Talk:Ole Martin Moen

Removal of material
@User:Sigehelmus, @User:Throughthemind I noticed that a section of the article was recently removed. I don't know anything about Moen's research other than his paper on wild animal suffering so I can't be of help here but it has been stated that the content was sourced to an unreliable website and the material has been removed. I don't know if you have any thoughts about this matter. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, all I will say on this matter (and I could say quite a lot) is that Mr. Moen himself has published in his own words, and on his own personal site (http://www.olemartinmoen.com/wp-content/uploads/TheEthicsofPedophilia.pdf) much of what (and it is not violating NPOV to call pedophilia vile, disgusting, and flagrantly evil) Mrs. Gluck describes in her Reduxx article; I read it myself and you can too. This is really not "a good look" for anyone to split hairs about it, especially when you can Google for yourself other articles on the matter. Frankly, I am beyond disgusted and I'm not playing this game and doing over my work that merely repeated what Mr. Moen has lucidly said (and btw, notably went private on Twitter once his more """controversial""" views became public knowledge). I can be quite pedantic and argue over anything but I draw the line at child abuse. I am not cooperating with sophistry about this and the history is clear enough - Simple as. -- ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 19:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. An entire section of Edinburgh Napier University with no less than three citations in the first sentence mentioning the site, treat Reduxx as a source credible enough for a whole incident for a university scandal on its own page. Like I said, there are other sites you can easily Google that cover Mr. Moen's abhorrent (and frankly illegal in many places) defense of pedophilia and it is very weird to get hung up about this, to say the least. Please do not pester me about this, and regardless the pageviews have revealed he is back to nobody status after the exposure and hopefully is rethinking his life. I have nothing to do with this sick man (even in his own words in that PDF and other papers) any longer. Farewell.-- ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 19:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I share the same view as you on this and would support what you have written but other users are saying the source is not reliable. Throughthemind might know more about Moen and what they believe as they created this article; like I said I have no idea about their views on other topics other than wild animal suffering. I belong to the animal rights Wikiproject and most of the articles are on my watch-list and that is why I reverted a user on this article. I agree with you that pedophilia is vile and evil and I certainly would not support anyone who tries to promote that but on Wikipedia we need reliable sources if we are going to add criticisms. Has there been an academic response to Moen on this topic? According to other users on here per discussion on this talk-page, a user Maddy from Celeste is calling the article on Moen by reduxx.info a "pure hoax". I am not sure what to make of it, why is this user calling that article a hoax? Ole Martin Moen has also written some controversial papers claiming prostitution does not harm, I see there is some academic criticism of that in the literature but none of this interests me and I wouldn't spend time editing these sort of topics. I think other users interested in this topic who were involved in the recent edit war would be of help here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I called it that, because a single look at the website in question shows that it's a publisher of sensational bullshit about queer people. That is not the kind of source that should be cited anywhere, let alone on very serious allegations about a living person. ;;  Maddy  ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ ::  talk   09:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Similar to Psychologist Guy, I don't know all that much about Moen, other than his work on wild animal suffering and transhumanism, which was the main reason I created this article (the original content of which I translated from the Norwegian version of the article). Based on his publications, he does seem to pick very controversial topics to write about e.g. the Unabomber, so it doesn't surprise me that he wrote a paper on this particular topic. Looking at Google Scholar, the paper in question has been cited 19 times, so there has been at least some academic response.
 * Regarding reduxx.info, a quick glance at the site does indicate that it's dedicated to publishing anti-trans/queer articles, so it seems that it would fall under WP:QUESTIONABLE. Throughthemind (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I did find this article in a mainstream publication that does mention Moen's paper. Throughthemind (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Forbes contributor articles are considered generally unreliable. ;;  Maddy  ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ ::  talk   09:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I wasn't aware Throughthemind (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)