same.  I am not responsible for other users' personal comments about you, but you are certainly responsible for your own. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 21:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Regardless, I find it a revealing pattern of behavior that the assembly of posters we have here, unified for the ostensible for purpose of neutrality, criticize me for occasional sarcasm and swipes, while ignoring instances in which I have been viciously attacked as a liar and a defender of child abusers. Corax 21:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you look above I've asked both you and Adam Carr to cease the hostilities. I've also removed personal attacks by him here and elsewhere on the wiki. silsor

21:09, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean for my comments to include you. Corax 21:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My purpose is not to defend (or attack) anyone. I fail to see how not going back to talk about old comments that had nothing to do with me is a justification for you attacking me personally.  Back to the topic at hand.


 * My basic points remain unanswered:
 * 1. I don't argue against the information stating certain gay rights groups expressed early support for repeal of age of consent laws.  My problem is that the way this information is presented in the article does not give enough context about who these groups were; they are presented with no mention of how widespread their support was, leaving open the question of how widespread that meant support was from the gay community at large.  (All of ANSWER's policies certainly doesn't represent the majority of people who dislike war.)  If you cannot tell me who these groups were or how widespread their support is, I would be inclined to add information to the article calling into question how widespread their beliefs were in the gay community.
 * 2. A rift developed between a small minority of radical gays and "boylovers," and the majority or mainstream gay rights movement.  This implies prior support that should be proven (incidentally, this could possibly be proven or disproven by answering #1).  Otherwise, I think the language needs to be changed.
 * 3. The two sentences about how gay groups supported repealing consent laws because they shared in a "struggle of liberation" needs to be changed, even by your own reasoning, which is that gay groups largely ignored NAMBLA until political pressure was brought to bear.  Either they ignored NAMBLA or they accepted them as fellows in the "struggle for liberation" (which assumes support for THE ISSUE); it can't be both ways. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 21:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

structure
This article seems to have no logical order. Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, most of the history section should be roughly chronological. Paragraphs of criticism should be placed in the time that the critics spoke. Current positions should be a separate section, as they are now. The history subsections headers might benefit by having a date range included as well. -Willmcw 20:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * The structure as it exists includes a history that IS in chronological order. Additionally, it takes issues like common criticisms and criminal allegations, and separates them from the history section so that they do not hinder the progress of the chronology. Corax 20:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Criticisms that occured contemporaneously should be placed contemporaneously. That's standard Wikipedia practice. They are a part of the chronology. Also, the chronological order seems to be slipping. -Willmcw 20:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * The criticisms enumerated in the "criticisms" section are not specific enough to warrant incorporation into the larger history. They are generic criticisms that have been echoed since the moment of NAMBLA's founding.  It would be impossible to place them in crhonological order. Corax 20:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Generic criticism should be separated, but dated, specific criticisms should go in their logicla order. I've re-ordered the history to reflect chronology, to remove the unsourced "rift", and to put the Curley case into the history. -Willmcw 21:12, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * And how, exactly, do you intend to date criticisms that have been recurring non-stop since 1978? Corax 21:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If a graf starts, "in 1998, Joe Blow wrote that NAMBLA is a tax shelter" then that should go in the chronology in 1998. Simple. -Willmcw 21:37, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Goodness me, you folks have been busy while we in the Antipodes have been sleeping. Just to go back a few hours, Silsor said: "Assume good faith requests that you assume the quote was accidentally taken out of context by Corax, who may have been running through a lot of material quickly. I realise that you may be unwilling to assume good faith since you believe your faith has been violated before this, but what is all this proving? That Corax has an agenda? Lots of people do. Our primary goal on this talk page is to collaborate to build an encyclopedia; I just don't think that the hate you and he are sending back and forth is necessary in order to do that."

I appreciate Silsor's good intentions here, but I can no longer assume good faith on Corax's part. My issue with him is not that he has an agenda. As you say, most of us have agendas. My issue with him is that he has twice been caught out falsifying sources to bolster his case. (He also deleted my assertion that David Thorstad is a defendant in the Curley case, when he must have known that this was true). If an undergraduate did stuff like this, they would be kicked out of their course (as I'm sure Corax knows), so it is hardly acceptable in an encyclopaedia editor. Furthermore, if you look at Corax's "user contribution" page you will see that he is not here "to collaborate to build an encyclopedia": he is here to provide cover for his friends in NAMBLA and for no other reason. All his actions here need to be judged in the light of that fact. Adam 23:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If NAMBLA is to be damned, then let them damn themselves by providing the necessary facts on the article page. I'm just asking if the two of you could at least try to not deliberately insult each other on the talk page. silsor 00:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * My userpage shows that I have written or contributed chunks of information to a good number of articles in light of the fact that I have a life outside of Wikipedia. You have no idea why I am here, and if you insist on pretending you do, I will respond in kind.  Corax 00:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not "insulting" Corax, I am pointing out specific acts of intellectual dishonesty and fraudulence, which in the context of editing this article is a perfectly correct and reasonable thing to do. Adam 02:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Or error. silsor 02:13, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Go back up and look at the Tatchell quotes and tell me how that could have been an "error". Adam 02:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Error' could also have been out of pure stupidity(No offense Corax). You seem bent on making everyone believe that Corax is evil and vile and it's getting REALLY OLD. What if he read the quote SOMEWHERE ELSE and stupidly used them in the wrong form. You're the one who now seems to have the agenda, and that is to make everyone think Corax is bad. Stop it. It's childish. And I know for a FACT that you're giving poor silsor a headache! Moofie

If Corax has an exculpatory explanation for the misleading use of the Tatchell and Endean quotes, he has declined to offer it, preferring bluster and insults. I don't believe Corax is stupid. I am therefore entitled to assume malicious intent. I do indeed have an agenda: to expose Corax's intellectual dishonesty, and thus to reduce his ability to foist his propaganda on Wikipedia. I'm sorry Silsor has a headache but these are serious matters. Adam 05:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Misleading (POV?) Paragraph Addition & Other Problems
A recent addition to the article states: "Contrary to NAMBLA's assertions that the gay and lesbian rights movement has abandoned the "sexual rights of youth...." I would like to see a source for this claim that NAMBLA has supposedly made.

Additionally, I think it would be helpful to expound on what the age-of-consent in those countries were set at for both heterosexual and homosexual sex in order to elucidate just how young a gay person has to be in order not to have his rights championed by gay groups. Is it 16? 18? Or some other arbitrary age? In any case, Adam's edit is more than slightly absurd, since the issue in those age-of-consent battles was not the sexual rights of youth at all, but rather the equality issue. (notice the lack of discussion on the sex rights of youth, and how age is only mentioned in the context of equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals). Hopefully, Adam will rewrite his recent contribution to reflect this.

Adam has also recently decided to try to sneak into the introduction that NAMBLA is being sued for the murder of a ten-year-old. Unfortunately, he didn't visit the link I voluntarily appended to the Curley v. NAMBLA section, which contains the judge's opinion dismissing the case.

What is more, Adam has inserted all sorts of detailed information about the various people being sued by the Curleys as part of the individual wrongful death suits that were initiated concomittantly with the unsuccessful lawsuit against NAMBLA. While this is factual and no doubt has a place on wikipedia, the place is not an article on NAMBLA. I would suggest starting an article about the specifics of Curley v. NAMBLA. Perhaps a good name for it would be - gasp - "Curley v. NAMBLA". Corax 05:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Corax 05:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * NAMBLA is a North American organization, really just an American organization. The age-of-consent laws in other countries are immaterial to NAMBLA's history. Regarding the large amount of material Adam Carr found, I do believe that an article on Curley v. NAMBLA may be merited and that the information can be summarized here. However, just because the case was dismissed does not make the material uncovered during the pretrial motions invalid. We are not trying a case, we're writing an encyclopedia article. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:01, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree with you on the paragraph Adam added, and suggest that it just be removed alotgether.


 * I've created Curley v. NAMBLA, although it's (obviously) at a very basic stage right now. The question is what to take out and what to leave. Corax 06:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have not inserted "all sorts of information" about named individuals. I have given information about their role in NAMBLA.
 * The case has not been dismissed. The court found that NAMBLA per se could not be sued since as an unincorporated association it did not meet the criteria to be sued under Massachusetts law. The wrongful death suit against all the named individuals, as NAMBLA office-bearers, is continuing.
 * The "sexual rights of youth" material is a response to allegations that Corax himself has made many times over the past week, but I don't particularly care whether it is included or not. Adam

The motion to dismiss for NAMBLA was granted. NAMBLA as an association, which is the topic of this article, is no longer being sued. Individuals are being sued. This means that the statement "NAMBLA is being sued" is erroenous, which is why I removed the comment. If you want to start an article on each of the members and keep tabs on their bowel movements, that's fine. To insert this excess amount of detailed information regarding one specific case at one specific time would bog the article down and throw it out of proper proportion.

This article is not a channel for you to debate with me. If you really wanted to have a debate, which I'm not sure you are prepared to do without the safety net of screaming "POV!", I would be more than happy to oblige. As it stands, the paragraph in question will be removed because it contains an unsourced and highly suspect claim, followed by rebuttals that, had it not been for your misrepresentations of the issues, would not have been adequate. Corax 06:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It would is appropriate to include a paragraph on the NAMBLA officers being sued. It is a legal fiction to say that NAMBLA is unrelated to them. NAMBLA has a policy which claims that sexual exploitation, etc, are grounds for dismissal. Absent any indication that NAMBLA has expelled these or other members or officers, it is apparent that NAMBLA is implicitly endorsing their behavior. -Willmcw 07:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keeping in mind that the behavior for which they are being sued is advocating the political position which forms the raison d'etre of the group, I would be surprised if the members were expelled -- or if the group did NOT endorse their behavior. Corax 07:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps so. Is there any indication that they have ever expelled any members for being convicted of offenses, such as rape, that are listed as expellable offenses? If not, that condemnation would seem to exist only on paper. -Willmcw 07:42, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Um, well, they are not actually being tried for their personal behaviour. They are being sued for being corporately responsible for Curley's death because Curley's killers used information on how to entrap children which (it is claimed) they obtained from NAMBLA. It is quite possible that if they Curleys win their case the NAMBLoids could be charged with criminal conspiracy, but that has not yet happened. The purpose of listing them here is to illuminate NAMBLA's structure and organisation. Adam 07:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, NAMBLA doesn't publish information on how to "entrap" children. It does publish, along with advocacy for legal reform, accurate information on the nature of current laws which regulate relationships between adults and minors. One would hardly expect them not to do this, and it is their detractors, employing the usual right wing tactic of labeling things they don't like as "advocating and promoting," who call NAMBLA's publications by derogatory names like "The Rape and Escape Manual."


 * Well, we will see what Judge O'Toole has to say about that in due course. Adam 09:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is the height of silliness to suggest that people should obey laws, but that telling them precisely what the laws are is the moral equivalent of helping them evade those laws. I don't think such semantic games have any place in a neutral article.


 * The article doesn't say that. Adam 09:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article says "But even radical gay rights activists do not endorse NAMBLA's policy of abolishing age-of consent laws altogether."

This is misleading, in that what NAMBLA seeks to abolish, are age-of-consent laws which criminalize absolutely solely on the basis of age, have no possibility of making reasonable exceptions, and provide the minor no due process in the legal proceeding. NAMBLA's critics try to equate abolition of this consent climate with the creation of an absolute age-of-consent of zero, trying to imply that any and all sex acts between adults and children of any age would be unprosecutable.


 * NAMBLA's policy is quoted in the article. It calls for the abolition of age-of-consent laws without qualification. If NAMBLA mean something other than that, they should say so. Adam 09:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * An "age-of-consent" is just as arbitrary a rubber stamp as an "IQ-of-consent" or a "hatsize-of-consent." Repeal of regressive age-based consent laws would still leave minors with the plethora of other protections against sexual abuse and exploitation enjoyed by all other groups in society with a possibly diminished capacity to make sexual decisions.  It is fine to state NAMBLA's policy that we should do away with age-based consent laws.  It is not fine to misinterpret what implementation of this policy would imply.  Getting rid of age-based consent laws would not give adults a "right" to have sex with young children, any more than they now enjoy a right to have sex with the retarded, the unconscious, the brain-injured, or elderly nursing home residents.  Hermitian
 * Above user actually performed this edit under User:66.235.1.193. Restored after 66.235.1.193 decided to delete my original comment; restored again after Corax removed it. Please do not remove other users' comments; it is not terribly polite. If either of you do it again, I will bring it to the attention of an administrator. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 16:49, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * What precisely is the point of interrupting a chain of comments on a relevant topic with an ad hoc interjection as to what IP an edit was performed under? Can't persons interested in such minutia click on "History?"  Hermitian
 * Precisely, simply this: it's common practice on Wikipedia to point out these sorts of inconsistencies on talk pages (forgetting to sign comments, etc).  In this case, additionally, I figured since you seem to be a new user that it would help familiarize you with standard Wikipedia practice (such as how to sign comments -- you can use four tildes in a row to automatically sign your name and datestamp).  It helps keep things straight and makes communication easier.  I meant no hostility with the gesture and I'm glad to see you've registered for an account.  Corax, what do you have to say on the matter?  &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 19:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

This is equivalent to suggesting that the fact that we don't have an age at which we absolutely take away drivers licenses, with no possibility of appeal, means that there are no legal barriers to semiconscious 90 year olds plowing through the town square.

An example of an alternative consent climate is the one in the Netherlands, where the age of consent is 16, but between 12 and 16 it cannot be prosecuted by the police without the permission of the child or the child's guardian. This permits minors and their decision support helpers to make judgment calls as to which relationships are positive, and which are exploitative.

There are numerous other more "user-friendly" consent laws in various countries around the world.

NAMBLA has stated that they think such laws are reasonable, and would certainly not be opposed to similar consent law changes here in the US. So the whole meaning assigned by NAMBLA's detractors to "abolition of age-of-consent laws" is a bit of a red herring. It does not mean rampant buttsex between toddlers and 50 year olds.


 * The stated policy would not preclude that, provided the toddler "consented." If NAMBLA is not in favour of that, they should rewrite their policy acordingly. Until they do, we are entitled (indeed obliged) to quote their policy as it stands. Adam 09:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One of the big battles in the US Gay movement is whether radical gay culture, which spawned NAMBLA, ACT-UP, Queer Nation, and other such organizations, is a unique and special thing worth preserving, or whether gays are better off being "just like everyone else", with a focus only on long-term monogomous relationships between adults. In this country, the latter view has prevailed, and attempts by gays to mainstream, while being nipped on the ankles by right wing charges of recruitment and child abuse, have marginalized not only groups like NAMBLA, but even gay icons like Harry Hay and Larry Kramer. What has emerged is a new brand of fuzzy-sweatered family-friendly homosexual, who would never have impure thoughts about muscular teenagers, and can live next door to the Cleaver family. This new movement immunizes historical gays from child abuse charges, and makes sure any underage sexual partners are quietly played by adult actors when the stories of their lives are (re)told. Even Batman has upgraded to an adult Robin.

Will this work? I think the ILGA flap showed the efficacy of appeasement as a viable political strategy. The gays will make themselves family-friendly, and adults-only, and the religious and political right wing will laugh at them, and kick them down the stairs for their efforts.

Lesbian Feminist and Adademic Camille Paglia, one of the few NAMBLA supporters who doesn't get accused of "just wanting to have sex with little boys," characterized NAMBLA's problems as follows.

"You have to realize it's an amazing public relations problem for gay activism, because the far right would like to stereotype all gay men as child molesters and they would like to identify homosexuality with pedophilia. So, what I've done, and this is why I'm not very popular with a lot of gay activists, is say: To try and sweep that issue under the rug simply for political gains against the far right is not a good idea, because this pedophiliac eroticism is deeply, deeply, deeply imbedded in the history of male homosexuality, and to try and erase it or deny that it's there is unwise."

Ultimately, the issue isn't whether NAMBLA is right or wrong, or which kids should have the right to engage in what kinds of sex, and with whom. It's whether NAMBLA is a live grenade threatening to explode near the wobbly bits of the adult gay civil rights movement, and ultimately, this is the larger context in which all NAMBLA-bashing needs to be interpreted.

Hermitian


 * That is all your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Adam 09:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, Adam is welcome to his opinion that Hermitian's opinion is welcome. 68.229.240.32 14:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Prejudice vs. propaganda and prejudice as propaganda
I can not get into more detail right this moment, but it had strike me as if the prejudices are overcoming the fact that NAMBLA exists and is a factual reality. Therefore, the inclusion of the material in this Wikipedia is mandatory. And the more the information about it, the better.

In the Spanish version of this Wikipedia I am having lots of problems trying to defend even the existence of the equivalent of the Childlove movement article (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_de_los_amantes_de_ni%C3%B1os) mostly because some illiterates say that given the fact that such movement is not depicted as that (i.e. as if a webpage would be named or entitled "Childlove movement") then the movement does not exist. Well, here we have a factual reality: NAMBLA exists, is, and even if you dislike it, you have to face its existence. Otherwise, all this exercise called "Wikipedia" can be addessed as a new form of a politically correct censorship.--Santi

I reverted IP:66's edits.
Your first edit claimed that the opening paragraph was "poor style," however you removed substantive information, not just made style fixes. I don't really have a problem with using the word "issues" rather than "problems," though. But the Dade County law that Bryant worked to overturn was very clearly pro-gay; it extended protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, financing, and public accommodations. How is this not pro-gay? Please explain your reasoning if you plan to change this information again. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 16:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't remove other peoples' comments from talk pages (see above). Apparently this applies to Corax as well (I would think you'd know better by now). Why do you care, anyway? &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 16:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Katefan's reverts
Following her reasoning, the Dade County law should be referred to as "pro-black" since it protects racial minorities; "pro-woman" since it includes women, and "pro-jew" because it protects religious freedom.


 * Above by User:68.229.240.32, who I assume is Hermitian (can you please log in when making changes? -- if I'm mistaken then apologies in advance). Also, please don't make personal attacks.  You may not have agreed with my revert, but that doesn't make it stupid.  Semantics of wording are one thing -- it's fine to re-word the phrase to clarify its meaning -- but what I reverted was a wholesale deletion of the information, not just the phrase "pro-gay." &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 20:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not Hermitian, and I didn't attack you personally. I said that your REVERT was stupid, but I did not say that YOU were stupid. You may not agree with my characterization of your revert, but that doesn't make it a personal attack. User:68.229.240.32
 * Sure it does. You characterized an action I personally took -- and therefore an opinion I personally held -- as stupid.  That is certainly a personal attack. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 14:54, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the Wikipedia definition of a personal attack. My comment, although it was rude, does not fit the description.68.229.240.32 16:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You can argue semantics, but that makes your comments no more acceptable. Wikipedia also has policies about civility that we're all expected to follow. See my comments at the bottom of the page. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 17:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the Wikipedia article on civility. My rude comment does indeed fall under the category of "petty incivility." Had I made a personal attack, this would be considered "more serious". So, this argument DOES in fact make my comment more acceptable. As to semantics, you in fact started a semantic argument when you implied meaning beyond the words I chose; I maintain there is none. 68.229.240.32 20:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You're attempting to obfuscate the spirit of my point, which is your attitude. All I ask is that you follow policies. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 20:39, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Reverted Corax Deletion
I reverted Corax's deletion of a paragraph on age-of-consent laws, which he tagged as having been discussed. I must have missed that discussion. Why are we deleting it? Thanks -Willmcw 20:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe he was probably referring to comments toward the top of the page about the irrelevance of information about other countries -- see ~graf 5. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 20:54, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping me out. References like "that paragraph we talked about" may be a little too vague for this effort. Funny to see the evolution of the Tatchell quote. Anyway, I've re-deleted it. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Glad to! &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 21:26, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Age of consent laws
Hermitian says above: "Getting rid of age-based consent laws would not give adults a "right" to have sex with young children, any more than they now enjoy a right to have sex with the retarded, the unconscious, the brain-injured, or elderly nursing home residents." Well, the reason you do not have a right to have sex with those people is that the law deems them incompetent to give consent to you having sex with them. That is what the law also currently does in relation to children. An "age-of-consent law" is a law which sets a minimum age at which a person is deemed competent to give consent to sex. If you abolish such laws, there will be no such minimum age. Therefore, if a child, of any age, can be persuaded to "consent," it will be legal to have sex with that child.
 * There aren't any absolute laws which state that no impaired person is competent to give consent to any sexual activity whatsoever. Instead, if an allegation is made that someone is being taken advantage of, it is investigated, and both the impaired person and the person accused get due process, and are allowed to give their input, and a decision is rendered in their particular case by an actual human being who takes all the facts into consideration.  Impaired people can and do engage in sexual activity.  Many of them are far less capable than many minors subject to age-of-consent laws.  Yet they are not subject to a rubber stamp of "IQ-points-of-consent" or "grams-of-cerebral-cortex-of-consent" or "hours-off-the-ventillator-per-day-of-consent" or anything even remotely resembling the absolute age-based consent laws minors have inflicted upon them.  Indeed, were children only subject to laws similar to those which restrict the sexual autonomy of non-children with similar decision-making and informed-consent-giving capacity, we would not even be having this discussion.  People who seek to use the child sex issue for political purposes try to keep everyone's thinking on the age-of-consent axis, because its the same dead horse they've been flogging so successfully for years. Hermitian 00:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NAMBLA's advocates here are really going to have to get to grips with what NAMBLA's policy actually says. "The North American Man/Boy Love Association calls for the abolition of age-of-consent and all other laws which prevent men and boys from freely enjoying their bodies." . NAMBLA's leaders are intelligent people and we should give them credit for saying what they meant to say when they wrote their policy. Adam 00:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * NAMBLA supports abolition of age-of-consent laws. So did a lot of other people back in the days when NAMBLA was founded.  So do a lot of people today.  Age-of-consent laws are regressive, and deny minors and their sexual partners due process when allegations of wrongdoing are made.  Age-of-consent laws are a manifestation of the mentality that the standard for interfering in the lives of adults is that you may not violate even the rights of one individual in pursuit of your goal, but that the standard for interfering in the lives of children, is that you may violate the rights of everyone, if it helps you push your agenda. You are perfectly welcome to state the FACT that a goal of NAMBLA is to push for the abolition of age-of-consent laws.  Just stop lying about what such abolition implies.  There are literally volumes of other laws about taking advantage of vulnerable individuals, corrupting minors, sexual exploitation, prostituting juveniles, custodial interference, child endangerment, and other things too numerous to mention, that are still there after the age-of-consent laws are gone.  But you don't want rights and due process for minors, you want an unthinking rubber stamp that doesn't waste anyones time on something so unimportant as the sexual rights of persons with the legal status of chattel. Hermitian 01:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In reply to Hermitian's earlier post: Of course there are degrees of impairment and not all impaired people are deemed incompetent to give consent to sex. But in most countries (certainly in mine) it is illegal to have sex with those who are deemed incompetent, whether the deeming is done prospectively (by legislation) or retrospectively (by a court in a specific case). The situation with age-of-consent is more clear-cut, because age is a less problematic status than impairment. It is open to the state to deem that all people below a specified age are incompetent to give consent to sex. Where to set that age involves a value judgement about the physical, intellectual and psychological readiness of children and adolescents to give consent to sex.

One can debate at what age young people achieve the necessary state of readiness, but most people take the view that the law should err on the side of caution, setting the age at the higher end of the "reasonable range." Of course, in practice, individuals mature at different rates, and any age-of-consent law will have the effect of depriving some young people who are sufficiently mature to give consent of the right to do so for perhaps several years. But most people take the view that this is a lesser detriment than setting the age of consent at the lower end of the range, thus exposing a much larger number of young people to possible sexual exploitation.
 * If it is open to the state to deem that all people below a certain age are incompetant to give consent to sex, then it is also open to the state to deem that all people above a certain age are incompetant to give consent to sex, or to drive, or to conduct their own business affairs, or to do many other things. Yet it seems that inability due to a low age gets a rubber stamp, and inability due to a high age gets considered on an individual basis.  Due process for persons who count, and mechanical processing for people whose individuality and feelings don't matter.  We can all pick an age beneath which the law might reasonably presume inability to consent.  We can all pick an age above which, absent damning evidence, the state has no right to impose itself into personal sexual behavior.  Absolute age-of-consent laws, of the kind NAMBLA fights to abolish, are based on the principle that a single number must be chosen for both those ages, and that the only debate that is allowed is how high that number should be set, with anyone who picks too low a number getting called a pedophile. Absolute age-of-consent laws are based on minimizing the due process and court time wasted on people who don't matter enough to be treated as individuals, and get their relationships examined with anything other than a rubber stamp.  That is why such laws are backward, discriminatory, and that is why NAMBLA supports their repeal.  Furthermore, one seriously wonders why "consent" is made such a big issue with sex, when no one asks if children can consent to being beaten, forcibly conscripted into the military, involuntarily restrained and forced to perform endless hours of uncompensated labor in government schools, tried without lawyers, or indefinitely incarcerated in psychiatric prisons without review.  You'd think if all these whackos who spend so much political capital tilting at imagined pedophiles and talking endlessly about children not being able to consent actually cared about the children, they'd ask whether children can consent to a lot of things society does to them and not just carp endlessly on the one thing they're fixated on. Hermitian 04:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support the Tatchell position, with an age-of-consent of 14 and a provision that people younger than that will not be prosecuted for having sex with each other. (A condition of my support for an age of consent of 14 is that it would not negate laws making it illegal for teachers, youth workers etc to have sex with young people for whom they have responsibility.) I think that would be a legal regime with which nearly everybody except pedophiles would be reasonably happy. Adam 01:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks to "gay advocacy" like yours, which lies about the issue, the US will likely never have any legislative framework other than absolute age-of-consent laws, and very likely converge to a uniform age of 18 nationally over the next several years, with anyone who dissents being accused of promoting "child abuse." Paying lip service to some fantasy age-of-consent of 14, while you and your fellow travellers in the fuzzy-sweatered reminted gay movenent continue to squawk about NAMBLA and pedophiles at every opportunity, is a meaningless gesture. Hermitian 04:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In reply to Hermitian's next post: "NAMBLA supports abolition of age-of-consent laws. So did a lot of other people back in the days when NAMBLA was founded. So do a lot of people today." I don't think that's true. "Age-of-consent laws are regressive, and deny minors and their sexual partners due process when allegations of wrongdoing are made." No they don't. Such persons are charged with an offence and get a trial. The rest of the post is just hot air which I won't try to wade through. Adam 01:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Such persons are charged with an offence and get a trial, but the trial isn't about whether the relationship was exploitative -- with the opinions of the minor being taken into consideration. Rather, the trial is about whether the sexual relationship occurred.  If it can be proven that sex did take place, the older partner is sent to prison and the younger partner to therapy.  This occurs because the courts automatically deem the relationship as rape and abuse based solely on the age of the younger partner.  Age of consent laws' disregard for the quality of a relationship or the opinions of the minor is obviously a denial of his or her due process.  His or her opinions are never taken into consideration. This is a bad thing, not a good thing.  By the way, I still find it extremely self-serving of you to bluster about how wicked NAMBLA is here on the discussion page, while at the same time you have a virtual shrine to pederasts (like Hadrian and Oscar Wilde) on your page.  Corax 05:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Something that seems to be mising from the discussion of non-NAMBLA support for changing age-of-consent (AOC) laws is the fact that 20 years ago some AOCs were discriminatory. Hetersosexual sex was allowed at one age, but homosexual sex was not legal until a higher age. So when some activists of the past are talking about changing AOCs they were, I believe, often talking about the discriminatory aspect rather than the entire legal concept. I'll see if I can find sources to buttress the point. In general, let's not waste our time arguing whether pedophilia is a good thing or not. We're just here to write an encyclopedia article. We only have to describe the controversy, not decide who is right. -Willmcw 03:18, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but I am sick of these allegations that the modern gay rights movement has gone all conservative and doesn't care about the sexual rights of youth. Gay rights activists in Australia and Britain have campaigned successfully, in the teeth of fierce opposition, both to reduce the age of consent (and thus to enhance the sexual rights of youth), and to equalise the age of consent (thus removing discrimination against same-sex sex). In the US the political climate is much more hostile and this doesn't seem to be practical politics at present. (It would be a much easier issue to deal with if NAMBLA didn't exist to inflame public emotion and allow anti-gay politicians to drag the pedophilia issue into the debate.) Adam 03:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So if NAMBLA just disappeared, you and your friends, who have done nothing but tapdance like puppets for the religious and political right wing for the last ten years, selling out at every opportunity, and sacrificing even your own leaders and organizations on the altar of political correctness, would instantly seize up the banner of youth sexual rights, and campaign successfully in the teeth of fierce opposition, to win a lowered age of consent for young people. The same young people, by the way, who currently get treated like lepers if they try to publicly participate in gay "community" activism themselves, for fear some Fundie might see them with you.  You've spent the last 15 years not standing up to Jesse Helms, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, but if that pesky NAMBLA would just fold up shop and go away, you'd grow balls and fight the Family-Friendly Jesus Freaks on the same issue you sold out NAMBLA over.  This from a movement that has redefined the word "boy" to mean a 25 year old adult male who shaves his nutsack.  NAMBLA hasn't sold out.  NAMBLA hasn't capitulated.  You have.  I really don't think there's anything more to say.  Hermitian 05:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess not. Such crap does not merit any response. Adam 06:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll also try to look up, at least for our own edification, the recent state court case in the U.S. concerning a 16(?) year old boy who was caught performing oral sex on a 13 (?) year old. It became a famous case due to the discriminatory nature of the law that he was prosecuted under. In any case, I agree that the article should not get into how other gay rights groups have addressed AOC issues. There is an entire article, age of consent, where that discussion would be better placed. -Willmcw 03:54, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong in the article but, lest anyone thinks that NAMLBA is the sole agent pushing for reform, here is an article about the court case to which I referred. The other Matthew -Willmcw 06:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

This is what is known as "article drift," the tendency of articles to drift off into other topics. It happens because an editor drags in an extraneous issue, and then other editors add more material to balance or refute the first editor, and so on. Eventually the irrelevant material gets so obtrusive it is hived off into a new article. I would be happy to delete all the material about what various gay rights groups and individuals say about this issue, leaving only the fact that they reject NAMBLA and its policies, and leading off to an article called The gay and lesbian rights movement and the age of consent laws (or soemthing). Adam 04:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Current state
Well, I think we've done a pretty fair job so far. I can't see anything that particularly sticks out at me anymore needing change, except I do think that we should perhaps paraphrase some of the information on Gayme, Zymurgy etc., as text dumps are not very reader-friendly. Might work on that later if I have time. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 14:16, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The reason I did that is that court documents have privilege - so long as we quote directly from them we cannot defame anybody. As soon as you move away from the words of the court you expose yourself to risk. Adam 15:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I see your point... but can't that be solved by using hedging phrases like alleged and clearly citing the court as the source of the information? &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 19:04, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

To everybody: What are the perceived problems with the article as it currently stands? silsor 22:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the current article. I think the inclusion of attacks on NAMBLA by gay organizations needs to be balanced by some additional quotes from credible academics pointing out that such attacks are almost certainly self-serving and political in nature, and not some sort of Great Awakening on the part of the gay community to the need to identify all gay sex between adults and willing teenage boys as "child abuse" and "pedophilia."  One of the big motivations for the creation of NAMBLA was police abuse of young gays to extract the names of older sexual partners, largely enabled by absolute age-of-consent laws. While the Revere story is included, a line or two about how gay kids would disappear for days at the hands of the police, and turn up bruised and battered later, would do a great deal to illuminate the outrage against law enforcement at the time, and why young gay activists viewed absolute consent laws as a very bad thing.  In mentioning that NAMBLA is barred from marching on Gay Pride Day, one might also mention that NAMBLA and other organizations which still embrace the roots of the radical gay movement have formed "Spirit of Stonewall," and hold an alternative march.  There's certainly nothing in the article I can't live with at the moment, and there are enough links at the end for anyone who is interested to dig up additional information on their own. So if you all want to declare victory and move on, that's fine with me.  Hermitian 02:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article is certainly not perfect, and I haven't yet worked through all the press material another user kindly sent me, but it is a vast improvement on the absurd piece of propaganda that existed here before my first round of editing. Getting here necessitated a rather unpleasant series of shitfights, but that seems to be only way to get things done at Wikipedia, whose motto should perhaps be Per faeces ad veritas (no doubt Corax can correct my Latin). Adam 03:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Hermitian mentions additional facts connected to NAMBLA that he would like added. Is there a verifiable source for police torturing youths? Thanks, -Willmcw 03:36, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * One famous case of such antics was in the mid 70's, when Los Angeles police dangled a boy over a cliff by his ankles, and threatened to drop him, if he did not admit to having had sex with men. This was testified to in court, admitted by the prosecutor, and reported in The Advocate at the time.  In subsequent Congressional testimony, much was made of how hard it is to get boys to turn in older lovers, and how "extreme measures" sometimes had to be employed.  For personal accounts of boys in the Revere case, you'd probably have to dig through archives of gay media at the time all this occurred.  I doubt there's anything on the Web now that can be cited, this long after the fact.  Hermitian 05:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's quite dramatic. If we can find a verifiable source then we might be able to mention it here or in a related article. -Willmcw 05:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I found a source which appears reasonably credible and added a paragraph about it. -Willmcw 06:13, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

British Medical Journal study
Corax -- you quoted something from a Website that had summarized the study published in the BMJ, but your addition was phrased in a way such that it appeared as if the text was taken directly from the journal article itself. I looked at the article and I could not find that exact quote. Instead I paraphrased the phraseology used by the journal authors and added a caveat about the number of respondents who had had consensual sex with a man rather than a woman (the sampling was small). I have copied the article itself into a page in my userspace so you can see it if you so choose, though I think it is probably copyrighted and so we can't keep it on Wikipedia as a reference from the article itself. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 23:21, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * For now it can be found at User:Katefan0/British Medical Journal. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 23:24, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * My quote was not a summary. It was a direct quote from the journal. I am reinstating it. Corax 01:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, it was in fact a summary that someone else wrote, presumably whoever put up the Web site you referenced. Other places on that Web site, it specifically says "Quoted from abstract" or such as that before a block of descriptive text.  This particular reference on the Web site you point to has no such language, and if you look at the actual text of the article you will see that borne out.  I also note that you failed to include in your edits the additional context I wrote in about the small sample size of the survey vis a vis men with men; this seems rather important.  I am reinstating my language.  We can go on in this fashion, but I can't see how you can support your actions given that I have researched and made available the actual text of the article, which is quite easy to examine.  Did you look at it?  &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 02:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Even if true, what is the relevance of this?


 * Also in the 1970s some law enforcement agents, including officers of the Los Angeles Police Department, were so desperate to convict pedophile rings that they coerced boys to make them reveal the names of their adult sex partners. In one case, a youth testified that officers had dangled him over a cliff in an attempt to gain information. Adam 06:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Its relevance is that it is history, it was well-reported at the time, and it's a dramatic little tidbit. However, it may be more relevant to American gay rights in general, and to LAPD Chief Ed Davis's tenure. That whole pre-history section can be moved, leaving just the introductory sentence as a summary. Let me see what the appropriate article would be. -Willmcw 09:18, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I still fail to see its relevance to the history of NAMBLA. It doesn't follow from the preceding paragraph at all. As I have set to Corax below, I will delete it unless it is rewritten to link it in some logical way to the text around it. Adam 09:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Chill out. I moved it to LAPD, where it joined with another case of police overreach to make a worthwhile paragraph. It seemed like too much detail for the existing gay rights articles I could find. I think the point that bears mentioning in this article is that the 70s were a time of ferment. But it may not need much more detail than that, unless directly relevant to the NAMBLA formation. -Willmcw 09:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am quite chilled out, thank you. Thanks for resolving the matter in such a decisive way. I was going to make a further point: the fact (if it is a fact) that the police used unacceptable methods in enforcing any particular law is not of itself relevant to a discussion of the merits of that law. That the police sometimes beat up murder suspects is not an argument for legalising murder. Adam 10:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Abusive enforcement is often used as an argument for revising or rescinding particular laws. And abusive enforcement of laws is also a reason why people band together into organizations to try to fight back. I think that the some of the abusive enforcements of the past, such as against the Boise Boys, may have been one reason why NAMBLA got what little initial support that it did receive. But that's just an offhand surmise. Cheers, cool dude. -Willmcw 10:14, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph alluding to that "irrelevant" study by Rind which you claim is specious because it was from a "pedophile" web site is in fact a peer-reviewed scholarly study that was published by the APA. It is relevant to the topic of NAMBLA's cricisms because it is one of the studies NAMBLA itself references on its web site to support its stance on age-of-consent laws. I have reinstated it accordingly. Corax 07:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then source it to the "peer-reviwed scholarly study" and not to "paedosexualitaet.de", and rephrase the paragraph so that its relevance to the topic of the article is explained. Otherwise I will delete it again. Adam 09:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Prisoner Program
It seems to me that some mention of the Prisoner Program should be included. One the one hand, it's a bitch being a child molester in prison, as is related in self-pitying "The Prison Experience: Some Psychosocial Comments," written by a Ph.D. Rabbi described as "a political prisoner in the United States." On the other hand, their active prisoner support program seems at odds with their declaration of opposing illegal activities. Would anyone like to take a crack at writing a paragraph about it? -Willmcw 10:28, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the section on the BMJ article. It is an argument about pedophilia or pederasty or whatever, not about NAMBLA, and belongs somewhere else. Adam 16:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Rind study is used by NAMBLA as a defense of its position on AOC laws. As such, it it very much relevant to the article, especially in the section titled "criticisms and response." I have reinstated it accordingly. Corax 16:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be legitimate to quote a NAMBLA publication or spokesperson citing that article in defence of its policies or activities. It is not legitimate for you to do so, because the purpose of this article is to describe NAMBLA, not conduct a debate on the merits of NAMBLA's policies. Adam 16:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If this is not a place to debate the merits of NAMBLA's policies, how inappropriate is it to have the article chockfull of instances of NAMBLA being described and condemned as a "front for criminal exploitation of children." For that matter, how is it appropriate to have criminal allegations of ALLEGED members, acting independently of the group, appended to the end of the article in a section that is at least as long as the history?  If you want to make the article consist entirely of objective fact, and not other people opinions or NAMBLA's responses to those opinions, that is fine.  But do not think for a second that you can paste hundreds of attacks that people make on NAMBLA without having NAMBLA's responses to those attacks included in the article also.  Remember, this is called balance.  Corax 16:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem including either or both studies, as long as it's in the proper context. Also don't have a problem including Rind's rebuttal to Spiegel et al, but I see that now the article contains none of the criticism I included earlier.  Why? &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 16:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither study is methodologically flawed. I see no need to balance every paragraph of "evolution science" with an equal paragraph of "creationist blather."  Every scientific study which does not please those pushing the sex abuse agenda, will be "controversial" and will be criticized.  If the criticism is legitimate criticism over methodological failures, then perhaps it has merit.  But none of the criticisms of Rind fall into that category, and therefore need not be mentioned. Hermitian 18:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinions about the studies, but they're just that. We aren't here to analyze the studies ourselves, we're here to present sides of an argument. Given that there were (at least) two, they should be represented.  I will resist any attempts to remove criticism of the studies, which has been properly documented.  &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:42, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

The text says "NAMBLA references a number of empirical studies ... etc" Where and when has it referenced them? As far as I can see Corax has referenced them, not NAMBLA. Is Corax a NAMBLA spokesperson? Adam 16:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked the Website currently myself, but I have seen news articles on Rind that referenced the fact that when it was released in 1998, NAMBLA trumpeted the study as a vindication of their position on their Website. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 16:56, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * NAMBLA's reference of Rind is not something that occurred in the distant past. The study is referenced, along with many, many others here.

For the purposes of this article we should be quoting NAMBLA to the effect that the study vindicates their views, if that's what they said. We should not be debating the study itself. This article is about NAMBLA, not about other people's views on pedophilia. Adam 16:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying, but it seems clear that NAMBLA did use the study at some point to support their views. So I don't know that it's necessary to find a quote from a NAMBLA spokesman somewhere since it is known to have been true. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 17:07, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is a link of NAMBLA's web site in 1998 clearly indicating its use of the Rind study as vindication of its views. Regards, Corax 18:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pat Califia now identifies as a bisexual transman Adam 06:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Problem with this section
There is still a basic problem with these two paras:


 * NAMBLA references a number of empirical studies that the group claims show that not all sex between adults and minors is harmful. One such study is a controversial 1998 [meta-analysis] published in the Psychological Bulletin that analyzed 59 other studies of college students, entitled An Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Based on Nonclinical Samples. Casting doubt on the view that sex with minors is pervasively harmful, the study asserts, "Only a minority of boys react negatively or feel harmed by these episodes [sexual contact with older individuals]...The results of our reviews clearly show that the assumptions of most mental health professionals, legislators, law enforcement personnel, media workers, and the lay public that sexual relations defined as CSA cause intense harm pervasively for both boys and girls are vastly exaggerated.".


 * The study has been criticized by some in the mental health field as well as Christian and anti-sexual-assault groups. Dr. David Spiegel, the associate chair of the Psychiatry Department at Stanford University's medical school, said the paper was "a stacked deck of poor population and study selection, misreported data, and misrepresented findings that inevitably led to wrong conclusions." Spiegel co-authored a critique  of the study along with researchers from Texas A&M University and The Leadership Council, a scientific non-profit whose stated mission is "the ethical application of psychological science to human welfare." The study's main author responded to these critics by saying, "Spiegel's point is a strawman argument; he attacked a misrepresented version of what we wrote" and suggested that The Leadership Council is composed mainly of mental health professionals who "are mainly concerned about the growing number of lawsuits that threaten their practices."

It will be seen that apart from the opening sentence, these two paragraphs are not about NAMBLA at all, they are about the merits of the Rind study. This is all very interesting, but it belongs in another article. All that is relevant to this article is to say that NAMBLA quotes scientific research to support its contention that not all sex between adults and minors is harmful, although the conclusions of that research has been contested by other people, and give a source for where NAMBLA has done so. Adam 13:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly either way here -- I think if specifics of the study are included, then specific critiques should also be included. If specifics aren't, then a generalized description of a critique is fine too (as you outlined).  It does seem to be getting rather wordy, but I'll abstain for now on this particular one. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 13:52, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I adjusted the paragraph a little, adding the title of the experiment that quotes later in the paragraph were referencing. Also, I moved it back down to criticism & response, since the paragraph is about how NAMBLA justifies its position rather than about introducing or explaining NAMBLA's position. Corax 18:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Civility
This topic obviously invites strong opinions. Sometimes tempers here can (and have) flared over the substance of an edit. But there's no reason to be impolite. 68.229.240.32 has made several valuable copyedits to the article today, but the tone of his or her edit summaries are unacceptable -- particularly comments like these: Little is known about why so little was known to the author of this paragraph [...] little is known"..."unclear"..."unknown"...this isn't unsolved mysteries. share what IS known. if you don't know, go to their darn website and find it out, don't revel in your ignorance, [...] and groan are not only less than helpful in determining what changes were made during that edit, they're also potentially offensive.  I'm not trying to be antagonistic (since you continue to edit under an anon IP I assume you're still pretty new), but I would encourage you to review Wikipedia's policies on civility. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 16:07, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

In the popular media
Could be added: There's a song by The Wonder Stuff on their 1993 album Construction for the Modern Idiot which lyrics explicitely are adressed to the MBLA: "I wish them all dead". --78.52.142.220 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC) I second this suggestion, this song really should be added to the NAMBLA page, the lyrics booklet clearly states that the song is about the (NA)MBLA. -- Hego99 (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Correction of citation
The sixth citation that is from the "Journal of Homosexuality" only lists the name of the journal and the page numbers but no further information. The complete info is Journal of Homosexuality, Volume 20, Issue 1 & 2 February 1990, pages 251 - 274.

This should be edited to reflect the full citation information. Below is the link to a verification of this information. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a904834876~frm=abslink


 * Thanks. ✅  Chzz  ► 06:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Skewed discussion of Curley v. NAMBLA
I find that the extensive discussion of the two Curley v. NAMBLA lawsuits, the first of which was dismissed by the court and the second dropped by the plaintiffs, presenting the allegations and arguments of the accusors in lengthy detail, to be quite inappropriate, even infringing on BLP. Comments anyone? __meco (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! I was just thinking that myself. Until a verdict is rendered, it's really just hearsay on the plaintiff's part. The other problem with the section is that it doesn't address it's significance: the lawsuit generated intense negative publicity for NAMBLA and intensified the pressure to go underground. How could that not be included in the section? IMO we should trim the legal details and focus on the impact instead.
 * As a side note, what do you think about similar treatment at Curley v. NAMBLA, and then adding content about the victim and moving it to Murder of Jeffrey Curley with the lawsuit as a section? Lionel (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that murder case could be detailed in a separate article. As the legal cases centering on NAMBLA fizzled out I think it would be more appropriate to have those discussed in the murder case article, i.e. my opinion is that the current Curley v. NAMBLA article should redirect to that. You have probably noticed like me that the content of the Curley v. NAMBLA article is almost a copy of the text covering that matter in this (the NAMBLA) article. __meco (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/FAQ
North American Man/Boy Love Association has been nominated for deletion. Please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/FAQ. You are free to edit the content of North American Man/Boy Love Association during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
 * In case interested editors did not notice the transcluded MfD warning above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Goals and positions
Historically this section has addressed NAMBLA's goals, initiatives, and the reasoning or logic behind them. Admittedly the "logic" is disturbing to most people. However, it really is the starting point at which to understand this org. Several months ago nambla.org was blacklisted. Then refs to this section were removed due to NAMBLAs website is "not reliable" e.g. nambla.org/welcome.htm. Now the section is essentially empty. (I just recreated it.) nambla.org/welcome.htm should be a source for their goals per WP:SPS an org can reliably talk about itself. If there are no objections, content sourced to nambla.org will be restored to this section. Lionel (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not Wikipedia's role to explain the goals/reasoning/logic behind any organization other than to report WP:DUE material from a suitable analysis presented in reliable secondary sources – we should not perform original research to explain the position of some group. While it is not possible to meaningfully comment on your proposal without seeing an example, this article should not mirror the website of an organization. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is reasoning that makes no sense. It is standard practice to cite either an individual or an organization on their/its aims and stated purposes. We do not have to go to secondary sources for that. __meco (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I find edits by SqueakBox and Jack-A-Roe disconcerting and ominous for the future collaboration environment on this article. If the normal Wikipedia editing practices are to be discarded for this article in exchange for extraordinary and draconian requirements we are indeed in for an unpleasant experience. I take the reasoning of Johnuniq above as an indication of such a trend in addition to the removal of the following paragraph by the aforementioned two editors:
 * The group stands for the position  that age of consent laws unnecessarily criminalize sexual relationships between adults and children,  particularly boys.  In 1980 a NAMBLA general meeting passed a resolution, which said: "(1) The North American Man/Boy Love Association calls for the abolition of age-of-consent and all other laws which prevent men and boys from freely enjoying their bodies. (2) We call for the release of all men and boys imprisoned by such laws." This policy was still in NAMBLA's "official position papers" in 1996.


 * __meco (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said above, we should report WP:DUE material; that means there is no need to explain the goals/reasoning/logic behind the organization other than what is currently in the article (if there is such a need, please explain it). An encyclopedic article on this topic needs to describe the facts and leave it at that, without any unsourced analysis of the goals/reasoning/logic. Many organizations have websites with hundreds of pages of details: we do not emulate those details unless secondary sources have shown such details to be warranted for mention. Re the quote in your last comment, I do not see what that would add to the article. Further, I would not want to hold an informal group like this accountable for some resolution from 1980, even it was in some papers in 1996. To do so, merely because the information is or was on their website, looks like cherry picking with no purpose to me. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The point about the 1980 resolution is well taken, but that doesn't mean the entire section should be edited into oblivion.
 * I think we can all agree that content in Goals should be reliably sourced and exclude any WP:OR. Question: is nambla.org a reliable source about itself? Lionel (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to use their self-published website for that. There has been enough written about Nambla in the news and in books that reliable secondary sources can be found to document their goals. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be 2 notable positions that nambla expouses which seem to recur throughout the references: I propose addressing only these 2 positions in the section by providing a brief sourced statement of nambla's position (taking into account (1) fringe theory and (2) wording so as not to promote their positions) and then a brief sourced rebuttal. Comments? Lionel (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Age of consent laws require reform
 * 2) NAMBLA is a gay org

Time for an overhaul
The article is in poor shape. Content is in the wrong sections, and there's redundancy throughout. I propose an overhaul, the first step being tweak the outline to encompass all sourced content, and then move items to their appropriate section, then delete redundancies. Looking at FA and GA articles for orgs, this outline should work well:


 * 1) Goals and positions
 * 2) Operations
 * 3) History
 * 4) Relations with LGBT organizations
 * 5) ILGA controversy
 * 6) Curley v NAMBLA
 * 7) Criticism and response
 * 8) Notable members and supporters
 * 9) In popular media
 * 10) Film
 * 11) Television
 * 12) Other

Founding, 1990s, Today would be absorbed into History. LGBT condemnations would go in Relations. Criticism would obviously go in Criticism per policy. There is an article for Curley now so that section needs a I know this is a group for, well, pedophiles, but if we're going to have the article we should make it... decent (if you'll pardon the term). Opinions? Lionel (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That looks like a workable plan. I'm all for it. Btw. I downgraded the article in its present state to C-class. After the proposed changes have been implemented, we'll yank it to 'B' and perhaps even attempt a GA nomination. Don't you think that could be achieved? __meco (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input and the re-assessment! And I'm not surprised about the 'C'. GA? What a hoot! It's certainly doable. Lionel (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that some material has been taken out of the article in the last day. Unreferenced material can and in some cases certainly also should be excised. However, if valuable information is being removed on the grounds that it is unreferenced, it would certainly be a good idea to try and look for the references as well. __meco (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding Wolfsie & Oprah, don't know it it's valuable. "Notable members" is definitely valuable but due to BLP needs citations. "In pop culture" is an interesting read, but will inclusion get us to a B rating, and then GA? This might make an interesting entry since it's not trivial, i.e. the entire episode is devoted to NAMBLA. Lionel (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

== Spirit of Stonewall pic ==

The pic is being repeatedly removed. NAMBLA attended the march per Bronski as cited. Harry Hay was an outspoken supporter of NAMBLA (no cite really necessary). The pic is the march and Harry Hay. Do we want a pic in the article or not? Lionel (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No rationale for exclusion after 9 days. Reinserting the pic. Lionel (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To the editor who who keeps reverting the pic, you have offered a littany of reasons for exclusion, "this picture misrepresents these men as somehow with NAMBLA, the photo itself shows they were in a parade but not that they were with them," "...the ones who claim that there is a NAMBLA banner is NAMBLA," "it's actually a banner of the parade with some other banner behind it, but no source claims it's NAMBLA," and lastly "using images for decoration does not make them helpful." Decoration? What is that? Is that another way of saying WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? I'll repeat: the pic is the march that nambla attended. Harry Hay, nambla supporter, is in the pic. The pic is relevant just based on the fact that Hay was a huge, notable supporter. The parade makes it doubly so. Do you have any legitimate WP policy you want to discuss? Lionel (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." Hay was not a "huge, notable supporter" he protested their exclusion from the LA Pride parade as well as another person but you deleted this information. Hay supported them for various reasons but mainly because he felt that sexual minorities had been excluded too long to turn around and do that to anyone else. Cat clean (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Relevance: Is the Stonewall March relevant to nambla? Is Hay relevant to nambla? Yes to both.
 * 2) Related: Participation in the march is obviously significant in the history of nambla. Hay's continued support of nambla is significant as found in multiple sources. The reason for his support is just context: not justification for exclusion of any sourced content whether prose or image.
 * Multiple sources support relevance and significance of participation in the march and Hay's participation in nambla. The pic is appropriate. Lionel (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A relevant image would be of the group itself marching, not someone famous you're attempting to link to them. The Stonewall March was just as relevant to the hundreds of groups and thousands of people in it, which is not so much. Their participation in the march doesn't seem to be much more significant than their marching in any other gay parade. I support you finding an image of them actually marching or doing anything else. Show them doing something not other famous people who you want to link to them. Cat clean (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversial tag violated
An editor has made substantial changes without discussion nor consensus. I reverted. There are several active discussions on this talk page relating to article organization, Stonewall picture, goals, Curley. I recommend that the editor in question, and all editors desiring to improve the nambla article, join us. Lionel (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My edit, which can be seen here was clearing up substantial changes that you had made like "Gay organizations, in the beginning, were very supportive of NAMBLA" which does not match the source. I replaced that with "In the beginning of NAMBLA their stated aim was to "attack social and legal proscriptions against sexual relations between adults and pubescent or teenage boys" which won support from leftist gay groups." This is sourced and accurate and not misleading in any way. Similar to plopping the name of Samuel R. Delany completely out of context, - I added "In 2004 professor and author Samuel R. Delany, in extended interviews about his novel Hogg stated he supported a group like NAMBLA because "abuse is fostered by the secrecy itself and lack of social policing". He expounded that "for thousands of years, relations we assume are abusive by definition (child marriages, slavery, child labor, etc.) were the social and legal norm, institutional and ubiquitous [..] behavior that we [today] find wholly unacceptable—flogging slaves, wife beating, and child beating (in the family, in the school, and at the factory)—was recommended by experts and clergymen as the most efficient and least disruptive way to maintain [social] order. All of these institutions changed, nevertheless, only when they were no longer economically feasible or beneficial to the greater society." This makes it clear that Delany, a living person, supports a group "like" NAMBLA and it explains why a similar group should be allowed free expression of their ideas. That is different than a misleading statement they support the group on a page that misrepresents the group as being only about pedophilia. Until I cleaned up the Curley v. NAMBLA article I didn't know that pedophiliacs in the group were a minority and that there was internal struggle with that issue. All the recent discussions on this page are either by you or about your actions. I invite anyone else to look at the version that Lionelt simply reverted on principal and see if it isn't better quality and sourced better. Cat clean (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC) sock of banned editor 

I've re-added the parts about the group being for both pedophiles and pedarists and the context for including Samuel R. Delany, who is a living person, to make it clear in what ways he was supportive of the efforts of a group "like" NAMBLA. Cat clean (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)  sock of banned editor 
 * Ah, the summarization in the lede is accurate and defamation would be an unreasonable stretch in this case. The Delany item has been in the lede for quite some time, there is no consensus to make this substantial change, and your lengthy edit represents half of the lede which is discouraged. However, in the spirit of collaboration, I'd like to open a discussion regarding where the Delaney edit should go. How about Criticism and response? (Deleny edit moved here temporarily.) BTW 4 editors including myself have posted to the talk page in the last couple weeks.
 * NAMBLA has been defended on free speech basis by poet and rights advocate Allen Ginsberg. In 2004 professor and author Samuel R. Delany, in extended interviews about his novel Hogg stated he supported a group like NAMBLA because "abuse is fostered by the secrecy itself and lack of social policing". He expounded that "for thousands of years, relations we assume are abusive by definition (child marriages, slavery, child labor, etc.) were the social and legal norm, institutional and ubiquitous [..] behavior that we [today] find wholly unacceptable—flogging slaves, wife beating, and child beating (in the family, in the school, and at the factory)—was recommended by experts and clergymen as the most efficient and least disruptive way to maintain [social] order. All of these institutions changed, nevertheless, only when they were no longer economically feasible or beneficial to the greater society.
 * Lionel (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The positions of these "supporters" are incredibly nuanced and most certainly need, particularly in the case of living people, to be fully and accurately "summarized". If you dont want that much detail in the lead, then take out the names. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  21:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Samuel Delany in the now twice deleted "notable members and supporters" section. He stated his support for a group "like" NAMBLA. The use of his quote in the beginning was ideal but singling him out as a supporter is not accurate. Cat clean (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)  sock of banned editor 

== Effort to replace current LGBT section ==

I put all the LGBT content together in order of events and went back to the original sources to ensure we accurately reflected them, I also included a very brief overview of early LGBT movement formation. This would replace the LGBT and ILGA controversy sections. A version of this was deleted on the basis that my changes were too substantial without talkpage consensus. I feel this version is closer to being unbias and adequately explaining these connections. Cat clean (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The social rigidity of the 1950s and early 1960s encountered a backlash as social movements to improve the standing of African Americans, the poor, women, and gays all became prominent. Of the latter two, the gay rights movement and the feminist movement connected after a violent confrontation occurred in New York City in the 1969 Stonewall riots. The sexual revolution in the 1970s introduced the differentiation between identity and sexual behavior. With the advent of second wave feminism, lesbian as a political identity grew to describe a social philosophy among women, often overshadowing sexual desire as a defining trait. Militant feminists expressed their disdain with an inherently sexist and patriarchal society, and overcoming sexism required focusing on politics. Lesbian-feminists strove to separate themselves physically and economically from traditional male-centered culture. In the beginning of NAMBLA their stated aim was to "attack social and legal proscriptions against sexual relations between adults and pubescent or teenage boys" which won support from leftist gay groups. However, opposition to NAMBLA was evident months after NAMBLA's formation in the conference that organized the first National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights in 1979. The feminist movement which spawned the sexual revolution and lesbian movement saw all forms of prostitution and intergenerational sex with teenagers as institutionalized problems created by patriarchal societal structures. In addition to forming several working committees, the conference was responsible for drafting the basic organizing principles of the march ("the five demands"). Originally, the Gay Youth Caucus had won approval for its proposal demanding "Full Rights for Gay Youth, including revision of the age of consent laws." However at the first meeting of the National Coordinating Committee, a contingent of lesbians threatened not to participate in the march unless a substitute was adopted. The substitute, authored by an adult lesbian and approved in a mail poll by a majority of delegates, stated: "Protect Lesbian and Gay Youth from any laws which are used to discriminate against, oppress, and/or harass them in their homes, schools, job and social environments." One point agreed on was that age of consent laws should be equal for all people regardless of sexuality.

In 1980 "Lesbian Caucus – Lesbian & Gay Pride March Committee" distributed a hand-out urging women to split from the annual New York City Gay Pride March because the organizing committee had supposedly been dominated by NAMBLA and its supporters. The next year, after some lesbians threatened to picket, the Cornell University gay group Gay PAC (Gay People at Cornell) rescinded its invitation to NAMBLA founder David Thorstad to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival. Fresh from defending themselves from Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign, the assassination of LGBT rights leader Harvey Milk, Ronald Reagan's presidency with the increasing influence of the Moral Majority as well as negative political fallout from the early AIDS epidemic, gay groups in a "climate so hostile to gay and lesbian people generally" dis-included "fringe" groups including NAMBLA, opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream. Thus by the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated. In the following years, gay rights groups attempted to block NAMBLA’s participation in gay pride parades. In 1986 Harry Hay was confronted by police when he attempted to march in the Los Angeles pride parade, from which NAMBLA had been banned, with a sign reading "NAMBLA walks with me." Although LGBT parades and organizations have tried to prevent NAMBLA from marching and participating, the efforts are sometimes seen as violating the groups' First Amendment rights (many gay free-speech marches are now organized parades) and remains a form of cultural hegemony that gay groups have had to face themselves. Even as late as 1994 a NAMBLA contingent participated in the "The Spirit of Stonewall" march which commenorated the 1969 Stonewall Riots.

In 1993, the International Lesbian and Gay Association achieved United Nations consultative status. NAMBLA's membership in ILGA drew heavy criticism and caused the suspension of ILGA and gay organizations called for the ILGA to dissolve ties with NAMBLA. Republican Senator Jesse Helms proposed a bill to withhold $119 million in U.N. contributions until U.S. President Bill Clinton could certify that "no UN agency grants any official status, accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes, condones, or seeks the legalization of pedophilia, that is, the sexual abuse of children". The bill was unanimously approved by Congress and signed into law by Clinton in April 1994. IN 1994, ILGA expelled NAMBLA and two other groups (MARTIJN and Project Truth) because they were judged to be "groups whose predominant aim is to support or promote pedophilia." Although ILGA removed NAMBLA, the U.N. reversed its decision to grant ILGA special consultative status. Repeated attempts by ILGA to reacquire special status with the U.N. were finally successful in 2006. In 1994 both Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted resolutions condemning NAMBLA "and any other such organization" that in any way contributes to the abuse of children. In 1994, Pat Califia argued that politics played an important role in the gay community's rejection of NAMBLA, and has since repudiated any support for the group.

Almost all gay rights groups are opposed to the pedophile agenda of NAMBLA and similar organizations, and reject claims that homosexuality and gay rights can be seen as an analogy for pedophilia or the abolition of age-of-consent laws. Gregory King of the Human Rights Campaign later said that "NAMBLA is not a gay organization ... They are not part of our community and we thoroughly reject their efforts to insinuate that pedophilia is an issue related to gay and lesbian civil rights." NAMBLA responded by claiming that "man/boy love is by definition homosexual," that "man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture," and that "homosexuals denying that it is 'not gay' to be attracted to adolescent boys are just as ludicrous as heterosexuals saying it's 'not heterosexual' to be attracted to adolescent girls."


 * Aldrich, Robert, ed. (2006). Gay Life and Culture: A World History, Thames & Hudson, Ltd. ISBN 0-7893-1511-4
 * Bower, Lisa C., David Theo Goldberg, Between law and culture: relocating legal studies - U of Minnesota Press, 2001.
 * Faderman, Lillian (1991). Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers: A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth Century America, Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-017122-3
 * Jennings, Rebecca (2007). A Lesbian History of Britain, Greenwood World Publishing. ISBN 1-84645-007-1
 * Schlager, Neil, ed. (1998). Gay & Lesbian Almanac. St. James Press. ISBN 1-55862-358-2


 * My initial reaction is that this reads like a history section. And we already have a history section. Items regarding African Americans etc. are probably too much contrext. The section is very long for an organization which "is not a gay org." The ILGA Controversy is one of the more notable incidents in the entire article and deservedly should be in its own section. IMO this effort might be better managed on a subpage. Lionel (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's still better and more accurate than what we have. Cat clean (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll concede, it's thorough. Allow me to ask a question: did you notice the thread regarding getting the article to GA/FA? And, what do you think about that? (OK that's 2 questions.) Lionel (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The section presented here is more accurate and better sourced. It shows how utterly dismal the rest of the section are, that's why I put in the effort to see what the sources state. The summary at the top omits many keys points about the group and the whole article tries to reinforce they were only about raping pre-pubescent boys. I believe a source you found actually spells out that nambla has never been tied to any crimes and in fact is shown to be more of a solution than a problem in that actual pedophile who join a group are much less of a problem than pedophiles who operate with no social oversight. This confirms the Delany quote. Insisting that every change you deem major must be approved by you will hamper improvements. I'm adding better reliable sources and removing bad sources and bias editorializing. Cat clean (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try another tack. The article used to be a B. It was just downgraded to a C. We're trying to get it up to GA!!! Let me be candid: your proposal for the section is a bit verbose. GA and FA articles typically don't have sections this long. The article will certainly fail the Review. So, are you interested in improving the article so it gets a GA rating? Lionel (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually good articles include background and context and try to explain how a group like this formed, initially was accepted then completely ostracized. Including this content will show how poor the rest of the sections are and hopefully will inspire those to be improved as well. You seem to be stating this content's biggest fault is that it's too long. That is a rather odd reason that we should leave the poorly sourced content that is not presented neutrally. The current article is a mess, this is a step in the right direction. Cat clean (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you regarding background and context (yes, I wrote that). But too much background can obscure the main points. I'm not advocating that we leave the current section: I submit our chat here and the tag on the section. May I suggest we start by figuring out what material we can both live with, and worry about the contentious stuff later. It could be helpful if we first identify perhaps 5 main points for the section--an outline as it were--just to keep us on topic. Are you amenable to these two suggestions? Lionel (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed outline of rewrite:
 * 1) Prehistory
 * 2) Support by gay left
 * 3) Lesbian opposition solidifies: 1980 march
 * 4) nambla ped platform unacceptable to gay community
 * 5) ILGA controversy
 * 6) political motivations of ostracism
 * 7) nambla responds to ostracism Lionel (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

EDIT NEEDED
It says in the article that the child absue group wants all child absuers freed expect in cases where vicitms were coerced. All cases of child abuse qualify as coercion due to the victims not being able to judge the situation. Pedophilia is immoral because it causes terrible life-destroynig harm. Whether coercion, using this group's definition, is involved does not change that fact as the scientific evidence clearly showsLink to Proof of Life-Destroying Effects of Paedophilia. Therefore the sentence should be changed as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLehany (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The language of the article promotes this group. Can that problem be solved as soon as possible.--86.44.252.83 (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Be more specific about what is wrong and how you would like it changed. __meco (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you please stop spamming this request to all articles loosely related to child sexual abuse? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:INDENT? __meco (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that last was to the anon. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Cat clean
FYI the disruptive user from a few months ago is really a sock of the indefinitely banned user Benjiboi.Lionel (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewording
I don't see how "the power imbalance between adults and children makes any sexual relationship exploitative" does not apply equally to any heterosexual relationships - or to any relationships whatsoever. I'm not implying that children can give consent to sexual content - my point is that the argument against consensual sex with children (the sentence I quoted) is a bad argument since it is too general and far from being exclusive to adult-child sexual contact.R. Piskorski (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Earliest opposition by LGBT group to NAMBLA
The Institute for the Protection of Lesbian and Gay Youth in New York City which later became the Hetrick-Martin Institute was most likely the first LGBT group to oppose NAMBLA. Pjefts (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, the NAMBLA organization began by a small group of men living in Marin City, California facing San Francisco in 1977 and they claim to gather for their civil rights to pursue "consental" Pedophile relationships. The LGBT community rejected their ideas of legitimizing unconsental child sex offenses and child abductions, because anyone with a brain realized this is wrong as simple as that. The LGBT(A) movements includes "A"llies such as polyamory, BDSM, bondage, foot fetish and pregnancy fetishism communities. They are not illegal (of course polygamy, insect, necrophilia and bestiality are against the law in the US and every state of the union), these alternative lifestyles involve mutually agreeing/participant couples and lovers into the same fetish/desire, and they do not force sexual harrassing acts onto others uninvolved with the suspect. It is perfectly clear NAMBLA should be an organization about controlling psycho-pathological sexual urges on young children, and how to receive mental evaluation to help them overcome pedophiliac behaviors. It's good to see the contrasting moral relativity of Gay men sought adults not teenagers or children (anyone under adult age) and it's crystal clear on social acceptance and tolerance is never based on how pre-pubescent children wrongly lured to and are victimized. 71.102.26.168 (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of section by Active Banana and Lionelt
I provided a citation to the deleted section and while I would agree more sources are needed I don't think that the section should be deleted without some discussion. I am reverting it to the origin again. Let's talk this over, please. Pjefts (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a controversial article, so everything you add needs solid sourcing. Unsourced content will be removed. Now: even though Hetrick has a source, is it relevant that was "possibly" the first org to object to nambla? As of now, I'd have to say no. Lionel (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not add this content...I did add the citation to Marcus's book. Let's take out the "possibly" if you like since there's little doubt that it was the first organization to oppose NAMBLA. This content was added within the last month or so..what's the rush to remove it? As to the relevancy, it's important to understand the long-standing objections of the LGBT community to NAMBLA and (although I have problems with the way it's currently written) that many have tried to conflate NAMBLA with the stuggle for LGBT civil rights. Pjefts (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * a) Process: Content was boldly entered then, then reverted (twice), consensus needs to be reached before re-re-insertion
 * b) Content 1) we cannot assume that it is the first. 2) Hetrick Martin is not the emperor of gay people. cannot stretch that source to support the remainder of the claims in the paragraph. Active Banana    (bananaphone  02:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A minor edit I want to make but don't seem to have the authority to do...
In the History section, affiliation is misspelled. Will someone fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekthegreat (talk • contribs) 14:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't see it. What is the entire sentence? – Lionel (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit Needed
I think it's importnt for the article to note that Allen Ginsberg's defence was based on free speech grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.118.30 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Allen Ginsberg (biography guidelines)
The article does not make it clear that Allen Ginsberg only joined the group out of principal, because it was a discussion group and not a dating group. It was in other words a matter of free speech to Ginsberg. Ginsberg is dead, but probably the article should make this distinction out per some general policy. The distinction is made elsewhere within Wikipedia and could be adapted. Ginsberg is mentioned in passing no less than 3 times on the page. Seems gratuitous. --99.197.224.57 (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think his joining of the organisation on free speech grounds should be noted so as to not give an inaccurate impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.145.156 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Are there any reliable sources we can use for this?Millertime246 (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

blacklist
i don't know why, but when i copied and pasted the info-box to my sand-box, i got a message saying it was spam cause it linked to a site on wp's blacklist. just thought id mention it. Jake1993811 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That means it's been placed on either the local or global blacklist after it was entered into the infobox, There are logs that can be checked to see the process leading to the listing. (WP:BLACKLIST). According to the log the reason for its listing is "Per request on IRC, malicious site being spammed", so apparently the url has been posted inappropriately in other places than in this article. __meco (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Footnote [21]
Footnote [21] makes allusion to Media reports in 2006. But the link goes to Boston newspaper article "May 2001". Contradictory. Since 10 years nothing new from NAMbLA ? Teodôra 217.81.149.24 (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

David Cross - Associated Persons
Per the March 2012 Playboy Magazine interview with David Cross, Cross states that he is a dues-paying member of NAMBLA. Cross played Allen Ginsberg in the movie "I'm Not There".

Quote from the article: "But Ginsberg and I also both happen to be dues-paying members of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. That's where the similarity between us started. I tried to do my homework on him. I studied his videos and familiarized myself with his poems. But really, my performance was almost entirely based on the man/boy-loving part of him. I even picked up a copy of the NAMBLA newsletter from the magazine store over on St. Mark's Place." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.207.135 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cross is well know for his sarcasm, I seriously doubt it's serious. We would need something more substantial as this could be a serious WP:BLP issue.  N o f o rmation  Talk  23:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
The section on NAMBLA's relationship with the LGBT movement needs quite a bit of improving. This section gives too much weight to politics as being part of the reason for all LGBT organisations condemning NAMBLA. LGBT people saw that NAMBLA had positions which, if implemented in law, would lead to the abuse of children. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.145.156 (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please sign all posts. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)